Split Thread: Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I (don't) hate to say ITYS, but.....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post13704774

In that post, which I wrote on January 16th, I even predicted that settlement would come "within a month or so". And everything else was on point as well.

(Mixture of decent sources and a decent understanding of civil law)

Before you get too smug

"Within a month" means under a month, "or so" then takes it right up to the date he would have been in court.

Timing gone effectively you predicted a settlement. As did others once he sold his £18m+ chalet to settle £6m debt giving him a £12m+ fund.

You said the queen would be paying it all, I am not sure that is established and whether Andrew can pocket his chalet earnings.

You also said the settlement would be high double figures. High double figures suggests north of £50m. The press suggests it was just into double figure.

The other stuff you said had already happened.

Have you thought about becoming a psychic? You seem have their techniques, vague predictions, ignoring misses, false claiming of accuracy, predicting things that are known off pat.

Sorry but what do you expect on a skeptics forum when fantastic predictions are claimed

[Lothian]

Double post

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Samson

Clearly Giuffre's lawyers ran this, a masterclass in hypocrisy and greed.
If it were 2m to her and 10m to the charity there would be some vestige of ethical behaviour.

Call me old fashioned but perhaps it is Andrew who is the bad guy in this case.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Utter bollocks.... your sympathies are misplaced. They were making the bastard pay for what he did... and good on them for doing so. Windsor is a thoroughly obnoxious and odious creep... I have no sympathy for him.

I accept your determination is carefully reasoned, but I remain unmoved by the hang em high declarations against Windsor. He was both miscreant and wealthy beyond imagination.
A great result for one opportunist.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Samson

I accept your determination is carefully reasoned, but I remain unmoved by the hang em high declarations against Windsor...
A great result for one opportunist.

You are right I am sure that as a young child she thought there is a fantastic opportunity for me to be sexually abused by older men, trafficked round the world and in 30 years I can be rich. Those poor men suckered into abusing her, we should set up a fund and support group for them.

[cow_cat]

Oh the Grand Old Duke of York,
He had 12 million bucks.
He used it to pay off all the
Trafficked girls he liked to ....

... err have never met, apparently.

[smartcooky]

I think Windsor and his team of lawyers were terrified of what might happen if he had to testify under oath. After all, he is so totally lacking in self-awareness that after he finished the Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis he was actually under the impression that he had handled it pretty well, not realising that it was in reality a complete and utter disaster. Maitlis ran rings around him, and if she could do that, a couple of master questioners like Giuffre's lawyers would have ripped him a new one - he'd end up not knowing whether his arse had been counter-bored or centre-punched.

Another thing that went against him was the rather stupid and ridiculous claims he made, such as his alleged inability to sweat, his claim that he was covered by Epstein's Florida NDA, his claim that he had never met her despite a photograph that clearly shows him with his arm around her, and the further claim the photo was doctored.

Ann Olivarius, the senior partner of the McAllister Olivarius law firm who has acted in cases on both sides of the Atlantic, said “She said she wanted an apology, she wanted an amount of money and she wanted him to acknowledge what he’s done. It seems to me that she has gotten those things."

“She got an apology because he has now praised her for being courageous. She’s gotten money for a charity in trafficking, and she got him to settle which is an admission, clearly, that he is frightened to go forward, he has got too much exposure, he cannot afford on a risk management basis to go forward."

“She had leverage, she used it and she triumphed. I say this is good news all round, and it’s good news for him because we know he couldn’t have handled this deposition, it was going to be a disaster,”

[Captain_Swoop]

Don't forget that it couldn't have been a nightclub in London because he always wears a suit, shirt and tie when he is in London.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I think Windsor and his team of lawyers were terrified of what might happen if he had to testify under oath. After all, he is so totally lacking in self-awareness that after he finished the Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis he was actually under the impression that he had handled it pretty well, not realising that it was in reality a complete and utter disaster. Maitlis ran rings around him, and if she could do that, a couple of master questioners like Giuffre's lawyers would have ripped him a new one - he'd end up not knowing whether his arse had been counter-bored or centre-punched.

