The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1561  
Old 04-07-2015, 06:38 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
So if I'm reading this right, the judge didn't actually state whether her claims were true or false, he just said that the details weren't needed when deciding to reopen this case against Epstein.

So does this mean that she can still testify if the case is reopened?

Yes I think it does I wouldn't be celebrating just yet if I was Andrew
This still has a way to go


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1562  
Old 04-07-2015, 06:38 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
So if I'm reading this right, the judge didn't actually state whether her claims were true or false, he just said that the details weren't needed when deciding to reopen this case against Epstein.

So does this mean that she can still testify if the case is reopened?
No - she and the other person (Jane Doe 4) are not allowed to join this case and therefore all their testimony is wiped from the record.

Same applies to Alan Dershowitz

Neither Prince Andrew or Dershowitz have been charged with anything.

But she'll do ok cos the Daily Mail will pay to serialise her book

EDIT: THis case is against the plea bargain agreed between prosecution and Epstein. Jane Doe 3 and 4 were not part of that case and they were attempting to join it. Today they were told that they couldn't so they cannot testify.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1563  
Old 04-07-2015, 06:40 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
No - she and the other person (Jane Doe 4) are not allowed to join this case and therefore all their testimony is wiped from the record.



Same applies to Alan Dershowitz



Neither Prince Andrew or Dershowitz have been charged with anything.



But she'll do ok cos the Daily Mail will pay to serialise her book

But didn't it say she could still be called as a witness


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1564  
Old 04-07-2015, 06:45 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
But didn't it say she could still be called as a witness


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
That is only in regard to the existing case which is against the Prosecution Team which agreed Epstein's plea bargain. There is no case against Andrew or Alan Dershowitz to answer.

She would be called as a witness against Epstein.

Can I add that is my understanding of the reports I've read today with the key statement that the Judge has ordered all of the accusations against the 2 men to be wiped from the record.

But as the Lady said, as he walked away "Tomorrow is another day"
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1565  
Old 04-07-2015, 06:53 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,195
Too late to remove the allegations as they are now in the public domain and on the internet and that means that they will come up as soon as anyone googles the names.


Mightn't be part of the court record anymore but it still going to follow Andrew.


This case is about suing the prosecutors for making a deal with Epstein.


Somewhere I read that Virginia Roberts actually knew about the deal - if so she has no claim to join the case.


What this doesn't end is the possibility of legal action against Roberts herself.


She knows she can't sue Andrew personally because where she alleges that she slept with him it was legal due to her age. She wouldn't win.


Morally is a different matter.


Mud sticks and Andrew will be forever tainted by these allegations.
Reply With Quote
  #1566  
Old 04-07-2015, 06:58 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Too late to remove the allegations as they are now in the public domain and on the internet and that means that they will come up as soon as anyone googles the names.


Mightn't be part of the court record anymore but it still going to follow Andrew.


This case is about suing the prosecutors for making a deal with Epstein.


Somewhere I read that Virginia Roberts actually knew about the deal - if so she has no claim to join the case.


What this doesn't end is the possibility of legal action against Roberts herself.


She knows she can't sue Andrew personally because where she alleges that she slept with him it was legal due to her age. She wouldn't win.


Morally is a different matter.


Mud sticks and Andrew will be forever tainted by these allegations.

Only by those who prefer it that way and who do believe in guilty before proved innocent.

What you have written is a terrible indictment on the world as you see it.

I am happy to continue to believe innocent until proven guilty.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1567  
Old 04-07-2015, 07:00 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
No - she and the other person (Jane Doe 4) are not allowed to join this case and therefore all their testimony is wiped from the record.

Same applies to Alan Dershowitz

Neither Prince Andrew or Dershowitz have been charged with anything.

But she'll do ok cos the Daily Mail will pay to serialise her book

EDIT: THis case is against the plea bargain agreed between prosecution and Epstein. Jane Doe 3 and 4 were not part of that case and they were attempting to join it. Today they were told that they couldn't so they cannot testify.
No I get that her testimony is wiped from the record for this case, but if they are successful with getting the plea agreement overturned, would she be able to testify in that case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
Yes I think it does I wouldn't be celebrating just yet if I was Andrew
This still has a way to go


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Yeah, I'm wondering what happens if the case against Epstein is reopened.
Reply With Quote
  #1568  
Old 04-07-2015, 07:10 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,402


Epstein was found guilty so the case does not have to be re-opened. It is the sentence he got that is in question and the role of the prosecution in agreeing that deal.

