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

@Thankyoupeter

Does anyone have any thoughts on why Andrew's team want to call Virginia's husband as a witness? Can he even be made to testify against his wife or is that just in criminal court in the UK? I can't work out the plan with that one

From scouring, it seems US privilege around spousal communication is pretty hot.

On the basis I have never heard of it in England and Welsh legal reporting I am guessing (like the 5th amendment we don't have, whatever people try to claim .... ) this is another area of significant difference.

@Thankyoupeter

Does anyone have any thoughts on why Andrew's team want to call Virginia's husband as a witness? Can he even be made to testify against his wife or is that just in criminal court in the UK? I can't work out the plan with that one

They want him to answer questions about what she has told him in the past. He could invoke communications privilege, which protects confidential communications between spouses. This privilege does not protect communications prior to marriage, nor does it protect communications made in front of a third party. If they discussed Andrew in front of friends, for example, he will have to answer. Invoking communications privilege may not help his wife as, regardless of any instructions they are given on the matter, the jury may conclude that he is trying to cover for her.

Thanks both. They must have a good idea what they want to get out of him and that it's worth it as it seems like a slightly risky choice otherwise.

@Thankyoupeter

Thanks both. They must have a good idea what they want to get out of him and that it's worth it as it seems like a slightly risky choice otherwise.

This is about getting a deposition, not giving evidence directly to the court. If the contents of the deposition don't help, they won't submit it as evidence. Giuffre could submit it, but it is open to her to get her own deposition from her husband and submit that. So no, I don't think this is particularly risky.

How did she meet her husband, I heard it was during a Thailand trip arranged by GM but not sure

@MayThePawsBeWithYou

How did she meet her husband, I heard it was during a Thailand trip arranged by GM but not sure

I think that she had gone there to do a massage course that she had been promised, met her husband there & went to Australia with him.

Then phoned JE to say that she wouldn't be going back.

@prh47bridge Ah I see, that makes much more sense. Thank you :)

@MayThePawsBeWithYou

How did she meet her husband, I heard it was during a Thailand trip arranged by GM but not sure

According to VG, Maxwell provided tickets so that she could attend the International Training Massage School in Chiang Mai, Thailand in late 2002, when she was 19 and instructed her to bring a specific Thai girl back to the US for Epstein. She met Robert Giuffre, who is an Australian martial arts trainer, while she was there. They married in Thailand shortly after meeting and VG contacted Epstein to inform him she would not be returning.

Thanks for that info, are they planning to ask if he knew she was being trafficked then, its being reported that they have called PA ex equerry even though he wasnt employed at the time and a woman who claims she saw them at Tramp but doesnt know the date. If they find in favour of VG would it mean they reopen the case in the UK which the police dropped.

Thanks for that info, are they planning to ask if he knew she was being trafficked then

No idea. The letter from the judge suggests they want to know what she has said to him regarding Andrew, so I suspect not. I can't immediately see that whether Robert Giuffre knew VG was trafficked is relevant to the case.

its being reported that they have called PA ex equerry even though he wasnt employed at the time

He was Andrew's equerry from 2002-2004. This is after the alleged encounters took place. She is hoping he will be able to reveal information about communications concerning her.

a woman who claims she saw them at Tramp but doesnt know the date

The woman in question says she saw Andrew at Tramps in March 2001 with a woman who may have been VG.

If they find in favour of VG would it mean they reopen the case in the UK which the police dropped

The only crime that Andrew may have committed in the UK is rape. To get a conviction, VG would have to co-operate with the UK police and provide much stronger evidence than she has in anything she has said to date. Remember that, for a conviction, it would be necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was raped, whereas she could win her civil case on the balance of probability. So, even if the jury in the US decides that Andrew raped VG, that does not mean there is enough evidence to convict him in the US or the UK.

