The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #921  
Old 01-21-2015, 05:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 1,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I agree. Because if he did know more, and if the plaintiffs are successful in having the plea bargain set aside and the co-conspirators are fair game again, he could be in real trouble. Still all speculation, of course, but, especially now we know they were in the same place at the same time, I think it's likely he did have sex with her, and I also think it's unlikely that he would be so arrogant and/or stupid as to believe he just got lucky so many times, and if he did know more he'd be foolish to NOT be engaging a darn good lawyer.
I think the same thing as you, that it's likely Andrew did have sex with her. (I didn't think so before, or at least I was less sure.) The real danger in this, IMO, is not that he had sex with her (there's probably no way to prove that he knew she was underage), but that the Palace issued a very specific denial saying that there was no sexual contact between them.

I *think* that Andrew told the Palace the truth and they decided to express the denial this way anyway, believing that no one could ever prove what happened. Not a good idea. This happened in 2001, before cell phone cameras, but still, you never know...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #922  
Old 01-21-2015, 05:56 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay286 View Post
I think the same thing as you, that it's likely Andrew did have sex with her. (I didn't think so before, or at least I was less sure.) The real danger in this, IMO, is not that he had sex with her (there's probably no way to prove that he knew she was underage), but that the Palace issued a very specific denial saying that there was no sexual contact between them.

I *think* that Andrew told the Palace the truth and they decided to express the denial this way anyway, believing that no one could ever prove what happened. Not a good idea. This happened in 2001, before cell phone cameras, but still, you never know...
Oh, I forgot about that part. In that case I am more inclined to think he might have just gotten massages. Either that or he lied to BP. As stupid as their PR department is I doubt their council is that stupid to put out a knowingly false statement on an issue like this
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #923  
Old 01-21-2015, 05:56 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
Prince Andrew 'will open Davos speech by addressing sex abuse allegations' - Telegraph
Quote:
The Duke of York is expected to begin a keynote speech at the World Economic Forum on Thursday by publicly denying allegations he sexually abused a teenager as American lawyers demand he is interviewed under oath.

The Duke is hosting an event for entrepreneurs at the conference in Davos, Switzerland, and is understood to have decided that the ongoing controversy will be an “elephant in the room” if he does not tackle it head-on.

Although he will not make a final decision about his speech until late in the day, Buckingham Palace has invited a TV cameraman, a photographer and a reporter to record what would be his first public comments about the saga since it began at the start of the month.

His appearance comes as Virginia Roberts, who claims the Duke had sex with her when she was 17, filed documents with a Florida court calling for him to be interviewed under oath about their “interactions” in 2001. A letter has been sent to Buckingham Palace making the formal request.
Carolyn Durand ‏@CarolynDurand 25 mins25 minutes ago
Virginia Roberts lawyer sent letter asking Prince Andrew respond under oath to her sex claims. Her lawyers say BP refused letter from FedEx
Reply With Quote
  #924  
Old 01-21-2015, 06:08 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
This is excruciating... Feels like we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop....
Reply With Quote
  #925  
Old 01-21-2015, 06:32 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,121
Nobody has confirmed he will actually speak about this in Davos. They claim it in the headline and backtrack in the article!


Unless Andrew is the defendant in a case where Virginia Roberts accuses him directly, there is no way he's going to say anything under oath in an interview. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #926  
Old 01-21-2015, 06:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
Swear on oath you're innocent, lawyers for 'sex slave' tell Prince: Andrew under growing pressure to testify after rejecting letter asking for his 'voluntary co-operation' | Daily Mail Online
Quote:
Prince Andrew was under growing pressure last night to testify on oath about his contacts with alleged underage ‘sex slave’ Virginia Roberts.

She lodged fresh documents at a Florida court saying her lawyers had served an extraordinary letter on the Duke last week requesting he answer questions – but he ‘refused’ to accept it.

Miss Roberts also issued a stinging attack on ‘false and hurtful’ denials of her claims made by Andrew in the tumultuous past three weeks.

She also claimed his police bodyguards left her alone with the Prince the first time he abused her. Buckingham Palace has strenuously rejected claims the Duke had any ‘sexual contact or relationship’ with Miss Roberts.

Last week, Miss Roberts’ lawyers sent by FedEx couriers an unprecedented letter addressed to ‘His Royal Highness The Duke of York’ at Buckingham Palace requesting his ‘voluntary cooperation in answering question about his sexual interactions’ with her.

