IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th January 2022, 08:08 AM   #1
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,289
Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

Mod Info Split from here. Please keep this thread focused on the civil case of Giuffre v Duke of York; there are other threads for matters such as Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, the institution of royalty and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Posted By:Agatha



Judge Lewis Kaplan has at last issued his decision, and the case goes ahead.

Quote:
In explaining why he rejected Andrew’s motion to dismiss, Manhattan federal court judge Lewis Kaplan said it was premature to consider the prince’s efforts to cast doubt on Giuffre’s accusations.

He pointed out that this push for dismissal largely relied on the royal’s claims that Giuffre’s complaint was legally insufficient, which, in turn, were rooted in Andrew’s discussion of the 2009 agreement.

Kaplain said: “The law prohibits the court from considering, at this stage of the proceedings, the defendant’s efforts to cast doubt on the truth of Ms Giuffre’s allegations, even though his efforts would be permissible at trial.”

He continued: “In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant.

“The court’s job at this juncture is simply to determine whether there are two or more reasonable interpretations of that document. If there are, the determination of the ‘right’ or controlling interpretation must await further proceedings.”
GUARDIAN

I am getting the popcorn in.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

Last edited by Agatha; 14th January 2022 at 03:33 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2022, 09:04 AM   #2
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,289
The Kaplan verdict document in full (46 pages) can be read here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ismissordericp

Prince Andrew using Ghislaine Maxwell as a human shield against Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, and then Epstein's deal itself with Virginia Giuffre, illustrates how badly impaired his judgment is. He really thought if he ignored it, it would go away. Maybe in the UK it would have and that is where he underestimated the US lawyers.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2022, 09:28 AM   #3
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,543
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I think the mystery is solved.

Although the Guardian story claims the photograph was sent by text, which I consider near impossible for the time, the Daily Mail, which got the interview says Giuffre showed Andriano the infamous photograph when she was back in Florida and the only thing sent by text was her saying she was in London at the time meeting Prince Andrew.

Anyway, sorry about that. It raised red flags for me, but it turns out it was a red herring after all. I blame the Grauniad but I really should have tracked down the initial report from the apparently more sensible, on this occasion, Daily Mail (which for once did not Fail).
Coming back to Andriano, isn't the important part of her story that she can testify to an early statement that Giuffre had sex with Andrew well before any litigation was in motion?
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2022, 11:43 AM   #4
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,319
Wrt Windsor, he finally settled his debts to Isabelle de Rouvre also, after eight years. I suspect the "chalet" will be sold soon. His behaviour in that, purely commercial, matter was disgraceful.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 10:51 AM   #5
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,543
Given the current news about Prince Andrew (stripped of titles) I'd guess this trial isn't going forward, it will get settled. Might be time to debate whether the settlement will include an admission/apology of some kind.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 10:54 AM   #6
SuburbanTurkey
Penultimate Amazing
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 12,944
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Given the current news about Prince Andrew (stripped of titles) I'd guess this trial isn't going forward, it will get settled. Might be time to debate whether the settlement will include an admission/apology of some kind.
Almost certainly won't. Minimizing reputational harm is one of the main reasons settlements occur.

A public announcement of a settlement would be pretty damning, but admitting wrongdoing explicitly would be far worse.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 10:57 AM   #7
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,659
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Wrt Windsor, he finally settled his debts to Isabelle de Rouvre also, after eight years. I suspect the "chalet" will be sold soon. His behaviour in that, purely commercial, matter was disgraceful.
By every measure he is "disgraceful".
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 11:11 AM   #8
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,543
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Minimizing reputational harm is one of the main reasons settlements occur.
Looks to be too late for that. To me, this seems like his last opportunity at a meager "get ahead of this" solution.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 12:28 PM   #9
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,733
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Almost certainly won't. Minimizing reputational harm is one of the main reasons settlements occur.

A public announcement of a settlement would be pretty damning, but admitting wrongdoing explicitly would be far worse.
Multiple commentators have said Giuffre won't accept a settlement. After being accused of lying, she wants her day in court and a verdict in her favor. I suspect if there was to be a settlement, it would have to include a public admission of guilt, which Andrew wouldn't be likely to accept.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 12:49 PM   #10
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,733
Mom is not amused.
Quote:
LONDON — Buckingham Palace announced Thursday that “with the Queen’s approval and agreement,” all of Prince Andrew’s military affiliations and remaining royal patronages have been returned — a devastating blow for Elizabeth II’s second son, who is facing a U.S. civil lawsuit that accuses him of having sex with a teenager trafficked by disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Andrew, who denies the lawsuit allegations, has been mostly out of the public eye for the past year, and many organizations distanced themselves from him after he defended his relationship with Epstein in a disastrous 2019 BBC interview. But he had retained his honorary military titles with multiple British regiments. And the Buckingham Palace website had listed dozens and dozens of schools, hospitals and clubs with which he was still associated — including the Army Officers’ Golfing Society, the Fly Navy Heritage Trust, the Foundation for Liver Research and the elite Westminster Academy.