@prh47bridge - thank you for that - I was once called as a juror in a civil trial ( England) = there was no guilty or not guilty it was proven or not proven ( as I recall)

I think the problem Andrew has here is that he has not been sensible and has to some extent set himself up for this. Whatever the outcome his reputation is down the pan ( I think - my opinion only ) - as well as other stuff he has done. If he is entirely innocent - so be it - but he really hasn't helped himself . If he entirely innocent - that aside - he has shown bad judgment & we don't really want to see him around the place as a working member of the RF. ( again a personal opinion)

Re Basilisk being called as a juror in a civil case - in England does that happen in the usual random way that I was once called for a criminal case, from names on the electoral register?

What happens if the jury find no case, is that the end of it or does PA countersue like others have

I presume so @upinaballoon.
DH was recently called to one out of the blue. For a colleague it was the same a few years ago. She is a Londoner far as I know, but had to go to Manchester, she did not talk about the case, but she said it was all rather random.

There are very few civil trials with a jury in the UK. The only civil cases that carry the right to trial by jury are fraud, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. Prior to 2014, libel and slander were also on the list.

What happens if the jury find no case, is that the end of it or does PA countersue like others have

Andrew has not counterclaimed in the defence that has been filed. I don't know if it is still open to him to do so. But the jury will find on all counts, both VG's claim and any counterclaim, at the same time. This isn't a criminal trial where the defence can ask the judge to declare that there is no case to answer after the prosecution has presented its case. In a civil trial no decisions are made until both sides have presented their case.

@prh47bridge - in my case it was a case being brought against police officers - but this was 20 years ago

Anyone seen the article that victoria hervey claims that photo is photoshop, look at the left arm and hand in the photo, what a joke.

Clearly drunk or on drugs. The pic with V on her own is so badly photoshopped and after her appearance on the ITV documentary, I'm surprised that she'd post such conspiracy stuff.

The FBI have the original photo - maybe they'll comment on its authenticity during the trial.

I don't think the photo is fake. The Mail first published it in 2011, they continued to publish it on a very regular basis. If it was fake Andrew would have got his lawyers on to it years ago.

I wonder why Victoria H is so keen to defend Andrew ?

@Vapeyvapevape

I wonder why Victoria H is so keen to defend Andrew ?

Well she's reported as claiming to have been naively used as JE/GM's 'bait'. A term which hasn't been elaborated on in this report:

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsworld/i-was-used-as-bait-says-prince-andrew-s-ex-lady-victoria-hervey-who-was-befriended-by-ghislaine-maxwell/ar-AASUJ9p

Guilty conscience or conscious uncoupling?

Who knows.

I suppose she knows and likes him. People do tend to believe their friends until proved otherwise.

Whether the photo is genuine or not isn't all that relevant. He may well have posed for it as he probably has for many photographs. If it was proved to be fake, that would discredit VG but I think it is likely to be real. However it isn't evidence that he did anything else with the girl.

@Redshoeblueshoe

I don't think the photo is fake. The Mail first published it in 2011, they continued to publish it on a very regular basis. If it was fake Andrew would have got his lawyers on to it years ago.

It's never looked quite right to me. His left arm looks odd.

It's never looked quite right to me. His left arm looks odd.

His left arm isn't really visible. His left hand is. His right arm isn't in a particularly unnatural position. Her left arm is in an odd position if this was a posed photo. It looks like she has either just about to put her hand on her hip or has just taken it off her hip. It certainly doesn't look like a position you would hold. It is, of course, possible that she moved as the photo was taken. My view is that, on the evidence available, the photo is genuine.

However, as @blyn72 says, this photo is something of a red herring and doesn't deserve the attention it gets. As evidence, all it proves is that Andrew had his photo taken with VG and possibly the location in which the photo was taken. It does not prove anything beyond that.

This is an interesting analysis of the photo's authenticity:

www.becomeabetterphotographer.co.uk/prince-andrew-and-virginia-roberts-giuffre-photo/