|
|
Post by baggins on Dec 30, 2021 12:54:07 GMT
She was found guilty on 5 of 6 counts of recruiting & trafficking minors for sexual abuse, and could spend the rest of her life in prison. Surely prince Andrew will be on trial next. He will never set foot in the US again. Can't they extradite? Him to face charges? |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Dec 30, 2021 13:06:54 GMT
She was found guilty on 5 of 6 counts of recruiting & trafficking minors for sexual abuse, and could spend the rest of her life in prison. Surely prince Andrew will be on trial next. There is a civil case that his lawyers are trying to find all sorts to get that chucked out. Something to do with Ms. Guifrre's rsidency As for any criminal proceedings, can't see anything happening unless Ms. Maxwell now starts talking (if she doesn't commit 'suicide') |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Dec 30, 2021 15:26:19 GMT
He will never set foot in the US again. Can't they extradite? Him to face charges? Don't think that will be very PC " old boy", probably has diplomatic immunity!! |
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Dec 30, 2021 19:12:30 GMT
Does she share her name with the boat her father fell from? A more likely scenario is that he faked his death and went off to sun himself in Tel Aviv or somewhere. Mr Conspiracist strikes again! Get off the wakky bakky! |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Dec 30, 2021 20:31:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jan 3, 2022 18:58:01 GMT
|
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,503 
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Jan 3, 2022 19:13:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Jan 3, 2022 19:14:38 GMT
That’s such a slimy defence for something. We’re talking about a deal a dead sexual predator made with his victim here and he thinks leaning on that will make this all go away?
He’d be so much better off just facing the civil case, denying it ever happened and hearing the verdict. I’m guessing it will be hard to find enough evidence to rule in her favour given the length of time since the alleged offences took place.
That process takes longer with more media coverage but to be honest his reputation is irrevocably damaged at this point and he’d at least be able to say ‘he didn’t do it’ at that point rather than ‘he denies he did it but he has immunity so no-one can sue him anyway’
|
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jan 3, 2022 19:37:23 GMT
That’s such a slimy defence for something. We’re talking about a deal a dead sexual predator made with his victim here and he thinks leaning on that will make this all go away? He’d be so much better off just facing the civil case, denying it ever happened and hearing the verdict. I’m guessing it will be hard to find enough evidence to rule in her favour given the length of time since the alleged offences took place. That process takes longer with more media coverage but to be honest his reputation is irrevocably damaged at this point and he’d at least be able to say ‘he didn’t do it’ at that point rather than ‘he denies he did it but he has immunity so no-one can sue him anyway’ Guilt by association no doubt, although he can deny that too as the document clearly states (I say clearly, I'm no lawyer and have only read whats been reported on BBC) that she can't sue any potential defendants. I don't see how her legal team can say the document is irrelevant, it seems pretty damn relevant to me. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but legally speaking this looks pretty clear cut at this point? |
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Jan 3, 2022 20:26:06 GMT
That’s such a slimy defence for something. We’re talking about a deal a dead sexual predator made with his victim here and he thinks leaning on that will make this all go away? He’d be so much better off just facing the civil case, denying it ever happened and hearing the verdict. I’m guessing it will be hard to find enough evidence to rule in her favour given the length of time since the alleged offences took place. That process takes longer with more media coverage but to be honest his reputation is irrevocably damaged at this point and he’d at least be able to say ‘he didn’t do it’ at that point rather than ‘he denies he did it but he has immunity so no-one can sue him anyway’ Guilt by association no doubt, although he can deny that too as the document clearly states (I say clearly, I'm no lawyer and have only read whats been reported on BBC) that she can't sue any potential defendants. I don't see how her legal team can say the document is irrelevant, it seems pretty damn relevant to me. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but legally speaking this looks pretty clear cut at this point? Yeah it appears to be legally solid. Wouldn’t be surprised if either Giuffre’s legal team sued him with the intention of bringing the negative publicity that it would provide, knowing that it wouldn’t hold when push came to shove or that they’ve been caught off guard by the paper. I must admit I don’t really understand civil proceedings of this nature. If he’s guilty of a criminal act in a “civil” sense, then why hasn’t he been brought to task in a criminal court. Then if there isn’t enough evidence to meet the threshold of prosecution in a criminal sense, how can damages be awarded without the admittance of guilt? I get civil proceedings for stuff that wouldn’t be considered criminal but would be considered negligent, but it’s hard to argue that Andrew has been negligent but not criminal if an instance of alleged sexual assault can be proven. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 3, 2022 21:48:41 GMT
