Prince Andrew BACK in the royal fold

[tatalan]

How do you feel about this development?

@Iwantcakeeveryday I agree too. It's very subtle and insidious too. Just suggestions at how VG isn't credible because of Dershowitz. She was a young troubled vulnerable girl FFS!

When posters come up with this tripe, they are blaming ALL of Epstein's victims as far as I'm concerned. There are heartbreaking stories out there of what they went through but no, VG just made it all up. They probably all did

I hate it. And since this all came out, it's happened time and time and time again on these threads in the most revolting way.

We have had (about the victims)

What about the parents?
Why didn't they stop it?
Why didn't the girls walk away? What was to stop them?
They were just after the money

Some posters have not got a clue about coercion and grooming. Not a clue.

And I doubt Maxwell would've been jailed for 20 years for nothing. Ditto Epstein if he'd have lived.

Well said @Roussette its what Andrews lawyers did to her too, their disgusting victim blaming was shameful, but thats defence lawyers for you, its where all the rape myths and victim blaming comes from. They make it so difficult for victims to come forward when they know those lawyers will attack them viciously.

Some posters have not got a clue about coercion and grooming. Not a clue.
Agreed. I find myself closing the window rather than replying because I'd probably say things that would get the Mumsnet ban hammer or delete hammer out.

What's sad is that it doesn't happen just on the Epstein threads.

The don't be nosy, keep your nose out, don't ask, the abusive person probably had a reason for it, you don't know the whole picture, but what about X,Y, Z is all over a lot of safeguarding threads. The other very damaging idea is that to express a safeguarding concern someone has to be a perfect person. It all seems to boil down to the idea of picking apart victims and witnesses to the point where anything can be used as a gotcha as to why they're not truthful.

if you want to suggest that issues of credibility and how your client will appear to a jury under cross examination are totally irrelevant to assessing the strength or otherwise of your case, feel free to believe that all you want.

I live and work however in the world where civil cases and prosecutions stand and fall on the strength of the evidence and the performances of the witnesses. I am therefore perfectly happy with my opinions. I also happy that I’m not victim blaming in my pointing out that both sides in this case had very good reasons for wanting to settle. And you can’t infer guilt or innocence from that.

I don't think anyone is likely to pay out 12 million for no reason at all

While I agree, let's not forget that 12 million is pocket change to the RF, and that's without the possibility that we actually paid for it instead of them

So as the price of making the whole thing go away, they probably considered it a bargain

What we're Andrews reasons to settle ( apart from not wanting to have his day in court to prove his innocence? He has access to unlimited funds andcthe best lawyers in town. He could have dragged this out into eternity. He didn't.

So many! Apart from the huge cost, massive stress and uncertainty Andrew also had the prospect of further reputational damage for not just himself but also his wider family.

Also, any trial is risky. A “he said, she said” jury trial in a foreign jurisdiction with a long cherished history of telling British royals where to go, a political judge, and linked to a notorious criminal who died and so could be considered to have escaped justice - I’d consider that a hugely risky proposition for any client, even one who was 100% innocent.

And I am talking about the whole Epstein case and the very many victims involved.

We all know about your expertise in legal cases. Good on you for being happy with your opinions, it would be surprising if you weren't.

My post was more veering on the side of looking at the very many victims of Epstein, his guilt, Maxwell's guilt and the fact Virginia Guiffre was one of his girls. Given her troubled childhood and previous history, I would doubt that she would be making it all up. I imagine, Serenster, you don't think much of Virginia Guiffre. I think we forget how troubled and vulnerable these girls were at the time. To remember everything crystal clear is a big ask.

Of course they settled. It was huge at the time, the Monarchy was being damaged greatly and that hasn't gone away. The repurcussions from it are enormous.

All I was doing Roussette was responding to a post saying that of course the case settled, as Andrew had good reasons to do do. I pointed out that both parties had good reasons to want to settle.

I imagine, Serenster, you don't think much of Virginia Guiffre.

Please don’t speculate judgementally on my personal views, I don’t appreciate it one bit. Also, obviously, you don’t know me at all.

I put it as politely as I could, I have sensed it before when there has been very many posts about this situation.
I'll stand corrected.

While I agree that this sum is peanuts to the RF as a whole … I don’t think that this is the case for PA personally … as he had to sell his skiing “chalet” to pay for the case .. and as we know… many of the minor family members are asset rich, cash poor. PA is not even that as he rents his home from the Crown Estates I believe.

I agree, @Itstimeforlunch707, but was thinking more of the RF as an institution and the assets they can bring to bear in their own protection

There may or may not be times when Andrew's told "Tough - you did it, you pay for it", but because of the risk to involved to all, I doubt this was one such time

Exactly. He was obviously advised by legal experts rather than mumsnetters and I believe many civil cases are settled to prevent protected legal cases rather than an admission of guilt.