I think this feels like a compensation deal for those bringing the case, rather than giving Epstein more time in jail. But that is only gleaned from what I have read.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1569  
Old 04-07-2015, 07:23 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,299
Thanks for clearing that up. For some reason I thought the case would be re-opened.

I think it's a victory for Andrew in the sense that this gets struck from the court record, but unfortunately it's still out there. Plus if they do get the agreement thrown out, these accusations may very well come up again if she's called as a witness against Epstein.
Reply With Quote
  #1570  
Old 04-07-2015, 07:34 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,402
what put this in perspective for me is that I have no info at all about Jane Doe 4. She hasn't said a word as far as UK is concerned.

Jane Doe 3 - names, parents involved, spoke at length to the media, book coming out etc etc etc.

That makes me a tad skeptical
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1571  
Old 04-07-2015, 07:55 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,452
Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter 4h 4 hours ago
Prince Andrew is by no means 'in the clear' despite a US judge ordering lurid underage sex allegations to be struck from the record today.

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter 4h 4 hours ago
The judge who decided Virginia Roberts could not join a case challenging a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein still says she could give evidence.

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter 4h 4 hours ago
Striking the allegations from the court record will not stop them being reported every time Andrew's name is mentioned.

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter 4h 4 hours ago
Prince Andrew, like most of the Royal Family, is not working this week but I gather he's been informed of developments.
__________________
"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
  #1572  
Old 04-07-2015, 08:52 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
The judge must have concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to include Prince Andrew in the record. And no, I don't think that the Prince has enough sway in the US to have orchestrated some kind of cover-up. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Was all possible evidence presented? What happened to all the evidence Epstein held back from the courts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Prince Andrew wasn't on trial. As for the 'hidden evidence', I don't think there's real proof--such as the videos and photographs--that it actually exists. There are rumors. Rumors aren't proof, and I'm not one who believes that 'where there's smoke, there's fire.'
Wow, the Judge rules and you question the professional ethics of that judge because Virgina Roberts said it was so! When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Too late to remove the allegations as they are now in the public domain and on the internet and that means that they will come up as soon as anyone googles the names.

She knows she can't sue Andrew personally because where she alleges that she slept with him it was legal due to her age. She wouldn't win.

Morally is a different matter.

Mud sticks and Andrew will be forever tainted by these allegations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Only by those who prefer it that way and who do believe in guilty before proved innocent.

What you have written is a terrible indictment on the world as you see it.

I am happy to continue to believe innocent until proven guilty.
As am I. This whole "Trial by Media" has been nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
what put this in perspective for me is that I have no info at all about Jane Doe 4. She hasn't said a word as far as UK is concerned.

Jane Doe 3 - names, parents involved, spoke at length to the media, book coming out etc etc etc.

That makes me a tad skeptical
Indeed! If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think her "Talk Show" circuit could be somewhat curtailed and am wondering about her memoirs . . . there is both slander and libel to consider having roused the sleeping tigers . . .
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1573  
Old 04-08-2015, 12:36 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,006
I think that Ms. Roberts should fade into the background and forget about writing her memoirs, for her own sake if not for the sake of those she'll write about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
I think her "Talk Show" circuit could be somewhat curtailed and am wondering about her memoirs . . . there is both slander and libel to consider having roused the sleeping tigers . . .
Reply With Quote
  #1574  
Old 04-08-2015, 01:00 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,195
If I understand the proceedings correctly Roberts wanted to be added to a civil action being brought by two others of the deal Epstein made with the prosecutors.


There were a number of reasons why she was initially excluded I believe (can't find the reference now but remember reading something along the following lines): she had accepted money AND knew about the deal. If that is the case she was never going to be added to this case.


That doesn't mean that she is lying - or that she is telling the truth either - just that she didn't meet the requirements to be added to this civil case.


