Prince Andrew Thread 3

[Roussette]

Here is the previous thread...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/4443261-Prince-Andrew-Thread-2?watched=1&msgid=114083283#114083283

It will be interesting to see how long Andrew keeps his military honours.

When you think what Harry's were stripped for.

Excellent 👍

I've been on the phone and one of the DCs just whatsapped me!

That's it then... held to account.

@Malariahilaria

Brilliant news!!!!! So pleased to hear this news. So does this mean the hearing will go ahead regardless of whether he turns up or not?

I don't believe he can be compelled to attend - it's not a criminal case.

No he can’t be compelled to attend but the case can be heard in his absence. He now needs to decide which will be the best option.

Given his performance in the interview with Emily Maitliss I think he would be very wise not to attend!

Just got back from a muddy walk and saw the news, good!

BIWI we all know how much he listens to advice
BJ will be glad to have the spotlight off him

I haven't really followed closely so this may already have been explained: the thing I find perplexing about his Pizza Express 'alibi' is that surely the birthday girl, her parents and all the guests would remember him being there? The family would obviously be from a very wealthy set who mix within aristo circles but presumably a member of the RF attending their child's party wouldn't have been an everyday occurrence so they'd remember even 20+ years later.

Has his legal team explained why he is unable to ask any of them to come forward to confirm he was there? I know the obvious answer is the party didn't take place (or it did and he wasn't there - I can't imagine he would deign to take his child to a Pizza Express!) but I was curious as to whether anyone from his team has offered an explanation.

I can only assume the girl's parents were old aristocracy who would not recognise or remember newly-arrived Johnny-Come-Latelies like the Windsors.

What a surprise NO COMMENT from the Palace

Planktons

Eastie I don't think he ever expected anything to come of that interview other than everyone say 'oh of course he's innocent, he was where he says he was and has never met the girl because he said so'.... I'm sure he thought he could say any lie at all and no one would ever question it so it didn't matter. As pp have said, it doesn't work in this current era of sm and the Internet. Even 15 years ago we'd have watched the interview but wouldn't have been able to watch it over and over unless we'd taped it so perhaps we would have forgotten the details, not so now.

Andrew's close protection officers could, if they wished, confirm or deny his attendance at Pizza Express surely and whether he did or didn't go on to a London nightclub later that evening.

@BIWI

Given his performance in the interview with Emily Maitliss I think he would be very wise not to attend!

I completely agree, I watched that for the first time yesterday. I was shocked about how un-self aware he was of how he came across. Shows he had never been asked to explain himself about anything or held to account for his actions before!

Virginia Giuffre- if you're reading this; PLEASE do not accept an out of court settlement. PLEASE drag this fucker through court. You've come so far, keep going.

Spencer Kuvin is currently on Sky news, he represented 9 of JEs victims. He has just said that the Queen removed PAs diplomatic immunity last year

Well done HMQ!

So, going to sound really stupid here, but what does this going to trial mean?

If VG is awarded damages, does that mean that PA is guilty of what she is suing him for damages for?

@OverByYer

No he can’t be compelled to attend but the case can be heard in his absence. He now needs to decide which will be the best option.

Apparently he could simply not give evidence, which would avoid any chance of a repeat car-crash (bearing in mind it would be under oath*)

However a quick skim suggests that this would not be subject to the 5th amendment (which only covers criminal cases) so the court would be allowed to draw conclusions from such a decision.

Maybe someone more conversant with US law would know ?

*If he were to give evidence under oath, and it turned out to be false, would he be subject to a criminal charge for which he could be extradited ?

I think his woes have only started.

Just heard the news , fabulous!

@diddl

So, going to sound really stupid here, but what does this going to trial mean?

If VG is awarded damages, does that mean that PA is guilty of what she is suing him for damages for?

I find it slightly ironic I am speed reading US legal sources because of my UK republican views

I think it's broadly the same as in the UK ... it's a civil claim for damages, so gets settled on "is this likely", rather than "is this certain".

The PDF of the judgement runs to 46 pages and I'm only on 2. It seems fucking forensic though.

I guess Andy and his lot will now be trying to come up with an amount of money big enough to keep VG from seeing this through.

Fabulous news! The delay was obviously only because the Judge was going to make sure his judgement is legally watertight.

Could someone pretty please link to the judgment?