That’s such a slimy defence for something. We’re talking about a deal a dead sexual predator made with his victim here and he thinks leaning on that will make this all go away? He’d be so much better off just facing the civil case, denying it ever happened and hearing the verdict. I’m guessing it will be hard to find enough evidence to rule in her favour given the length of time since the alleged offences took place. That process takes longer with more media coverage but to be honest his reputation is irrevocably damaged at this point and he’d at least be able to say ‘he didn’t do it’ at that point rather than ‘he denies he did it but he has immunity so no-one can sue him anyway’ Guilt by association no doubt, although he can deny that too as the document clearly states (I say clearly, I'm no lawyer and have only read whats been reported on BBC) that she can't sue any potential defendants. I don't see how her legal team can say the document is irrelevant, it seems pretty damn relevant to me. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but legally speaking this looks pretty clear cut at this point? It's very poorly worded, almost deliberately vague. Would not surprised me if it could be interperated that she can sue because she is not suing the person she did the deal with and she is not intending to incriminate or accuse Epstein in any way? Also, could she sue Andrew via Maxwell now and therefore bypass her Epstein deal? The US judicial system is very different to ours. Not quite the old boys network over there so he may not get the protection he would here, especially without the protection Epstein once afforded him. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 3, 2022 21:52:06 GMT
That’s such a slimy defence for something. We’re talking about a deal a dead sexual predator made with his victim here and he thinks leaning on that will make this all go away? He’d be so much better off just facing the civil case, denying it ever happened and hearing the verdict. I’m guessing it will be hard to find enough evidence to rule in her favour given the length of time since the alleged offences took place. That process takes longer with more media coverage but to be honest his reputation is irrevocably damaged at this point and he’d at least be able to say ‘he didn’t do it’ at that point rather than ‘he denies he did it but he has immunity so no-one can sue him anyway’ Completely agree. He is utterly desperate not to have to actually defend himself. This only makes him look worse, if that were possible. What he should have done was just said, I shagged her in London, she was 17 and as far as I was aware she was fully consenting. He would probably have had the backing of most of the country. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jan 4, 2022 3:50:49 GMT
That’s such a slimy defence for something. We’re talking about a deal a dead sexual predator made with his victim here and he thinks leaning on that will make this all go away? He’d be so much better off just facing the civil case, denying it ever happened and hearing the verdict. I’m guessing it will be hard to find enough evidence to rule in her favour given the length of time since the alleged offences took place. That process takes longer with more media coverage but to be honest his reputation is irrevocably damaged at this point and he’d at least be able to say ‘he didn’t do it’ at that point rather than ‘he denies he did it but he has immunity so no-one can sue him anyway’ Completely agree. He is utterly desperate not to have to actually defend himself. This only makes him look worse, if that were possible. What he should have done was just said, I shagged her in London, she was 17 and as far as I was aware she was fully consenting. He would probably have had the backing of most of the country. Cannot agree with that sentiment. Regardless of her age she appears to have been trafficked by two people who have since been either convicted or committed suicide in advance of being convicted. As such this nonce appears to have been fully participative in this abuse of women. And that is exactly what this is. Rich people thinking they can use women as they choose, as long as they pay for it. $500,000 in this womens case. It's nauseating and indicative of the corruption endemic amongst us. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 4, 2022 6:27:46 GMT
Completely agree. He is utterly desperate not to have to actually defend himself. This only makes him look worse, if that were possible. What he should have done was just said, I shagged her in London, she was 17 and as far as I was aware she was fully consenting. He would probably have had the backing of most of the country. Cannot agree with that sentiment. Regardless of her age she appears to have been trafficked by two people who have since been either convicted or committed suicide in advance of being convicted. As such this nonce appears to have been fully participative in this abuse of women. And that is exactly what this is. Rich people thinking they can use women as they choose, as long as they pay for it. $500,000 in this womens case. It's nauseating and indicative of the corruption endemic amongst us. Please don't misunderstand me, I think he's a nonce too but he could probably convince a lot of people he wasn't if he admitted to having sex with a 17yr old (which is over the UK age of consent) Denying knowledge of sex trafficking is much easier than saying "I don't recollect", "I am unable to sweat" and looking desperate to avoid going to court with a string of pathetic legal shinnanigans. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 4, 2022 17:53:17 GMT
Just read on BBC News that it's possible that her settlement was in relation to sex trafficking and as Andrew had nothing to do with trafficking then it may not count.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jan 4, 2022 21:54:38 GMT