Another thing that went against him was the rather stupid and ridiculous claims he made, such as his alleged inability to sweat, his claim that he was covered by Epstein's Florida NDA, his claim that he had never met her despite a photograph that clearly shows him with his arm around her, and the further claim the photo was doctored.

Ann Olivarius, the senior partner of the McAllister Olivarius law firm who has acted in cases on both sides of the Atlantic, said “She said she wanted an apology, she wanted an amount of money and she wanted him to acknowledge what he’s done. It seems to me that she has gotten those things."

“She got an apology because he has now praised her for being courageous. She’s gotten money for a charity in trafficking, and she got him to settle which is an admission, clearly, that he is frightened to go forward, he has got too much exposure, he cannot afford on a risk management basis to go forward."

“She had leverage, she used it and she triumphed. I say this is good news all round, and it’s good news for him because we know he couldn’t have handled this deposition, it was going to be a disaster,”

Yup.

It's not a draw, when the one who claimed that he wanted his day in court to clear his name decides to fold. When there is a lot of seemingly0incriminating evidence that presumably he wanted examined in court so he could explain how it wasn't.

The financial cost of settling is set against the reputational damage that also would have affected his income.

[Captain_Swoop]

According to the Mail “Sex case surrender has saved the Jubilee”

[Captain_Swoop]

GB News is going with "Meghan Markle will not return to UK because she feels winning the British public over is a lost cause"

[Captain_Swoop]

Meanwhile

Police to investigate Prince Charles' charity
The Metropolitan Police is to investigate claims Prince Charles' charity offered honours help to a Saudi citizen.

The force said it is investigating alleged offences under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60404077

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Its not quite as straightforward as that.

You still don't seem to understand that one of the sex acts being sued over took place in London, and that means, regardless of the fact that the lawsuit was filed in New York.. the US Federal laws regarding age of consent apply, not the New York State Laws. The US Federal the age of consent is 18. Additionally, another of the places where Giuffre claims she was trafficked to Windsor for sex was St James' Island in the US Virgin Islands. The age of consent there is 18.

Now, if age of consent was not an issue here, don't you think at least one of Windsor's team of high priced lawyers would have noticed?

The post I was replying to was,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The time in New York would qualify as statutory rape even if she had given consent.

Not London, not USVI.

Also this court case was under NY law NOT US federal law. As you correctly pointed out the case was held in a Federal court because neither party are state residents, but the court would apply NY law. The law under which it was brought allowed damages to be sought for sexual abuse by those who were under 18 at the time of the abuse in New York. It does not allow damages to be sought for abuse that occurred in other jurisdictions.

Since the court case did not go forward, it is unclear exactly what case would have been made. It may be like in the Maxwell case where the Federal judge ruled that sex with someone over the age of consent in England was not illicit sex under Federal law, that the sex act itself was not to be regarded as criminal, but evidenced a pattern of behaviour. I think for Federal trafficking laws to apply to a UK resident having consensual sex with a US citizen in the UK when over the age of consent in the UK would be a jurisdictional over reach too far. For federal law to apply Windsor would either have to have travelled from the US to the UK for purposes of having sex, or being a US citizen or resident have trafficked Giuffre for the purposes of an illicit sex act.

I think the alleged sex act in the USVI is the one indisputably criminal act by virtue of being statutory rape, and there is no statute of limitations. The difficulty is that Giuffre describes this as being part of an orgy. So in theory there should be eye witnesses to the act, and potentially other offenders. We will see if Giuffre makes a criminal complaint to the USVI police. Giuffre will be time barred in bringing a civil case in USVI.

Next thing you know is that English publicans will be prosecuted by the ATF for selling drinks to 18 yr old US students!

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Planigale

The post I was replying to was,

Not London, not USVI.

