Jump to content

Prince Andrew BBC


D.A.F.C

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Cosmic Joe said:

Ah fuckit. 

Superstars didn't involve celebrities did it? 

Keegan got stretchered off with a a skint knee as a football player. 

Pretty sure Geoff Capes made a spectacle of himself as well. 

It's a Royal Knockout, organised by Prince Edward when he was trying to get a job in theatre.

Stuart Hall wasn't the only nonce involved it seems...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to The Grauniad article the Prince met Epstein in 1999

Quote

Andrew’s denials were part of his “answer and affirmative defenses” to Giuffre’s civil complaint against him. In the 11-page document, Andrew denied wrongdoing, but he did say in this document that he met Epstein “in or around 1999”.

which doesn't tally with what his secretary said to the Times in 2011

Quote

Writing to the Times in March 2011, the duke's then private secretary Alastair Watson aimed to address "widespread comment" about the relationship with the New York financier, who died in prison this year awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

He said Prince Andrew had known Epstein "since being introduced to him in the early 1990s", but dismissed the "insinuations and innuendos" as "without foundation".

It's little inconsistencies like that which might make a lesser man sweat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, btb said:

According to The Grauniad article the Prince met Epstein in 1999

which doesn't tally with what his secretary said to the Times in 2011

It's little inconsistencies like that which might make a lesser man sweat...

It wouldn't take much of a lawyer to dissect that and make a difference between "meeting" and being "introduced to" though.  Or explain that the Secretary was "misremembering". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, hk blues said:

It wouldn't take much of a lawyer to dissect that and make a difference between "meeting" and being "introduced to" though.  Or explain that the Secretary was "misremembering". 

Jury trial and a civil law standard of proof though. Giving the impression of being shifty and not having consistent evidence is probably almost as bad as being proved to be lying. 

I always sympathised with Jiuffre in this case, but my mind was made up when I saw his BS about not sweating. Technically it doesn’t prove anything but it convinced me. 

I'd imagine the jury will think in a similar way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Jury trial and a civil law standard of proof though. Giving the impression of being shifty and not having consistent evidence is probably almost as bad as being proved to be lying. 

I always sympathised with Jiuffre in this case, but my mind was made up when I saw his BS about not sweating. Technically it doesn’t prove anything but it convinced me. 

I'd imagine the jury will think in a similar way. 

Aye, of course but aren't all jury trials about throwing as much mud as possible and hoping some sticks as well as deflecting as much as possible.  It's certainly not helpful to Andy but I don't see it as being so damning.  I'm sure there will be plenty of stuff that comes out that is though.

I'm pretty certain we will never know as he'll settle before it reaches court.  We're just seeing posturing for now, on both sides. 

Edited by hk blues
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Prince Andrew lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation that there exists photographic evidence of his alleged meeting with Giuffre," says his legal response.

I mean, you'd think he'd have seen the photograph by now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hk blues said:

Aye, of course but aren't all jury trials about throwing as much mud as possible and hoping some sticks as well as deflecting as much as possible.  It's certainly not helpful to Andy but I don't see it as being so damning.  I'm sure there will be plenty of stuff that comes out that is though.

I'm pretty certain we will never know as he'll settle before it reaches court.  We're just seeing posturing for now, on both sides. 

Not necessarily. If one side or the other throws unfounded mud then it can hurt both their moral and factual credibility in the jury's eyes, which can be crucial if the evidence is finely balanced. At this point, Andrew's lawyers appear to have raised every procedural issue available, but they are only before a judge at this point. When a jury comes into play, his lawyers would be wise only to throw mud they know is going to stick - unless, of course, they think their cause is utterly hopeless, in which case chuck everything in.

Andrew faces a significant difficulty going before a jury due to his position as a royal. The philosophy of any jury trial is that you have three parties, "the offender", "the victim" and "the rescuer". The jury is always the rescuer, and they will begin the case wanting to rescue the person making the accusations, i.e. Giuffre.  A defence lawyer's job is to persuade the jury that the defendant is in fact the real victim, who needs to be rescued from unjust legal proceedings, i.e. rescued from the threat of prison, or here the threat of paying unfair damages. Andrew being a Prince with seemingly bottomless pockets, and generally appearing to be a bit of a p***k, will make it harder than normal to cast him as the victim.

In fact, just writing that now, it may (but may not) explain why the royal family have been so willing to strip him of all of his titles. It would help build a picture of an innocent man suffering greatly due to what they say are unfounded allegations. 

Edited by Priti priti priti Patel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hk blues said:

Aye, of course but aren't all jury trials about throwing as much mud as possible and hoping some sticks as well as deflecting as much as possible.  It's certainly not helpful to Andy but I don't see it as being so damning.  I'm sure there will be plenty of stuff that comes out that is though.

I'm pretty certain we will never know as he'll settle before it reaches court.  We're just seeing posturing for now, on both sides. 

I would have thought Prince Andrew's appointment diary would be fairly comprehensive - even his private social life will be recorded somewhere, if only by the security services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I would have thought Prince Andrew's appointment diary would be fairly comprehensive - even his private social life will be recorded somewhere, if only by the security services.

You mean that diary that was lost in one of his house flittings? 

The problem with this case, and one which may work in Andy's favour, is the time that has elapsed between the incidents and the "trial." That said, IF (he won't) he goes in front of a jury he will only be able to use that excuse so many times before he appears to be being evasive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Priti priti priti Patel said:

Not necessarily. If one side or the other throws unfounded mud then it can hurt both their moral and factual credibility in the jury's eyes, which can be crucial if the evidence is finely balanced. At this point, Andrew's lawyers appear to have raised every procedural issue available, but they are only before a judge at this point. When a jury comes into play, his lawyers would be wise only to throw mud they know is going to stick - unless, of course, they think their cause is utterly hopeless, in which case chuck everything in.

Andrew faces a significant difficulty going before a jury due to his position as a royal. The philosophy of any jury trial is that you have three parties, "the offender", "the victim" and "the rescuer". The jury is always the rescuer, and they will begin the case wanting to rescue the person making the accusations, i.e. Giuffre.  A defence lawyer's job is to persuade the jury that the defendant is in fact the real victim, who needs to be rescued from unjust legal proceedings, i.e. rescued from the threat of prison, or here the threat of paying unfair damages. Andrew being a Prince with seemingly bottomless pockets, and generally appearing to be a bit of a p***k, will make it harder than normal to cast him as the victim.

In fact, just writing that now, it may (but may not) explain why the royal family have been so willing to strip him of all of his titles. It would help build a picture of an innocent man suffering greatly due to what they say are unfounded allegations. 

Who decides it's unfounded?  Isn't that the whole point of the jury i.e. to separate the mud from the shite?  I'm not suggesting outlandish claims, just enough to be possible/believable. 

Regardless, it's all immaterial as it won't go to trial as neither party would want it to unless Giuffre really is focused on outing Andy as the old perv rather than money.  It's possible but is it likely?  

As for stripping him of his titles, it's a risky strategy as it could be viewed as an acknowledgement of guilt by Buck House - probably a more likely bet than a ploy to build sympathy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...