The letter offered to interview the prince under oath ‘at a time and place of your choosing’. But her lawyers stated: ‘Federal Express has informed us that the letter has been refused by the recipient.’

The latest documents filed at Palm Beach court house in Florida make plain Miss Roberts’s determination to pursue the Prince – who she said ‘I just called “Andy”.’
Reply With Quote
  #927  
Old 01-21-2015, 06:56 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,531
The most interesting part of that letter from counsel is that they plan on new court filings with some more details.

Andrew is in some serious trouble. It is naive to think he is not. Even if he is immune from suit, the damage to his reputation is all but sealed now, and his refusal to speak up voluntarily will cause a lot of people to believe it is Ms.Roberts who is telling the truth.

Not good, not good at all.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #928  
Old 01-21-2015, 06:57 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay286 View Post
I think the same thing as you, that it's likely Andrew did have sex with her. (I didn't think so before, or at least I was less sure.) The real danger in this, IMO, is not that he had sex with her (there's probably no way to prove that he knew she was underage), but that the Palace issued a very specific denial saying that there was no sexual contact between them.

I *think* that Andrew told the Palace the truth and they decided to express the denial this way anyway, believing that no one could ever prove what happened. Not a good idea. This happened in 2001, before cell phone cameras, but still, you never know...
But is it bad that they may have had sex? I mean, being 17 today is different than being 17 back in the day.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #929  
Old 01-21-2015, 06:59 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
But is it bad that they may have had sex? I mean, being 17 today is different than being 17 back in the day.
That is a personal moral debate, and I get your point. But in this case it is bad beyond peoples morals. BP denied any sexual contact. THAT is what will be the worst if it comes out they did....
Reply With Quote
  #930  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:01 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
But is it bad that they may have had sex? I mean, being 17 today is different than being 17 back in the day.
Even if it was legal, it's positively predatory for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl, unless they have some feelings for each other, and even then it's questionable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "back in the day", but keep in mind this was in 2001.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #931  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:02 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,121
The refused letter;

@RE_DailyMail: The Fed-Exed letter that Buckingham Palace refused to accept #PrinceAndrew #JeffreyEpstein http://t.co/NIfrAD74jM
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #932  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:16 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernameispekka View Post
But the "real" problem now is the extent of his knowledge. Did he just think he got lucky with a young woman or did he know more?

I really believe he thought he got lucky!
Andrew has always had a sense of entitlement; it wouldn't surprise me if he sincerely believed women were queuing up to sleep with him because he's royalty.
Reply With Quote
  #933  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:18 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Even if it was legal, it's positively predatory for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl, unless they have some feelings for each other, and even then it's questionable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "back in the day", but keep in mind this was in 2001.
For me it's not the mere fact (if it is a fact, and IMO it probably is) of him, at 40, having sex with a 17 year old girl that is a problem, it is the sleazy circumstances in which it seems to have happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I really believe he thought he got lucky!
Andrew has always had a sense of entitlement; it wouldn't surprise me if he sincerely believed women were queuing up to sleep with him because he's royalty.
In which case he really is stupid. Or was stupid. I wonder if he still thinks the same way?
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #934  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:22 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 1,300
She is really playing hardball isn't she? Somehow I have to wonder if this is really all about her "just getting the word out". That may be it, but I still think there are big $ signs in her eyes. If this continues on and it is "proven" that Andrew did have sex with her, (though I will always think it is a she said/he said situation) I'm guessing she is looking at book proposals, interviews, TV and films. In no way do I think this is just some innocent little miss who wants people to know how badly she and others were mistreated by Epstein. She is looking at the big picture .... future financial gains for herself. JMO!!!
Reply With Quote
  #935  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:31 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
The refused letter;

@RE_DailyMail: The Fed-Exed letter that Buckingham Palace refused to accept #PrinceAndrew #JeffreyEpstein http://t.co/NIfrAD74jM
I love the little threat in the last paragraph!

The plot thickens.

This letter would certainly explain why Andrew would engage a prominent QC. It's the sort of letter that one would only respond to through one's own lawyers.

