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

@draramallama

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.

In terms of this case, however, VG has specifically alleged that Andrew knew she did not consent, so that is what she has to prove.

The UK law is indeed that the accused is not guilty if they reasonably believe that the complainant consented. There is no requirement to take steps to obtain consent. It is more nuanced than that. It depends on the circumstances but, in many cases, the accused can reasonably believe the complainant consented on the basis that they did not communicate non-consent either verbally or non-verbally (e.g. by freezing or pushing away).

And you can have a reasonable belief that a trafficked person consents. As I have pointed out a number of times, the only specific provision in law relating to someone having sex with a victim of trafficking is that they commit an offence if they pay or offer to pay. If no payment is involved, the trafficked individual can consent and the defendant can reasonably believe they consent. If the trafficked individual is being unlawfully detained, there is a presumption that they did not consent and that the defendant knew they did not consent, but that is a rebuttable presumption - in other words, it can be overturned if there is enough evidence.

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

She chose to allege that he knew she had been trafficked and that he knew she did not consent. She therefore has to prove these allegations. However, as this is a civil case, she doesn't have to prove them beyond reasonable doubt.

"However, as this is a civil case, she doesn't have to prove them beyond reasonable doubt"

So "how far" would she need to prove?

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

This. Unfortunately, judging by the very helpful advice from @prh47bridge, I suspect the chances of his being found guilty are pretty low. So, if he’s not, what happens then? Surely he won’t get all his toys back?

She chose to allege that he knew she had been trafficked and that he knew she did not consent. She therefore has to prove these allegations. However, as this is a civil case, she doesn't have to prove them beyond reasonable doubt

Absolutely, but unless he put something on record (and I wouldn't have thought even he was that stupid) I'd have thought the "reasonable doubt" would feature heavily here

As for whether he'd get all his toys back, Blossom, I'm certain his entitlement means he'd expect them, but we're straight back with how it would look - and since that's more or less all the RF have to offer I can imagine disagreements behind the scenes

Never mind though, they could wheel out Fergie for another "honourable man" speech, or no doubt persuade some tame military bod to say how much they want him back. It could cost them a few more gongs, but what the hell when they're already a currency

Maybe that's what convinced Andrew that attending court with a jury might be worth it. I'm not sure how ethical his lawyers are but I'm sure they will make a lot more money flying over the US and engaging the courts than a settlement, assuming VG would even accept one.

Even if VG can't prove her case I think she will still be believed by a lot of people.

The dreadful interview he did, meeting JE after he came out of prison...

It's a jury trial, she doesn't have to prove anything. It just comes down to which side the jury decides to believe.

Thank you prh37bridge

@draramallama

It's a jury trial, she doesn't have to prove anything. It just comes down to which side the jury decides to believe.

As the plaintiff, she has to prove her case according to applicable legal principles. Juries don't have a free for all in US federal courts.

So does this mean that VG and her lawyers now have to prove her allegations and if they cannot then there's no case to answer and thats the end of it.

@diddl

"However, as this is a civil case, she doesn't have to prove them beyond reasonable doubt"

So "how far" would she need to prove?

In the UK we say that a civil case is decided based on the balance of probabilities. In the US they say it is decided on the preponderance of evidence, which amounts to much the same thing. In essence, she has to convince the jury that it is more likely than not that Andrew knew these things.

As the plaintiff, she has to prove her case according to applicable legal principles. Juries don't have a free for all in US federal courts.

Yes, I understand how it is supposed to work. But juries don't have to provide their judgement, so the actual basis for the decision ...

@MayThePawsBeWithYou

So does this mean that VG and her lawyers now have to prove her allegations and if they cannot then there's no case to answer and thats the end of it.

If a civil case goes to trial, it is always up to the plaintiff to prove their case on the balance of probabilities (UK) or the preponderance of evidence (USA). If all VG has is "he must have known", she should fail. She needs to show it is more likely than not that he knew.

Thanks, its so confusing. So his lawyers just sit back while her lawyers present her case and he denies it unless she has proof of her allegations. Where does her side get any proof from, would they call GM to provide evidence.

@draramallama

As the plaintiff, she has to prove her case according to applicable legal principles. Juries don't have a free for all in US federal courts.