Also this court case was under NY law NOT US federal law. As you correctly pointed out the case was held in a Federal court because neither party are state residents, but the court would apply NY law. The law under which it was brought allowed damages to be sought for sexual abuse by those who were under 18 at the time of the abuse in New York. It does not allow damages to be sought for abuse that occurred in other jurisdictions.

Since the court case did not go forward, it is unclear exactly what case would have been made. It may be like in the Maxwell case where the Federal judge ruled that sex with someone over the age of consent in England was not illicit sex under Federal law, that the sex act itself was not to be regarded as criminal, but evidenced a pattern of behaviour. I think for Federal trafficking laws to apply to a UK resident having consensual sex with a US citizen in the UK when over the age of consent in the UK would be a jurisdictional over reach too far. For federal law to apply Windsor would either have to have travelled from the US to the UK for purposes of having sex, or being a US citizen or resident have trafficked Giuffre for the purposes of an illicit sex act.

I think the alleged sex act in the USVI is the one indisputably criminal act by virtue of being statutory rape, and there is no statute of limitations. The difficulty is that Giuffre describes this as being part of an orgy. So in theory there should be eye witnesses to the act, and potentially other offenders. We will see if Giuffre makes a criminal complaint to the USVI police. Giuffre will be time barred in bringing a civil case in USVI.

Next thing you know is that English publicans will be prosecuted by the ATF for selling drinks to 18 yr old US students!

Well if age of consent was not at issue, why didn't Windsor's lawyers try to use the fact that Giuffre was 17 as a technicality to get the lawsuit dismissed?

It seems this rather obvious step was overlooked? I wonder why?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Planigale

The post I was replying to was,

Not London, not USVI.

Also this court case was under NY law NOT US federal law. As you correctly pointed out the case was held in a Federal court because neither party are state residents, but the court would apply NY law. The law under which it was brought allowed damages to be sought for sexual abuse by those who were under 18 at the time of the abuse in New York. It does not allow damages to be sought for abuse that occurred in other jurisdictions.
.....

Let's note once again that if Giuffre did not or was not able to give consent to sex, then she was raped, and her age didn't matter. And that's what she says:

Quote:

In her civil case, Ms Giuffre alleges that the prince sexually abused her three times - at Maxwell's London home that night, and later at Epstein's homes in Manhattan and Little St James in the Virgin Islands.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59974220

The continuing chatter about age of consent is just a distraction. Her age made her vulnerable to a predator's threats and manipulation. It doesn't mean she gave free and knowing consent.

[jimbob]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60407806


Prince Andrew's statement seems to contradict answers he gave me - Emily Maitlis

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by jimbob

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60407806


Prince Andrew's statement seems to contradict answers he gave me - Emily Maitlis

So his total lack of self awareness means that he can't keep his story straight, to the extent that he seems incapable of reading a transcript of his interview to make sure that any subsequent statement he makes in a legal document related to the lawsuit comports with what he said previously.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

So his total lack of self awareness means that he can't keep his story straight, to the extent that he seems incapable of reading a transcript of his interview to make sure that any subsequent statement he makes in a legal document related to the lawsuit comports with what he said previously.

I suspect that he just isn't used to his word ever 'being questioned'. Officer and a gentleman, and all that

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by GlennB

I suspect that he just isn't used to his word ever 'being questioned'. Officer and a gentleman, and all that

Well who the **** does he think he is, a prince or something!!?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Well who the **** does he think he is, a prince or something!!?

Not HRH, although I do think he embodies the dignity and honour that the institution of monarchy has historically demonstrated and which it deserves.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Not HRH, although I do think he embodies the dignity and honour that the institution of monarchy has historically demonstrated and which it deserves.

Nice (back-handed) compliment...

[LondonJohn]

Umm I believe many are missing the true driving force behind this (relatively) quick settlement, once the motion to dismiss was denied.

The hidden hand behind all of Andrew's legal difficulties in this case has been the Queen. She (and her advisers, and Charles and William) have an overriding instinct to protect the monarchy at almost any cost - they truly do fear the rise of republicanism (once the Queen dies, of course) if sufficient mud-dragging of the RF takes place.

