Prince Andrew Thread 4

[Roussette]

I'm starting a new one as events seem to be moving again. Sorry I can't do a link to no. 3

Thanks for the new thread, Roussette - and thanks for your explanation on the last one, dopenguinsdance; I just wondered about the UK because it would be easier to influence things in one of mummy's courts

I guess he’s decided to go for trial by jury in the hope that one or more of the jurors will mess up so his lawyers can cry mistrial like Maxwell’s.

Checking in as I appreciate all the knowledgeable people on these threads.

@Blossomtoes

I guess he’s decided to go for trial by jury in the hope that one or more of the jurors will mess up so his lawyers can cry mistrial like Maxwell’s.

A mistrial is less likely in a civil case and I really don't think that is what he wants. A mistrial means there would be another trial, so it just drags the whole thing out for longer. He wants the jury to find for him.

By the way, I note that a post on the previous thread by @CathyorClaire said Looks like he's hoping to rely on a 'preponderance' (or not) of evidence. That is the standard for a civil case in the USA regardless of whether there is a jury involved.

You're welcome @Puzzledandpissedoff though I have to say I don't see AW getting my preferential treatment here. The "don't you know who I am" (or even "who my mummy is") defence would get short shrift. Transport the case to this jurisdiction, and AW's lineage doesn't get him any preferential treatment, beyond being moneyed enough to fight it. The preferential treatment for 'peers of the realm' to be tried by their peers (and not by a 'commoners' jury) ended in 1948 and was, I think, invoked mostly in cases of murder or treason, ie. capital crimes that were punishable by death on conviction.
In the meantime, I've had a look through VRG's Complaint and I'm at the shoddy drafting, vagueness of the allegations and the overwhelming reliance on similar fact evidence.

Checking in, thanks for the new thread.

I'm glad he is going for trial by jury. It will be good to have this horrible business settled once and for all.

Thanks for the new thread Rousette!

Apparently Virginia had long ago stated she wanted a jury and that had been agreed so him 'demanding' one is just his lawyers trying to make him look bold and confident enough in his innocence. Suspect the press know this but they're bored of party gate.

@Malariahilaria

Thanks for the new thread Rousette!

Apparently Virginia had long ago stated she wanted a jury and that had been agreed so him 'demanding' one is just his lawyers trying to make him look bold and confident enough in his innocence. Suspect the press know this but they're bored of party gate.

See post from prh47 above.

'Demand' is specific US legal jargon, and is the correct verb for thus procedure.

Sounds odd in England, where the judicial language is almost always 'request'

But there's no meaning of being demanding, imperiously s or whatever when used in this specific context

Interesting on BBC news this morning, Joshua Rosenberg talking about the case.
He is obviously denying the sexual abuse, but he's asking/demanding VG to prove the photo is genuine because they do not have enough evidence to deny or prove its existence.

Of all his denials... and he denies everything... I think he's on a rocky path with denying he was close friends with Maxwell.
They obviously were.
If not, does that mean he takes any old person to numerous royal palaces and parties?

It is hard to see an outcome in which he is exonerated. At best he was close friends with people who trafficked and exploited young girls and women.

If she was never going to settle then surely it had to go to trial?

I was surprised to see how much stuff there was about Epstein in the filing(?)

If the onus is on her to prove that A knew about the trafficking I would have thought that that would be difficult tbh.

@diddl I agree, how can you prove that someone knows something?

Following. As always, very many thanks from a loyal lurker

Following 🧐

[quote Vapeyvapevape]@diddl I agree, how can you prove that someone knows something?[/quote]
Does the whole thing stand or fall on whether or not he knew she was trafficked?

I know that he has denied having sex with her-is that because he feels that it can't be proved I wonder?

If it's thought that he is lying about that-what then?

I don't believe anyone thinks PA knew Virginia G was trafficked, the court case isn't about that, it concerns her being underage in one place where she alleges they had sex.

How long before the trial by jury happens? I expect most people will be glad when it is all over.

I just watched this:
twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1486630796500819972?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Thanks @Roussette -
I'm wondering, if AW is now denying how close he was with GM would
This give GM reason to now state otherwise and produce more and detailed evidence to the contrary?