Yes, I understand how it is supposed to work. But juries don't have to provide their judgement, so the actual basis for the decision ...

Unlike the UK, the losing side can ask for the jury to be polled. This allows a level of questioning to confirm that the juror agrees with the verdict and determine the reasons for their verdict. But yes, who the jury believes is credible is a huge factor. Just as a judge in a civil case in the UK can decide to believe one witness and ignore all evidence to the contrary, a jury in the USA can do the same.

@MayThePawsBeWithYou

Thanks, its so confusing. So his lawyers just sit back while her lawyers present her case and he denies it unless she has proof of her allegations. Where does her side get any proof from, would they call GM to provide evidence.

I doubt GM will be involved.

VG will present as much evidence as she can to support her claims as to what happened. It is then up to the jury to decide whether that is enough to convince them that Andrew knew the things she alleges he did. She doesn't need direct evidence that he knew, although clearly that would be helpful if it existed. She just needs enough indirect evidence for the jury to conclude that it is more likely than not that he did know.

For clarity, what I mean by indirect evidence is evidence that doesn't directly prove that he knew but proves other things from which it can be inferred that he knew. To give an example, in a murder case, if a witness says they saw the defendant kill the victim, that is direct evidence. If a witness says they saw the defendant running from the scene of the crime, that is indirect evidence - it doesn't prove that the defendant murdered the victim, but we can infer that they were at the crime scene when the murder was committed.

Just to add, neither the judge nor the jury will rule that there is no case to answer at the end of VG's case. That doesn't happen in a civil case. No decision is made until both sides have been heard. And Andrew cannot use, on appeal, any evidence that was available to him at the time of the trial that he didn't use. So, however weak they think her case is, Andrew's lawyers will have to present as strong a defence as they can.

Unlike the UK, the losing side can ask for the jury to be polled. This allows a level of questioning to confirm that the juror agrees with the verdict and determine the reasons for their verdict

Wow!! While in many ways it's none of my business I don't like that any more than US jurors' apparent right to blab to the media later
Clearly the loser's lawyers won't always like the reason a verdict was reached, even if it was valid, so what are they going to do ... claim one or more jurors got it wrong and demand another trial?
And is it open to a juror to refuse and say "that's confidential" or do they have to comply?

I'm just thinking out loud here and imagining what I would question him on to try and prove he knew they were trafficked - if AW is asked what he thought all the young girls were doing at JE's house and he says he thought they were staff , would that hold water ? If he says he thought they were friends of JE's ? Surely the lawyers would delve deeper and ask why JE had so many young girls as friends and didn't he think it a bit odd ?

I agree Vapey

Surely the number of young girls that were in the NY mansion, and the Caribbean island would give cause for concern. They weren't exactly 'friends' of GM and JE, they were far too young.
You'd have to be blind not to notice them and wonder.

He touched on this in his carcrash interview.

EM: Because during that time, those few days, witnesses say they saw many young girls coming and going at the time. There is video footage of Epstein accompanied by young girls and you were there staying in his house, catching up with friends.

PA: I never… I mean if there were then I wasn't a party to any of that. I never saw them. I mean you have to understand that his house, I described it more as almost as a railway station if you know what I mean in the sense that there were people coming in and out of that house all the time.

What they were doing and why they were there I had nothing to do with. So I'm afraid I can't make any comment on that because I really don't know.

Weak.

And the fact his plane was called the Lolita Express

And this is so crass

EM: We now know that he was and had been procuring young girls for sex trafficking.

PA: We now know that, at the time there was no indication to me or anybody else that that was what he was doing and certainly when I saw him either in the United States… oh no when I saw him in the United States or when I was staying in his houses in the United States, there was no indication, absolutely no indication. And if there was, you have to remember that at the time I was patron of the NSPCC's Full Stop campaign so I was close up with what was going on in those time about getting rid of abuse to children so I knew what the things were to look for but I never saw them.

To be honest I assumed he wants a jury trial because he thinks a jury are more likely to buy into misogynistic myths and buy into his "gold digger/slutty" defence . Given how hard it is to get a rape conviction (I know this 8snt rape) I can see why that might be a good strategy for him.
If it is thar, it just goes to show what kind of man he is.