Thursday’s decision means the former Navy pilot and divorced father of two adult daughters is now facing his accuser alone, without the backing of the palace and without the shield of honors his lifelong protector — his mother and his queen — had bestowed upon him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ry-patronages/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 12:50 PM   #11
SuburbanTurkey
Penultimate Amazing
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 12,944
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What a thoroughly embarrassing institution.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 01:04 PM   #12
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,740
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Everybody's gangsta till it's bad for the gang's rep. Looks like Mum is giving him the old modified limited hangout.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.

Last edited by theprestige; 13th January 2022 at 01:05 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 01:14 PM   #13
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 23,595
Still a Duke.

I mean, in some ways he encapsulates the values of the modern monarchy, so it's not too surprising.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 01:46 PM   #14
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,740
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Still a Duke.
I know there have been a few instances of members of the royal family formally giving up their hereditary royal title and privileges. Now I'm wondering how often in English/British/UKian history a royal has been stripped of that hereditary rank, regardless of the perfidy of their crimes. Is there any provision in law or custom to chop a rightful heir out of the line of succession that way? Other than the literal "chopping them out" of the running, I mean.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.

Last edited by theprestige; 13th January 2022 at 01:47 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 03:52 PM   #15
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,779
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Multiple commentators have said Giuffre won't accept a settlement. After being accused of lying, she wants her day in court and a verdict in her favor. I suspect if there was to be a settlement, it would have to include a public admission of guilt, which Andrew wouldn't be likely to accept.
How much cash does he have? Giuffre wins without an admission of guilt.
More cash might work wonders.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 03:59 PM   #16
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 50,706
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
How much cash does he have? Giuffre wins without an admission of guilt.
More cash might work wonders.
Not a lot. Mummy has been paying a lot of his bills, and I think that's going to stop now. He's selling a chalet in Switzerland in order to get some readies, and he had to be sued to make the final payments on that property. I don't know if he'd have paid yet if he hadn't needed to sell it.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2022, 04:22 PM   #17
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 50,706
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I know there have been a few instances of members of the royal family formally giving up their hereditary royal title and privileges. Now I'm wondering how often in English/British/UKian history a royal has been stripped of that hereditary rank, regardless of the perfidy of their crimes. Is there any provision in law or custom to chop a rightful heir out of the line of succession that way? Other than the literal "chopping them out" of the running, I mean.
I don't know that anyone has been removed from the line of succession punitively. It hasn't happened to Andy yet, either. He's lost his HRH, but he's still a Prince, and a Duke.


Quote:
He will retain his military rank of Vice Admiral and remains in the line of succession to the throne.

And then it was reported, via a royal source quoted by the Press Association, that Andrew will no longer use the style “His Royal Highness” in any official capacity

“Losing the HRH style would be the most emotionally damaging because he was born a royal highness,” the source said.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2022, 01:08 PM   #18
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,319
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Not a lot. Mummy has been paying a lot of his bills, and I think that's going to stop now. He's selling a chalet in Switzerland in order to get some readies, and he had to be sued to make the final payments on that property. I don't know if he'd have paid yet if he hadn't needed to sell it.
He was facing legal action over the chalet, the case was due to go into court.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2022, 01:11 PM   #19
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,319
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
I don't know that anyone has been removed from the line of succession punitively. It hasn't happened to Andy yet, either. He's lost his HRH, but he's still a Prince, and a Duke.
Modifying the line of succession requires an act of parliament.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2022, 03:44 PM   #20
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,733
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Modifying the line of succession requires an act of parliament.
Prince Andrew is pretty far down the list. Why would they bother?
https://www.royal.uk/succession
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2022, 08:41 PM   #21
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,131
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Still a Duke.
I have a funny feeling revoking that title would be a matter of parliament.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 12:07 AM   #22
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 14,796
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Prince Andrew is pretty far down the list. Why would they bother?
https://www.royal.uk/succession
I doubt it would be the first purely symbolic act pushed through the legislation in a Western democracy.
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 12:12 AM   #23
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,374
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Multiple commentators have said Giuffre won't accept a settlement. After being accused of lying, she wants her day in court and a verdict in her favor. I suspect if there was to be a settlement, it would have to include a public admission of guilt, which Andrew wouldn't be likely to accept.
However, almost certainly this case is being funded by the lawyers / investors on a no win no fee basis on the expectation of a significant (>30%) return* from the settlement. They will not prioritise their clients reputation above a financial settlement.