It's funny that the US haven't charged any high profile Americans for illegal activities involving Epstein. Oh, well there was a US lawyer but that was a mistaken identity apparently.

You are the legal expert Serenster but surely one of the main tenets of justice is that individual cases are tried on their own merits according to evidence?

Any decision to reach a settlement is based not only on the strength of the opposition case but also on strength and weakness of the defence.

PA would not have settled, imho, if his case had been watertight.

Seriously? It’s not a surprise to me at all Janiie when you see the roll call of “the great and good” in Epstein’s little black book!

'PA would not have settled, imho, if his case had been watertight'

How could it be, it was all hearsay and personal recollections. I don't doubt he was stupid, arrogant and shouldn't have been indulged all his life. Someone should have pulled him up decades ago, we all heard the playboy prince and randy Andy nicknames. I've no idea why the Queen didn't bollock him and tell him to act appropriately.

However, again when no one else on the famous last has been held to account it of course would be madness to go to the US and have your personal life pulled apart for a civil suit.

I agree that Prince Andrew did not want to be subjected to a deposition which would have explored not only his involvement with Giuffre, but also his connection to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and any sexual indiscretions he may be shown to have committed.

While I agree that this sum is peanuts to the RF as a whole … I don’t think that this is the case for PA personally … as he had to sell his skiing “chalet” to pay for the case .. and as we know… many of the minor family members are asset rich, cash poor. PA is not even that as he rents his home from the Crown Estates I believe.

The sale of the chalet got bogged down in some kind of debt related controversy IIRC and wasn't completed at the time of the settlement. I think it's highly likely Mummy coughed long and hard for her favourite son.

Andrew purchased a watertight lease on his ridiculously palatial home way back when so doesn't pay rent. The only way he'll be kicked out is if he can't afford the day to day running costs and as he may well have stuffed his trousers with wads from dodgy billionaires has been cited as the third richest royal that seems unlikely.

I think, for all the evil things done by whoever was there on Epsteins Island, they could afford to be there because they were rich, and mainly they were rich because they had some nous. They probably knew how to cover their tracks. Andrew is stupid and arrogant. A perfect fall guy for all of them. He felt he deserved to be there and that the little people were there to serve him. Drinks, canapes, sex, whatever. They were no one important. Of course, no one would think he'd done anything wrong. He's a Royal Prince! He more or less said it in his Maitliss interview. I believe that's why Epstein took the famous picture. As collateral. No one else would have allowed themselves to be photographed. He is a moron. His mother would never have said no to her brave little soldier, and here we are.

Yes he thought he was above it all. When asked by Maitlis about all the young girls at Epstein's numerous homes, he waffled about being patron of the NSPCC so would know what to look for. Okaaaay....

His interview will never be forgotten

He never left

YY when he was asked, “didn’t you think it strange that there were a bunch of extremely young women in a room full of middle-aged men?” he said words to the effect of “I’m used to being served and thought they were staff”

So yeah, perverted or moronic.

And I am sorry, but I don’t think it spoke well of the late Queen that she supported him so publicly. In face I thought it was very worrying but to say that out loud at the time was deemed tantamount to treason!

I think the decision to cough up was a decision by the RF, I suspect even if he had wanted to see it through to a trial, I don't believe he would have been allowed.

The PA/Epstein outrage was a huge distraction ...... the queen was dying, the idiot had made things even worse by doing the Matlis interview, the queens platinum jubilee was coming up, all the controversy about Harry leaving, PA was the only one of all Epstein's connections who was being sued and his friend and connection to Epstein had received a lengthy prison sentence.

Throwing money at it got him off the hook from a legal perspective, and probably equated to a similar cost of a long civil trial, his connections to the whole sordid affair will never be forgotten though, that is his real sentence. VG was also happy to accept the settlement rather than pursue the civil case.

@pinkmont Good points. Measured analysis. I know some people longed for him to go to prison but he is in a sort of prison. Posters will scoff at me for saying that but he sure doesn't have the freedom that he used to have.

Oh good god, no he won't, totally agree.

He travelled all over the world playing at the best Golf courses imaginable, all tacked on to his supposed work as a Trade Envoy. Then there was that really dodgy pitch palace thing, that enabled travel for him. He did what he wanted when he wanted with no expense spared.

And this was his downfall. Why the hell he needed to be so friendly with JE, god alone knows. He didn't need his friendship, and when questioned on it, he talked of 'the opportunities it afforded him'.
In retrospect, that to me means partying, girls, being schmoozed and feted as a Royal, mixing with seriously wealthy people which he got off on. Not trade opportunities.
FFS he took four whole days to break off the friendship (when he was snapped in Central Sq) and a party was held in his honour!