I find it interesting that the letter does not say that they want to take a sworn statement from him with a view to him being a witness in proposed proceedings against another person; it is couched in terms which suggest to me that they are gunning for him. But what proceedings are they contemplating? What has he done wrong that could result in civil proceedings against him? I thought that he could only be in the firing line for the Federal charges relating to sex trafficking. Over here any criminal proceedings would be instituted by the Crown prosecutor, not a private individual, so it would be the Crown (giggles, inappropriately) that would be seeking him out to take a statement. What is the procedure in the USA?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess of Durham View Post
She is really playing hardball isn't she? Somehow I have to wonder if this is really all about her "just getting the word out". That may be it, but I still think there are big $ signs in her eyes. If this continues on and it is "proven" that Andrew did have sex with her, (though I will always think it is a she said/he said situation) I'm guessing she is looking at book proposals, interviews, TV and films. In no way do I think this is just some innocent little miss who wants people to know how badly she and others were mistreated by Epstein. She is looking at the big picture .... future financial gains for herself. JMO!!!
It seems that if the women are successful in proving their rights in the current case against the US Attroney under the Crime Victims legislation, they would be entitled to "restitution", and I think "restitution" might include money. I don't know how much though.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #936  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:41 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
The most interesting part of that letter from counsel is that they plan on new court filings with some more details.

Andrew is in some serious trouble. It is naive to think he is not. Even if he is immune from suit, the damage to his reputation is all but sealed now, and his refusal to speak up voluntarily will cause a lot of people to believe it is Ms.Roberts who is telling the truth.

Not good, not good at all.
To be honest I can't see how he could get away with claiming immunity as he wasn't meeting Epstein as a representative of the British Government but as a private individual. It would be hard for anyone to argue he should get immunity for what he does as a private individual.
Remember (and I know the circumstances are massively different and don't involve another country) that Princess Anne didn't get immunity when she was taken to court over her dog attacking someone.
Reply With Quote
  #937  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:44 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,380
IMO she is not a "sex slave" (source: British tabloid media) as she received payment for sex (her admission according to UK media).

Her father has retracted statement re "meeting the Queen".

She is promoting her book.

AS I understand it, she was not part of the original case against Epstein but has been asked to be included in the case against the defendant's lawyers (in the case against Epstein) to pleaded too lenient a sentence. Happy to have this challenged if my understanding is wrong.

She has come out of left field and I ask why wasn't she there re the original charge to start with?

It's a mess but even though it is a mess - Andrew has not been charge, has denied allegations and therefore is innocent till PROVEN guilty.

EDIT: Clarity: Andrew is not claiming immunity (he couldn't anyway) - he is saying the allegations are wrong. She is already writing her book!
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #938  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:46 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I love the little threat in the last paragraph!

The plot thickens.

This letter would certainly explain why Andrew would engage a prominent QC. It's the sort of letter that one would only respond to through one's own lawyers.

I find it interesting that the letter does not say that they want to take a sworn statement from him with a view to him being a witness in proposed proceedings against another person; it is couched in terms which suggest to me that they are gunning for him. But what proceedings are they contemplating? What has he done wrong that could result in civil proceedings against him? I thought that he could only be in the firing line for the Federal charges relating to sex trafficking. Over here any criminal proceedings would be instituted by the Crown prosecutor, not a private individual, so it would be the Crown (giggles, inappropriately) that would be seeking him out to take a statement. What is the procedure in the USA?
Only a prosecutor could bring criminal charges - but if the evidence is clear and they decline, it puts them in a bad light, particularly if we are talking about the sex trafficking of underage girls by Masters of the Universe.

Civil suit - I'm not sure if she can bring a civil suit based on any convictions, if any other civil causes of action are not time-barred, or if the court could even obtain jurisdiction over Andrew.

You're right, the letter is meant to box him into a corner in the he said-she said fight. He can't very well go under oath when it's unclear he might face criminal charges in the future - no lawyer will let him do that. It makes him look extremely bad in the public eye even though there's no way he can do it now, and it makes him look even worse now that the flight logs have been made public.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #939  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:48 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
I'm not defending Andrews behavior, but this thread is starting to look like the comments section in the mail.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #940  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
It seems that if the women are successful in proving their rights in the current case against the US Attroney under the Crime Victims legislation, they would be entitled to "restitution", and I think "restitution" might include money. I don't know how much though.
Ah, there you have it! I think it is more that "might" include money. I think these women are out for big bucks to last them a life time. Let's be honest putting Epstein or god forbid Andrew behind bars will really do nothing for them. It's the $$$$$$$$$ that are the point here, I think.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 beatrice borromeo best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit 2016 catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events dom duarte duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll felipe vi grand duchess josephine-charlotte grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess charlene fashion princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:06 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises