The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022 - Page 126

Madame Verseau · #**2501** 11-12-2019, 06:44 AM

Giuffre is being sued for defamation of character

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/2529869001

Alan Dershowitz is bringing the suit claiming she's lying about him and others including Andrew. I can see Dershowitz filing for himself but why bring in Andrew? Is he trying to protect the whole group? This only ties Andrew into this mess more.

Lumutqueen · #**2502** 11-12-2019, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Giuffre is being sued for defamation of character

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/2529869001

Alan Dershowitz is bringing the suit claiming she's lying about him and others including Andrew. I can see Dershowitz filing for himself but why bring in Andrew? Is he trying to protect the whole group? This only ties Andrew into this mess more.

According to the article, Dershowitz isn’t bringing Andrew into it, he’s filling for himself. It’s the article writers that mix Andrews name in it.

Dman · #**2503** 11-12-2019, 08:45 AM

As I said before, the men and women who used and abused these young girls for sex will always get the upper hand.

Osipi · #**2504** 11-12-2019, 02:58 PM

Its not about having the "upper hand". Its about doing things in a legal manner through the justice system.

Well... one way that Dershowitz does have a bit of an advantage is that he's not going to have to shell out a huge amount of money for lawyers to present his case. He'll probably represent himself.

It'll be up to Giuffre to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was telling the truth in her statements about Dershowitz. That is not going to be easy. One cannot make statements publicly about someone and just expect it to be taken as a gospel truth. It needs to be proven and in this case, Dershowitz wouldn't even have filed a lawsuit unless he knows he has a good assurance he can win in court.

It also sets a precedence that defamation of character lawsuits can and will be filed against false statements. It kind of makes me think that this is exactly the "threat from the palace" that kept that Giuffre interview off the air about Andrew.

This will be interesting to watch to see what happens.

HighGoalHighDreams · #**2505** 11-12-2019, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

Well... one way that Dershowitz does have a bit of an advantage is that he's not going to have to shell out a huge amount of money for lawyers to present his case. He'll probably represent himself.

If he does, he'll have a fool for a client.

eya · #**2506** 11-15-2019, 02:20 AM

"WORLD EXCLUSIVE: In a #Newsnight @BBCTwo interview recorded yesterday at Buckingham Palace, Emily Maitlis talks to Prince Andrew about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein - the first time he’s answered questions on the scandal"

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/sta...577025/photo/1

Lumutqueen · #**2507** 11-15-2019, 05:38 AM

No questions were vetted beforehand either;

https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/1...451196416?s=21

This is a big big move.

rob2008 · #**2508** 11-15-2019, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

No questions were vetted beforehand either;

https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/1...451196416?s=21

This is a big big move.

This interview is going to put an end to the campaign against Andrew - and stop the persecution of him.

Elenath · #**2509** 11-15-2019, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob2008

This interview is going to put an end to the campaign against Andrew - and stop the persecution of him.

Why? Do we know what he said?

Madame Verseau · #**2510** 11-15-2019, 06:25 AM

The BBC interview should be interesting but at the end of the day the interviews that really matter are ones with the FBI and procesutors of the Southern District of New York (with counsel present as would be his right). US law enforcement will not stop looking at Andrew based on a TV interview; it would be based on their investigations. Talking to the Feds would be a better legal and PR strategy.

sophie25 · #**2511** 11-15-2019, 06:56 AM

I don't believe for one second that he sat down in front of her with no prior knowledge of the quedtions and fully rehearsed answers. The Palace would never take such a risk.

Lumutqueen · #**2512** 11-15-2019, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophie25

I don't believe for one second that he sat down in front of her with no prior knowledge of the quedtions and fully rehearsed answers. The Palace would never take such a risk.

Then you have a BBC journalist openly lying to millions of people. I don’t think the BBC or Emily would take that risk either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

The BBC interview should be interesting but at the end of the day the interviews that really matter are ones with the FBI and procesutors of the Southern District of New York (with counsel present as would be his right). US law enforcement will not stop looking at Andrew based on a TV interview; it would be based on their investigations. Talking to the Feds would be a better legal and PR strategy.

US Law Enforcement won’t stop looking for what exactly? Why would Andrew talk to the Feds when he’s not accused of anything?

sophie25 · #**2513** 11-15-2019, 07:29 AM

Where's the risk for the BBC? The Palace are hardly going to report them. If his answers are not scripted to within an inch of their lives I'll eat my hat and it will be obvious if they are.

Lumutqueen · #**2514** 11-15-2019, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophie25

Where's the risk for the BBC? The Palace are hardly going to report them. If his answers are not scripted to within an inch of their lives I'll eat my hat and it will be obvious if they are.

No but the people would. If it’s a lie, and it’s scripted and he was aware of the questions then the BBC and their reporter have lied. They would be crucified, and they’re already under severe scrutiny.

Mirabel · #**2515** 11-15-2019, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophie25

Where's the risk for the BBC? The Palace are hardly going to report them. If his answers are not scripted to within an inch of their lives I'll eat my hat and it will be obvious if they are.

I agree!
Andrew is a bumbler; if left to his own devices he is sure to make matters worse. The Palace won't take such a risk.

ACO · #**2516** 11-15-2019, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

No questions were vetted beforehand either;

https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/1...451196416?s=21

This is a big big move.

No questions vetted? Yeah I doubt it. She better come swinging then and nothing soft or everyone will see right through it.

Katymcwaity · #**2517** 11-15-2019, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

No questions vetted? Yeah I doubt it. She better come swinging then and nothing soft or everyone will see right through it.

She can quite tough/and or aggressive depending on your view. She has written a book recently called Airhead which is a behind the scenes look at tv reporting.

I don’t think she will left him off with soft evasive answers.

Osipi · #**2518** 11-15-2019, 10:22 AM

What matters is that Andrew has sat down and agreed to be interviewed on the matter and that will be aired publicly. As this interview is being done by the BBC, which actually means reputable to me and not some "talking heads" tabloid type television presentation, I expect the questions to be done in a respectful manner that Andrew will answer to the best of his knowledge. This isn't an interview to create a sensation that adds to a scandal but rather Andrew being given the chance to air his side of the whole thing.

As far as the criminal cases being investigated by the FBI, I don't believe that Andrew is going to be any part of their ongoing investigation into who may have aided and abetted Epstein in his alleged crimes of sex trafficking. They *may* however want to talk with Andrew about those that they're investigating that Andrew has known and been friends with. Ghislaine Maxwell comes to mind but it would be *her* they're looking into to possibly press criminal charges against her and not Andrew. Andrew simply may be able to give them information they didn't know of but any information coming from Andrew would be attained in a voluntary manner rather than an interrogation. At least that's how I see it.

ACO · #**2519** 11-15-2019, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katymcwaity

She can quite tough/and or aggressive depending on your view. She has written a book recently called Airhead which is a behind the scenes look at tv reporting.

I don’t think she will left him off with soft evasive answers.

I guess we will see. I hope she is tough on him. If not than this is just another failed PR stunt to add to his others around this case. If he is going to sit down and talk about it... then do it.

HighGoalHighDreams · #**2520** 11-15-2019, 02:54 PM

I suppose there are ways in which it could technically be true that no questions were vetted, but the parameters were so narrow that there need be no concern about what is coming.

No member of The Royal Family, in any context, gives an interview without knowing exactly the substance of what is coming. That tradition did not stop here, in this context.

Very deceptive of Emily Andrews to present this as if Andrew is going in cold, on a technical truth.