On the "dirty hands" defence, I have had another thought as to what this might be about. One of VG's complaints is that Andrew has refused to cooperate with the US authorities. I should note that Andrew denies this and his UK lawyers say they have emails proving that he hasn't refused. However, as regards "dirty hands", the US authorities at one point complained that many of Epstein's alleged victims were not cooperating and particularly mentioned that one had moved to Australia and was refusing to return their calls. As far as I am aware, VG is the only alleged victim who moved to Australia. If she failed to cooperate with the authorities, she has "dirty hands" with respect to this allegation, so can't complain about Andrew's alleged failure to cooperate.

Andrew's lawyers have filed 11 affirmative defences. An affirmative defence is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff (VG) which, if proven, defeats or mitigates her claim. I thought some might find it useful if I summarise these, stripping away the legal jargon.

1. VG is resident in Australia and is not, as claimed, a citizen of Colorado and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction. Reports suggest that she lived in Australia from 2002-2013 and returned to Australia in 2019. Her claim to be a citizen of Colorado is based on her living there from 2015 to 2019.

1. The 2009 agreement with Epstein means VG gave up the right to bring this case. You may think from some of the reporting that the judge has already ruled against this defence. He actually ruled that he would allow the trial to proceed so that this issue could be decided by the jury.

1. VG has unreasonably delayed bringing this action, which prejudices Andrew's ability to defend the case and therefore her claim should be barred, in whole or in part.

1. If VG has suffered any of the damage alleged in her complaint (which is not admitted), others (presumably Epstein and/or Maxwell) were responsible, either completely or partly.

1. If Andrew did anything (which is denied), VG consented and is therefore unable to claim.

1. VG has behaved unethically or illegally in relation to the matters of which she complains so is unable to claim.

1. This claims estoppel, which is a difficult concept to explain in a few words, but in essence this seems to be again asserting that VG cannot bring this claim due to unreasonable delay and her own actions.

1. VG is too late to make this claim under the statute of limitations. I suspect this relates to the New York Child Victims Act which removed the previous limit on claims and allowed victims to bring a claim up to the age of 55. Controversially (and possibly unconstitutionally), this act applies to anyone under 18 at the time of the alleged abuse, despite the fact that child abuse laws in New York only apply if the victim is under 17.

1. Damages cannot be claimed because the amount of any damages is based too much on conjecture.

10. The allegations made are insufficient to justify an award of exemplary or punitive damages.

11. There aren't enough facts in VG's complaint to give Andrew a case to answer.

By the way, I agree with @dopenguinsdance that VG's complaint is very poorly drafted, the accusations are lacking in detail and there are very few facts alleged. That does not mean her complaint is false, of course.

Seems strange that A would deny being a close friend of GM when there will be dozens of photos available of them together ( eg Balmoral )

I wonder how many US citizens that may be on the jury have seen Andrew's Newsnight interview, where he stated over and over that his friendship was with GM .

[quote blyn72]I don't believe anyone thinks PA knew Virginia G was trafficked, the court case isn't about that, it concerns her being underage in one place where she alleges they had sex.

How long before the trial by jury happens? I expect most people will be glad when it is all over.

I just watched this:
twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1486630796500819972?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet[/quote]
This is wrong.

On her own evidence, she was not underage in any of the places where she alleges they had sex. Whilst she says she was a minor (which is correct - she was 17 at the time of the alleged encounters), she does not allege that she was under the age of consent - in all three of the alleged locations, she was clearly over the age of consent at the time. The crux of her complaint is that Andrew knew that she was a victim of trafficking being forced to have sex with him. She does not offer any evidence that Andrew knew she had been trafficked. The court case is very much about whether Andrew knew that she was trafficked and knew that she did not consent to having sex with him (assuming that she did have sex with him and did not consent).

Thanks, Roussette

'Demanding' a jury trial is unfortunate wording for a petulant entitled oaf who's been a demanding tool since forever but if that's the way it's worded, that's the way it's worded.

I'm quite interested in the full on willy waving and chest beating we're seeing here. Guess there's no point having an attack dog lawyer and not unleashing him.

I can't see how denying a close friendship with Maxwell can do anything other than undermine his case. The evidence is overwhelming and that's just the stuff the stuff we've seen in the press.

"I don't believe anyone thinks PA knew Virginia G was trafficked, the court case isn't about that,"

Ah Ok, thanks.

It's just that there was so much about Epstein in the filing(?)

does that mean he takes any old person to numerous royal palaces and parties?

Well there was that strange business with the Beckhams and a certain princess party held while Mummy was away...