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

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 ...

But jury verdicts can be overturned if it is clear that they did not follow jury instructions, which are normally very detailed.

Also, if the judge finds that the plaintiff did not prove the case, the judge can so rule and in effect, remove the decision from the jury. It's called a directed verdict or a judgment as a matter of law.

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 haven't the least doubt the lawyers would delve deeper and it's the main reason I just don't see Andrew attending any trial. Considering the muck he made of even an interview, the idea of him facing someone else's legal professionals doesn't bear thinking about

Many well known men flew on JE plane so would they ask if they are being pursued too and if not why not.

I wonder if he'll claim not to have noticed the dodgy artworks plastered all over JE's houses too?

he idea of him facing someone else's legal professionals doesn't bear thinking about

I listened to a report today about all of this and the legal person said he would need a lot of coaching....

I don't think all the coaching in the world is going to help him.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

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?

They definitely can't appeal just because they disagree with the decision the jurors have made. I don't know but I guess they may be able to appeal if the jury have ignored the judge's rulings on the law.

And the fact his plane was called the Lolita Express

My understanding is that it wasn't. It was given this nickname by some of the press after allegations emerged that it had been used to fly underage girls to some of Epstein's properties. As far as I can tell, Epstein and his associates never referred to it by this nickname.

@AdamRyan

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.

It actually isn't hard to get a rape conviction. The 6% figure that is often quoted is the number of reported rapes that result in a conviction. Most of them never make it to court, the most common reason being the complainant withdrawing. I don't have figures for the USA, but in the UK over 70% of rape cases that end up in court result in a conviction.

I was on jury service for an unpleasant case a couple of years ago. We found the bloke guilty after a week of rowing. It wasn't cut and dried at all. I was so distressed when we issued the verdict, his family were sobbing and he was shouting. I can't imagine giving a bloody press interview about it and I'm very glad they did poll us to know who thought what. The US system is a little strange.

Didn't poll us sorry

.

They definitely can't appeal just because they disagree with the decision the jurors have made. I don't know but I guess they may be able to appeal if the jury have ignored the judge's rulings on the law

That makes sense, prh47bridge - and thanks again for your reply - though it still sounds like an invitation for the loser's lawyers to make a huge thing out of some abstruse technicality

BTW that was very interesting data you mentioned about rape cases, but do be cautious where you post it; on any of the threads actually about this you'll get slaughtered regardless of the facts

I listened to a report today about all of this and the legal person said he would need a lot of coaching ...

Do you reckon it would make any difference Roussette?
If only a tenth of what's reported is correct, this is a person who regards himself as so far above the common trash that he's answerable only to mummy, and I'd expect the very concept of being probed by one of them to make him shudder

A skilled questioner would have no trouble at all laying that bare, and there goes any credibility he may have had with a jury

Do you reckon it would make any difference Roussette?

Not. A. Jot.
Nope. It's ingrained

It's really not hard to imagine him telling anyone offering even a well intentioned rehearsal probing to 'fuck off out of his office' tbh.

I doubt his lawyers have any serious intention of exposing him to adversarial probing in front of a jury.

MayThePawsBeWithYou I was wondering that. I bet it really rankles with him, that all the other millionaire nonces are getting away with it.

Unfortunately his extraordinary level of stupidity and entitlement is going to be his best defence. He will say that all his life women have thrown themselves at him and he has assumed they do so willingly.

It actually isn't hard to get a rape conviction. The 6% figure that is often quoted is the number of reported rapes that result in a conviction. Most of them never make it to court, the most common reason being the complainant withdrawing. I don't have figures for the USA, but in the UK over 70% of rape cases that end up in court result in a conviction.

I don’t want to derail but aren’t both these things true? 6% of all reported rapes end in a conviction and 70% of reported rapes that go to a trial end in conviction.

Back to VRG, I agree it does seem her case is a big ask - it seemed that the case against GM kept things simpler with relatively few witnesses etc. But as pp have said the damage is done already really and even if she fails I doubt public opinion is going to shift all that much.