They were prepared to allow Andrew to try to get the Giuffre case thrown out in January. However, once that didn't happen, Plan B immediately swung into action.

And Plan B was: 1) immediately strip Andrew of patronages and his (external) HRH status, in a pre-agreed and choreographed manner; 2) put the mechanism in play for Andrew to pay whatever it took to settle this matter out of court, as soon as possible. The Queen (I believe) has funded almost all of the settlement (which, incidentally, is actually likely to run to multiple tens of millions - everyone's still forgetting both sides' legal costs, and the quanta being mentioned for Giuffre and the charity stuff are very probably too low as well.

Simply put, the Queen and Charles/William wanted to put a stop to all further controversy on this matter as soon as possible, once they knew it was otherwise destined to proceed to trial. That would have been the case in any "ordinary" year. But 2022 is not an ordinary year: it's the Queen's Diamond Jubilee year. The RF see this (probably correctly) as a mechanism for engendering love and respect - not only for the Queen herself, but also for the Monarchy as an institution.

And they simply were not prepared to have - between now and October - the media running parallel stories on 1) the latest instalment of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, and 2) the latest sleazy details on Andrew's court case.

THIS is what the settlement has always been about. Nothing whatsoever to do with Andrew himself - he would have had zero choice in the matter. And it doesn't matter whether or not Andrew and his lawyers expected to win in court (or, indeed, whether or not the Queen and her advisers/lawyers expected Andrew to win in court): the very fact that there was going to be a tawdry sex-based trial of one of the Queen's sons - plus all the build-up to that trial (the depositions, the leaks...) made it inconceivable to HMQ and the RF that the case could continue going forward towards trial, once the motion to dismiss was denied.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Umm I believe many are missing the true driving force behind this (relatively) quick settlement, once the motion to dismiss was denied.

The hidden hand behind all of Andrew's legal difficulties in this case has been the Queen. She (and her advisers, and Charles and William) have an overriding instinct to protect the monarchy at almost any cost - they truly do fear the rise of republicanism (once the Queen dies, of course) if sufficient mud-dragging of the RF takes place.

They were prepared to allow Andrew to try to get the Giuffre case thrown out in January. However, once that didn't happen, Plan B immediately swung into action.

And Plan B was: 1) immediately strip Andrew of patronages and his (external) HRH status, in a pre-agreed and choreographed manner; 2) put the mechanism in play for Andrew to pay whatever it took to settle this matter out of court, as soon as possible. The Queen (I believe) has funded almost all of the settlement (which, incidentally, is actually likely to run to multiple tens of millions - everyone's still forgetting both sides' legal costs, and the quanta being mentioned for Giuffre and the charity stuff are very probably too low as well.

Simply put, the Queen and Charles/William wanted to put a stop to all further controversy on this matter as soon as possible, once they knew it was otherwise destined to proceed to trial. That would have been the case in any "ordinary" year. But 2022 is not an ordinary year: it's the Queen's Diamond Jubilee year. The RF see this (probably correctly) as a mechanism for engendering love and respect - not only for the Queen herself, but also for the Monarchy as an institution.

And they simply were not prepared to have - between now and October - the media running parallel stories on 1) the latest instalment of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, and 2) the latest sleazy details on Andrew's court case.

THIS is what the settlement has always been about. Nothing whatsoever to do with Andrew himself - he would have had zero choice in the matter. And it doesn't matter whether or not Andrew and his lawyers expected to win in court (or, indeed, whether or not the Queen and her advisers/lawyers expected Andrew to win in court): the very fact that there was going to be a tawdry sex-based trial of one of the Queen's sons - plus all the build-up to that trial (the depositions, the leaks...) made it inconceivable to HMQ and the RF that the case could continue going forward towards trial, once the motion to dismiss was denied.