Just read on BBC News that it's possible that her settlement was in relation to sex trafficking and as Andrew had nothing to do with trafficking then it may not count. Yep just read the same thing. If that’s the case then absolutely game on, but would need to see the full document (when I say I’d need to see it, I have absolutely no interest in seeing it). The final part about signatures and permission was pretty big as well, “Even if Prince Andrew could be properly classed as a "potential defendant" to Ms Giuffre's 2009 Florida claims, her settlement with Epstein says that third parties - meaning someone whose signature was not on the agreement - could not use that agreement in another court without their permission. Given that Epstein is dead and Ms Giuffre doesn't want the prince to benefit from the agreement's terms, a strict reading of that paragraph would mean the agreement is irrelevant to her damages case.” Not sure how the law works with the dead though |
|
|
|
Post by wrongsideoftheriver on Jan 5, 2022 11:53:15 GMT
That’s such a slimy defence for something. We’re talking about a deal a dead sexual predator made with his victim here and he thinks leaning on that will make this all go away? He’d be so much better off just facing the civil case, denying it ever happened and hearing the verdict. I’m guessing it will be hard to find enough evidence to rule in her favour given the length of time since the alleged offences took place. That process takes longer with more media coverage but to be honest his reputation is irrevocably damaged at this point and he’d at least be able to say ‘he didn’t do it’ at that point rather than ‘he denies he did it but he has immunity so no-one can sue him anyway’ Completely agree. He is utterly desperate not to have to actually defend himself. This only makes him look worse, if that were possible.
What he should have done was just said, I shagged her in London, she was 17 and as far as I was aware she was fully consenting.
He would probably have had the backing of most of the country.
Not sure anyone in there right mind can agree with your last sentence, legal or not its not ok to touch 17 year old girls and he mostly certainly wouldnt have my backing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 5, 2022 12:14:43 GMT
Completely agree. He is utterly desperate not to have to actually defend himself. This only makes him look worse, if that were possible.
What he should have done was just said, I shagged her in London, she was 17 and as far as I was aware she was fully consenting.
He would probably have had the backing of most of the country.
Not sure anyone in there right mind can agree with your last sentence, legal or not its not ok to touch 17 year old girls and he mostly certainly wouldnt have my backing.
I think you are missing my point. The legal age of consent is 16. She was said to have been 17 when she says she had sex with Andrew. Legally, what has he done wrong in that scenario? Im not defending him, and morally I think what he is alleged to have done is disgusting. I'm talking about legal right and wrong, not actual right and wrong. I concede the phrase "backing from most" is probably wrong. What I was trying to say is that his behaviour makes him look guilty of much more than having a questionable, but ultimately legal relationship with her. |
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Jan 5, 2022 13:49:13 GMT
Not sure anyone in there right mind can agree with your last sentence, legal or not its not ok to touch 17 year old girls and he mostly certainly wouldnt have my backing.
I think you are missing my point. The legal age of consent is 16. She was said to have been 17 when she says she had sex with Andrew. Legally, what has he done wrong in that scenario? Im not defending him, and morally I think what he is alleged to have done is disgusting. I'm talking about legal right and wrong, not actual right and wrong. I concede the phrase "backing from most" is probably wrong. What I was trying to say is that his behaviour makes him look guilty of much more than having a questionable, but ultimately legal relationship with her. And I also think what Hugo is touching upon is that the ‘laddish’ minority of daily Mail readers that exists in the UK, would have approved of him shagging a ‘fit’ 17 year old rather than seeing the immorality of an older man using his influence and connections to have sex with a trafficked under 18 year old. Sadly that kind of attitude does exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 5, 2022 13:52:18 GMT
I think you are missing my point. The legal age of consent is 16. She was said to have been 17 when she says she had sex with Andrew. Legally, what has he done wrong in that scenario? Im not defending him, and morally I think what he is alleged to have done is disgusting. I'm talking about legal right and wrong, not actual right and wrong. I concede the phrase "backing from most" is probably wrong. What I was trying to say is that his behaviour makes him look guilty of much more than having a questionable, but ultimately legal relationship with her. And I also think what Hugo is touching upon is that the ‘laddish’ minority of daily Mail readers that exists in the UK, would have approved of him shagging a ‘fit’ 17 year old rather than seeing the immorality of an older man using his influence and connections to have sex with a trafficked under 18 year old. Sadly that kind of attitude does exist. Thanks Axe, that's exactly what I was trying to say! Also, I'm old enough to remember how Bill Wyman was held as a hero for sleeping with Mandy Smith. Other notable "acceptable" celebrity pedos include Woody Allen and Elvis. |
|