This isn't relevent to the lawsuit he's facing but I just got around to reading my current copy of Private Eye and I learned (from one of their more serious articles) that it has really been William who has been the driving force behind getting Andrew stripped of duties and roles ever since his disastrous tv interview. Apparently Charles hasn't really had the nerve to force the issue but William pretty much detests Andrew and went directly to the Queen and kept up the pressure.

Apparently William has never forgotten Andrew's nasty attitude towards Kate Middleton when she first joined the RF as she was terribly common in Andrew's eyes. That also explains the alleged snobbery Beatrice had towards Kate Middleton as well. Funny how Andrew (and Fergie) will hang around any dodgy character and accept their money but an upper-middle class woman join the RF, oh the horror!

@AntAndDecking

It actually isn't hard to get a rape conviction. The 6% figure that is often quoted is the number of reported rapes that result in a conviction. Most of them never make it to court, the most common reason being the complainant withdrawing. I don't have figures for the USA, but in the UK over 70% of rape cases that end up in court result in a conviction.

I don’t want to derail but aren’t both these things true? 6% of all reported rapes end in a conviction and 70% of reported rapes that go to a trial end in conviction.

Back to VRG, I agree it does seem her case is a big ask - it seemed that the case against GM kept things simpler with relatively few witnesses etc. But as pp have said the damage is done already really and even if she fails I doubt public opinion is going to shift all that much.

The 70%+ figure is correct for the year ended March 2021 - 71.2% of rape prosecutions resulted in a conviction. However, the widely quoted 6% figure is actually too high. In 2018/19 only 3.3% of reported rapes ended with someone being convicted of rape. What this means is that less than 5% of reported rapes end up in court. I think it is important to understand this as measures to improve the conviction rate have tended to focus on making it easier to persuade juries to convict, whereas the real focus should be on finding out why so few cases get to court and fixing the problems there.

For context, for all crimes (including rape), 9.2% of reported crimes ended in a conviction in 2018/19.

The DM are really gunning for him today
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10449735/Does-help-jog-memory-sir.html

[quote OverByYer]The DM are really gunning for him today
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10449735/Does-help-jog-memory-sir.html[/quote]
Yes they are.

I was just reading the article a bit further down regarding senior royals being aghast that he has asked for a trial by jury and they think he should settle out of court.

^So far Andrew appears to be ignoring them^

Colour me surprised!!

Expert opinion seems to suggest that it’s a stalling tactic to buy time to thrash out a deal.

Maybe the plan is to put the frighteners up by everyone in the hope that the senior royals will have no choice but to have a whip round and put some funds in the kitty and offer an amount that would be difficult to refuse.

I didn't realise that William was the one doing the pushing in the RF, but it makes sense, I think it was last summer (maybe earlier) that there were several meetings with the Queen, PC and PW.

[quote OverByYer]The DM are really gunning for him today
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10449735/Does-help-jog-memory-sir.html[/quote]
With their usual regard for accuracy. They misrepresent at least one of the allegations. They appear to think Andrew should accept allegations that lack detail so, if he admitted them, he may find VG uses that to claim he has admitted something he hasn't. They think that 5 photos of him with Maxwell at social events counts as "numerous" photos. They think that the fact he stayed at Epstein's New York mansion in 2010 means he should admit to being a frequent guest in Epstein's home around the world. And they fail to realise that, if what they say about Beatrice's 18th birthday party is correct, VG's allegation is wrong.

For context, for all crimes (including rape), 9.2% of reported crimes ended in a conviction in 2018/19.
What's the overall conviction rate for cases heard by a jury?
I understood (from personal experience sadly) that barristers often suggest that people accused of sex offences push for trial in the hope the victim withdraws/that the jury might buy into myths.
Having been on the receiving end of that and the stress it causes, if Andrew is doing that he's disgusting