Nope, I disagree with much of this

Firstly, he pretty much ignored the Queen and Prince Philip's advice by marrying Sarah Ferguson. He did his obligatory time in the military and after that, he adopted the rich, privileged, playboy lifestyle for the next 35 years, partying and nightclubbing with his elite pals and plenty of fast women. He essentially did exactly what he pleased, when he pleased. What on earth makes you think he would suddenly take any notice of mummy now?

Secondly, if the Queen was so worried about the reputation of the Royal Family, and Andrew does what mummy says as you suggest, why didn't she tell him to end his friendship with Epstein and Maxwell when Epstein became a convicted sex offender. I mean, that damaged his reputation more than anything else until 2015 when the Virginia Roberts scandal hit

Thirdly, if the damage wasn't already done by 16/11/2019 (the day the BBC Newsnight interview was aired), it certainly was on that date. Why didn't mummy instruct him to settle then?

Lastly, I do not believe for one minute that she would not have allowed the lawsuit to proceed if there was a very good chance of winning, because that would be vindication for Andrew, and by proxy, for the Royal Family itself.

No, I think that while the Queen may ultimately have had an influence on the decision, she would have listened to Andrew's lawyers, who would have advised her that her son would get utterly ripped to shreds in the deposition, and if he still wanted to proceed, she could expect a repeat performance or worse on the witness stand. I think it was no co-incidence that the abrupt volte-face settlement came just days before that deposition.

[The Common Potato]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

A tie is where both teams finish with the same score (very rare).

Thirty-five years on, the people I used to play village cricket with don't let me forget it! The scores were level, numbers 10 and 11 (me) batting. My call, from the bowlers end; I got 3/4 of the way to the striker's end, and was sent back. I was run out but only be a foot or two. An easy single. Meh...

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by The Common Potato

Thirty-five years on, the people I used to play village cricket with don't let me forget it! The scores were level, numbers 10 and 11 (me) batting. My call, from the bowlers end; I got 3/4 of the way to the striker's end, and was sent back. I was run out but only be a foot or two. An easy single. Meh...

Off topic

Its rare....in 145 years of test cricket, over 2000 test matches have been played between 13 teams... about 25% of test matches have been drawn... but only two have been tied... 1960 and 1986

[Captain_Swoop]

Remember that time Meghan Markle dragged down the reputation of the Royal Family by guest editing Vogue?

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

The hidden hand behind all of Andrew's legal difficulties in this case has been the Queen.

That's an interpretation of the photograph I didn't expect to see.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Remember that time Meghan Markle dragged down the reputation of the Royal Family by guest editing Vogue?

And we must also remember that much British meejah coverage wasn't at all racist and was in no way sexist, 'cos we were told so!

[zooterkin]

Meanwhile, on Twitter:

Originally Posted by @GaryLineker

Reports that Palace have spent as much as £12m on Giuffre. I’m not sure it’s enough to avoid going down.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Meanwhile, on Twitter:

Wow, that one needed a second set of eyes.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Meanwhile, on Twitter:

What does "avoid going down" mean in this context?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Samson

What does "avoid going down" mean in this context?

Its a something of a double-entendre. "Going down" is a slang term with sexual connotations, but of course, since Gary Lineker is a former English Premier League and International soccer player (and now a commentator) so he is also using it in the context of relegation from a higher league to a lower league. A team near the bottom of the league table is often said to at risk of "going down" at the end of the season.

You could interpret what is happening to Mr Windsor as "relegation".

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Its a something of a double-entendre. "Going down" is a slang term with sexual connotations, but of course, since Gary Lineker is a former English Premier League and International soccer player (and now a commentator) so he is also using it in the context of relegation from a higher league to a lower league. A team near the bottom of the league table is often said to at risk of "going down" at the end of the season.

You could interpret what is happening to Mr Windsor as "relegation".

Going down does have a sexual connotation but in this case it is another meaning :- Going to prison that Mr Lineker is using for the Double entendre.

So it could be

Crystal palace being relegated
Or
Andrew going to prison