I think at this point they will be getting nervous. I think their expectation was that they had found a target with deep pockets, and that even if Andrew Windsor did not have much cash himself, his mother would settle to prevent reputational harm. Instead what seems to be happening is that the family are distancing themselves, and the reputational harm has been done. It is apparent that Windsor though a prince and royal duke actually has little wealth himself, and enforcing any debt against him will be difficult and costly. If his mother is prepared to continue to finance the defence, the costs for the plaintiff will escalate as it comes to trial and the likelihood of a sufficiently large settlement to cover the costs falls. I don't think the family will pay out the sort of reward a US court would give, on his behalf. Windsor would likely go bankrupt and the settlement may be pennies on the pound. He may lose his house (and we have no idea if there are mortgages on this), but he will not be homeless. His children are all safely married off. I think that a decision has been made that if there is a settlement here then it will be open season on suing royals; better to sacrifice Andrew than face a continuing future of court cases. The case will be defended to escalate costs for the plaintiff as a deterrent, and Andrew will be left with insufficient funds to pay the settlement if he loses. A warning of the consequences for anyone else who invests in suing the royal family.

I think that a deal will cover costs (and no profit), with no blame and an agreement Windsor will not sue Giuffre in London for libel.

*https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...llion-industry
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 12:31 AM   #24
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,517
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Is that not a tacit admission that mom thinks he's guilty of something? They wouldn't take a step like this if they truly believed he was unjustly accused.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 02:10 AM   #25
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,779
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
However, almost certainly this case is being funded by the lawyers / investors on a no win no fee basis on the expectation of a significant (>30%) return* from the settlement. They will not prioritise their clients reputation above a financial settlement.

I think at this point they will be getting nervous. I think their expectation was that they had found a target with deep pockets, and that even if Andrew Windsor did not have much cash himself, his mother would settle to prevent reputational harm. Instead what seems to be happening is that the family are distancing themselves, and the reputational harm has been done. It is apparent that Windsor though a prince and royal duke actually has little wealth himself, and enforcing any debt against him will be difficult and costly. If his mother is prepared to continue to finance the defence, the costs for the plaintiff will escalate as it comes to trial and the likelihood of a sufficiently large settlement to cover the costs falls. I don't think the family will pay out the sort of reward a US court would give, on his behalf. Windsor would likely go bankrupt and the settlement may be pennies on the pound. He may lose his house (and we have no idea if there are mortgages on this), but he will not be homeless. His children are all safely married off. I think that a decision has been made that if there is a settlement here then it will be open season on suing royals; better to sacrifice Andrew than face a continuing future of court cases. The case will be defended to escalate costs for the plaintiff as a deterrent, and Andrew will be left with insufficient funds to pay the settlement if he loses. A warning of the consequences for anyone else who invests in suing the royal family.

I think that a deal will cover costs (and no profit), with no blame and an agreement Windsor will not sue Giuffre in London for libel.

*https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...llion-industry
Nice analysis.
I agree with you, the mature married woman is a rather ordinary gold digger. (If I recall you correctly).
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 03:32 AM   #26
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,659
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
I don't know that anyone has been removed from the line of succession punitively. It hasn't happened to Andy yet, either. He's lost his HRH, but he's still a Prince, and a Duke.
Not within the family. And we know from how they wanted to punish Diana that means a hell of a lot to this dysfunctional and abusive family.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 06:18 AM   #27
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,552
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
...Snipped. For Brevity
Minor point, but I think his home is a publicly owned Grace & Favour from Mummy.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 06:22 AM   #28
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,659
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Minor point, but I think his home is a publicly owned Grace & Favour from Mummy.
Lives on the Windsor estate.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 06:26 AM   #29
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,141
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Is that not a tacit admission that mom thinks he's guilty of something? They wouldn't take a step like this if they truly believed he was unjustly accused.
I would say not necessarily.

It’s at least conceivable they could have doubts about the exact charges against him, but still want to distance themselves from the whole sordid mess of his relationships with Epstein and Maxwell and underage girls in general.
Fast Eddie B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 06:54 AM   #30
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,141
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Is that not a tacit admission that mom thinks he's guilty of something? They wouldn't take a step like this if they truly believed he was unjustly accused.
I would say not necessarily.

It’s at least conceivable they could question the exact charges against him, but still want to distance themselves from the whole sordid mess of his relationships with Epstein and Maxwell and underage girls.
Fast Eddie B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 06:54 AM   #31
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,374
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Minor point, but I think his home is a publicly owned Grace & Favour from Mummy.
Happy to be corrected.