She could still take civil action herself, if she wants to do so ... but she will have to prove it and open herself up to a lot of cross-examination.


If she does publish a book she will also have to be able to prove her allegations - as again she could very easily find herself being sued for damages.


Regardless of why the judge made the decision or the decision itself - the allegation is out there and mud sticks so many people will continue to believe that Andrew is guilty, even though he was never charged with a crime and has never been given the chance to defend himself in a court of law.
Reply With Quote
  #1575  
Old 04-08-2015, 12:10 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,447
To the extent that some people thought Roberts bringing the motion to add Andrew to the action was a sign of his guilt...
The court's refusal is some sort of sign of his lack of provable culpability.
__________________
A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...bob_dylan.html
Reply With Quote
  #1576  
Old 04-08-2015, 12:58 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,925
- Ms Roberts is denied to intervene in the lawsuit against the USA.
- Mr Dershowitz has not been charged with anything at all.
- The Duke of York has not been charged with anything at all.

So far Ms Roberts' achievements. Mr Marra (the Judge) ruled that it was unnecessary for her to join the lawsuit, already under way for seven years, to undo a non-prosecution-agreement between the USA and Mr Epstein.

The fact that Mr Marra ordered the "lurid" accusations against Mr Dershowitz and the Duke of York to be struck from the records says enough. It seems that Mr Dershowitz wanted to go further but Mr Marra wrote in his judgement that his order to struck was "sanction enough" for Ms Roberts and her lawyers.
Reply With Quote
  #1577  
Old 04-08-2015, 05:46 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,006
Quite so, which is why this whole case is so bothersome. So many people seem to want to believe the worst of public figures. Andrew has shown a lack of judgement with some of the company he keeps, but that isn't a crime in itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Regardless of why the judge made the decision or the decision itself - the allegation is out there and mud sticks so many people will continue to believe that Andrew is guilty, even though he was never charged with a crime and has never been given the chance to defend himself in a court of law.
Reply With Quote
  #1578  
Old 04-08-2015, 05:57 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Quite so, which is why this whole case is so bothersome. So many people seem to want to believe the worst of public figures. Andrew has shown a lack of judgement with some of the company he keeps, but that isn't a crime in itself.
I'm not sure it's all about wanting Andrew to be found guilty, he hasn't been charged with committing a crime, but it's about getting down to the truth about what really happened with these ladies.
__________________
"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
  #1579  
Old 04-08-2015, 06:45 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,211
I do think that the mud of these allegations and Andrew's terrible judgement in friends is going to stick, perhaps for ever.

I've also noted that on many royal forums posters have inevitably jumped to the conclusion that this judgement came about because of who Andrew is and his friends in high places. The vast majority believe that he did indeed have sex with her and are looking forward to Virginia writing a book about it. Whether that will ever see the light of day, who knows.

However, the general impression left on the British public who haven't followed the legal proceedings is probably going to be that Andrew is a sleaze who likes young girls.
Reply With Quote
  #1580  
Old 04-11-2015, 07:05 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,925
The Judge has dismissed Ms Roberts request to join the already 7 years pending lawsuit challenging the USA for making an agreement not to prosecute Mr Epstein if he entered guilty pleas to state charges. Now that is off the table, one of the accused, Professor Dershowitz, has opened his counter-attack: he has filed a twenty-six pages long (!) counterclaim against Ms Roberts and her laywers.

Apparently this week Ms Roberts has been tracked down in Colorado by Professor Dershowitz' investigators. They succeed in delivering Ms Roberts a subpoena to compel her to testify under oath in the defamation lawsuit against him.

“If she repeats she had sex with me on Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico where I was at for one hour in the presence of five people, she will have committed perjury,” so stated Professor Dershowitz. If she says I had sex with her on Jeffrey Epstein’s island where I was one day with my wife, my daughter, professor Michael Porter, his wife, and four members of his family,” he added, “she will be committing perjury.”
__________________

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 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit calendar catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece harald illegitimate children kate middleton king abdullah ii king abdullah in new zealand king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander may 2016 member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess marie hats 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 state visit to france 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 07:13 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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