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

"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)"

Is he denying having sex with her at all, or denying non consensual sex?

@Chilledchablis1

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 have no inside information, but this might be about whether they were close friends or just friends. The photos I've seen of Maxwell at Balmoral show her with Epstein, which proves nothing about the extent of Andrew's friendship with her. It could simply be that Andrew invited Epstein and Epstein brought his girlfriend with him. There are other photos that suggest a friendship but none of the ones I've seen are enough to say it was a close friendship. But there does seem to be some evidence that it was what most people would class as a close friendship.

@CathyorClaire

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.

As I've already pointed out on this thread, it is the required wording in the US. If he requested a jury trial, he would actually be waiving his right to a jury trial.

@diddl

"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)"

Is he denying having sex with her at all, or denying non consensual sex?

Not clear from the defence filing. He is certainly saying that, if anything happened, it was consensual. It isn't clear whether he is denying having sex with her at all.

Supposedly he has known her since she was at University which would predate either of them knowing Epstein I think.

There's a photo of them at Ascot together.

She was at his daughter's birthday party-that I think would tip it into close friendship for a lot of people I thing.

But maybe it's different for Royals & even events like your daughter's birthday mean that there are some people who you "have" to invite??

As I've already pointed out on this thread, it is the required wording in the US

Yes, I saw.

Doesn't stop it being an unfortunate term for him to have to use.

Is he denying having sex with her at all, or denying non consensual sex

I don't know what he's saying now but previously he has denied even meeting her.

In the Newsnight interview PA specifically said that Ghislaine was his friend and that Epstein came along as a plus one.

@Vapeyvapevape

Is he denying having sex with her at all, or denying non consensual sex

I don't know what he's saying now but previously he has denied even meeting her.

What he actually said is that he doesn't remember meeting her. He certainly denies having sex with her and that is not something you would normally forget.

Ghislane M was definitely a good friend of Andrew, he has said as much, and I wonder if the report that he is denying the friendship is the media getting it wrong as usual.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.

In the Newsnight interview PA specifically said that Ghislaine was his friend and that Epstein came along as a plus one

You just saved me typing it, cathy!! I realise of course that "being friends with someone unsavoury" isn't what the trial's about, but it seems odd all the same

So does the bit about "nothing happened, but if it did she consented to it" ... call me dense, but doesn't that offend logic?

Thanks for the new thread Roussette. Thanks to prh47bridge for all your input

Ghislane M was definitely a good friend of Andrew, he has said as much, and I wonder if the report that he is denying the friendship is the media getting it wrong as usual.

No, the media has this right. He denies the first clause in paragraph 7 of the complaint. Paragraph 7 of the complaint starts, "Prince Andrew was a close friend of Ghislaine Maxwell". It is, of course, possible that this is a mistake by his lawyers.

Thanks as always for the legal education prh47bridge.

One question I have is in the maitlis interview he categorically says he has no recollection of meeting VG. If this is proven a lie surely the rest of the case sort of falls apart? If she has proof (more photos maybe) then surely that would make the rest of any testimony questionable? Or is it assumed that he knew her, slept with her and the only question to be proven is 'did he know she was trafficked'?

@Malariahilaria

Thanks as always for the legal education prh47bridge.

One question I have is in the maitlis interview he categorically says he has no recollection of meeting VG. If this is proven a lie surely the rest of the case sort of falls apart? If she has proof (more photos maybe) then surely that would make the rest of any testimony questionable? Or is it assumed that he knew her, slept with her and the only question to be proven is 'did he know she was trafficked'?

You can’t prove he has no recollection. You can say you don’t believe him but that’s as far as you get with that one. Remember Recollections may vary!

Don't forget the part of his Newsnight statement where he talked about how for a man sex is a "positive act" that could not be forgotten, and he would therefore remember if he had had sex with VG - so since he claims not to remember ever meeting her he obviously could not have had sex with her.

(obviously not envy)

I remember thinking that it revealed a lot more about his attitude to sex and consent than he probably intended. To him, a woman's role is just to be done to.

@prh47bridge

Ghislane M was definitely a good friend of Andrew, he has said as much, and I wonder if the report that he is denying the friendship is the media getting it wrong as usual.

No, the media has this right. He denies the first clause in paragraph 7 of the complaint. Paragraph 7 of the complaint starts, "Prince Andrew was a close friend of Ghislaine Maxwell". It is, of course, possible that this is a mistake by his lawyers.

I haven't read the complaint, only reports about it. I didn't know it was available for anyone to read.

Trying to follow! Thanks to all explanations of technicalities esp those of prh47bridge.

How can he deny being friends? He said in a televised interview that he was more GM friend than Epstein's!

Oh dear, oh dear. Surely, even a fool would realise how this would look?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50449339.amp

The full transcript of Newsnight. Reading it is even worse.

EM: But you were staying at the house…

PA: Yes.

EM: … of a convicted sex offender.

PA: It was a convenient place to stay.

@Malariahilaria

Thanks as always for the legal education prh47bridge.

One question I have is in the maitlis interview he categorically says he has no recollection of meeting VG. If this is proven a lie surely the rest of the case sort of falls apart? If she has proof (more photos maybe) then surely that would make the rest of any testimony questionable? Or is it assumed that he knew her, slept with her and the only question to be proven is 'did he know she was trafficked'?

Agree with Blossomtoes. She may be able to prove they met but she can't prove he doesn't remember meeting. I met a member of the royal family once. There is a photo somewhere. I would be very surprised if they have any recollection of it.

Proving they met is nowhere near enough for VG to win. She needs to convince the jury that she was trafficked, that Andrew knew she was trafficked, that they had sex, that she did not consent and that he knew she did not consent.

He said on Newsnight that it was GM he invited to his daughter's 18th birthday.

and that he knew she did not consent.

At least in the UK, that's not how it works. It's rape if you do not have a reasonable belief the person is consenting (in a legally valid sense), having taken steps to obtain consent.

You don't get to assume the person is "consenting" unless they do something to communicate otherwise.

You can't hold a reasonable belief that a trafficked person - who has been trafficked for you - is consenting in a legally valid sense.

Proving they met is nowhere near enough for VG to win. She needs to convince the jury that she was trafficked, that Andrew knew she was trafficked, that they had sex, that she did not consent and that he knew she did not consent

Sounds like a hell of an uphill struggle to me, especially since "what someone knew" can be almost impossible to prove

Realistically, and as from the start, I still think the real damage to Andrew comes from how it all looks. He could crow all he liked about whatever the court outcome is, but people forget the legal nitty gritty and just remember the headline bits - in this case that he continued to befriend and offer a gloss of respectability for a known paedophile and a sex trafficker

It's a shame PW didn't have his phone line hacked , it might have revealed important info , instead we found out Charles wanted to be a tampon 🤮

Not PW -AW