Makes his financial resources even less, in the event of a loss this may be a Pyrrhic victory for Giuffre and backers.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 11:19 AM   #32
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,733
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
However, almost certainly this case is being funded by the lawyers / investors on a no win no fee basis on the expectation of a significant (>30%) return* from the settlement. They will not prioritise their clients reputation above a financial settlement.
....
Your link doesn't mention Giuffre. Chances are her lawyers have determined that Andy has sufficient assets to pay a substantial judgment, or are betting that Mum won't endure the embarrassment to the family of additional legal action to collect a debt. It's also possible that her lawyers are less motivated by money than by the prospect of taking down a predator -- which, practically speaking, boosts their public image and might bring them other, more remunerative cases. They might also just believe in her and want to see her vindicated. It's not like David Boies needs the work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boies

Last edited by Bob001; 15th January 2022 at 11:24 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 11:22 AM   #33
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,733
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Nice analysis.
I agree with you, the mature married woman is a rather ordinary gold digger. (If I recall you correctly).
If that was her only motive, she would have settled quietly long ago. This guy has been calling her a liar for years; it looks to me like she wants her day in court and a judgment that she's telling the truth.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 11:55 AM   #34
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 14,796
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
However, almost certainly this case is being funded by the lawyers / investors on a no win no fee basis on the expectation of a significant (>30%) return* from the settlement.
And your source for this almost certain information is...
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 12:19 PM   #35
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 23,595
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
If that was her only motive, she would have settled quietly long ago. This guy has been calling her a liar for years; it looks to me like she wants her day in court and a judgment that she's telling the truth.
Exactly - vengeance and closure are possible motivations
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 12:34 PM   #36
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,733
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not within the family. And we know from how they wanted to punish Diana that means a hell of a lot to this dysfunctional and abusive family.
What does this mean? The BBC says he's lost the title. Are you saying that at family dinners, Mum will still be saying, "Your Royal Highness, please pass the peas?" Where else would he be HRH if not in public?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59987935
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 12:58 PM   #37
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,552
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Happy to be corrected.

Makes his financial resources even less, in the event of a loss this may be a Pyrrhic victory for Giuffre and backers.
His lifestyle would certainly suggest he is considerably more wealthy than his Royal Navy pension would account for. He gets 1/4mil pa tax free from the Queen, that we know of, has been involved with some iffy companies & of course we don't know how much from cash for access before he was busted.* His net worth is estimated between 10 & 32 million pounds.



* "...And What Do You Do?" - Norman Baker
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 01:44 PM   #38
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,733
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
His lifestyle would certainly suggest he is considerably more wealthy than his Royal Navy pension would account for. He gets 1/4mil pa tax free from the Queen, that we know of, has been involved with some iffy companies & of course we don't know how much from cash for access before he was busted.* His net worth is estimated between 10 & 32 million pounds.
.....

That's a pretty broad range. It sounds like nobody is really sure. But what does appear in all the reports is that he shares a house with his ex-wife Sarah, though they were divorced in 1996. I wonder what that's like.
Quote:
Despite their split over 30 years and the fact that their daughters are now both in their 30s, Sarah and Andrew continue to live together at Royal Lodge in Windsor when she is in the UK.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...fe-ex-25934013
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 02:11 PM   #39
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,659
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What does this mean? The BBC says he's lost the title. Are you saying that at family dinners, Mum will still be saying, "Your Royal Highness, please pass the peas?" Where else would he be HRH if not in public?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59987935
No the report says he will no-longer use his title officially, but he is still a HRH.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2022, 02:12 PM   #40
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,374
Originally Posted by timhau View Post
And your source for this almost certain information is...
If the lawyers are funding it, they will be doing so on a no win no fee basis. I don't think Giuffre has the resources to fund a transnational court case herself. Perhaps there are well wishers or donors who fund it and expect no return, but it seems unlikely, since if she wins she would be awarded costs. The usual return lawyers look for on a no win no fee basis is about 30% of damages.

The reference is to the fact that financing potentially lucrative court cases is now an investment option, and I think there will be concern from the Royal family that they are not seen as an easy target.

The talk about Giuffre wanting 'more than money' strikes me a negotiating ploy.

Giuffre had a long time to bring the court case, she is not a victim who has only recently come to the realisation she was abused or can bring a claim. She has brought cases against several people over many years. It is slightly odd that she only does so against Windsor now. Perhaps as has been said it was just a plubicity stunt by a New York lawyer looking for a famous (and rich) person to sue and a suitable plaintiff and they got in at the last moment as the extension on the usual time bar for litigation was just about to run out.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.