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

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

VG has an excellent lawyer. I can't see him going ahead with this unless he saw a clear path forward.

According to the NY Times, "Ms. Giuffre’s lawsuit accuses Prince Andrew of raping her at Ms. Maxwell’s home in London, saying that Prince Andrew, Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell had forced her to have intercourse with the prince against her will."

So the allegations in this lawsuit are about what allegedly happened between Andrew and Ms. Giuffre in London. I see a whole lot of holes in this with including Andrew. Andrew didn't force this woman onto a plane to fly to London. Andrew wasn't part and parcel of procuring, grooming and manipulating what these young girls had to do. Unless this lawyer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew did anything by force, the case isn't going to go anywhere.

Ms. Giuffre may have a good, solid case against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein and against Ghislaine Maxwell though.

[Roslyn]

This is interesting. The proceedings are being brought under the Child Victims Act, a 2019 New York state law that allows victims to make legal claims of abuse that occurred when they were children regardless of when or how long ago the alleged abuse occurred. https://childvictimsact.com/ I've been trying to find a copy of the filed documents but no luck so far.

[Frelinghighness]

If you read the AP article in post 4254, it states that she filed it under the child victims act and New York, Virgin Islands and London were the places she was abused by him.

[Frelinghighness]

Originally Posted by Osipi

According to the NY Times, "Ms. Giuffre’s lawsuit accuses Prince Andrew of raping her at Ms. Maxwell’s home in London, saying that Prince Andrew, Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell had forced her to have intercourse with the prince against her will."

So the allegations in this lawsuit are about what allegedly happened between Andrew and Ms. Giuffre in London. I see a whole lot of holes in this with including Andrew. Andrew didn't force this woman onto a plane to fly to London. Andrew wasn't part and parcel of procuring, grooming and manipulating what these young girls had to do. Unless this lawyer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew did anything by force, the case isn't going to go anywhere.

Ms. Giuffre may have a good, solid case against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein and against Ghislaine Maxwell though.

Not just London, New York also.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

This is interesting. The proceedings are being brought under the Child Victims Act, a 2019 New York state law that allows victims to make legal claims of abuse that occurred when they were children regardless of when or how long ago the alleged abuse occurred. https://childvictimsact.com/ I've been trying to find a copy of the filed documents but no luck so far.

It would be interesting to read the actual complaint and see what has been alleged. If she is only alleging sexual relations in London, I think she will have a hard time winning, unless there is evidence that Andrew knew she was forced into prostitution.

My understanding is that the age of consent in New York and the Virgin Islands is 18 years old and neither have a statute of limitations on child sexual assault. If she is alleging sexual assault in those two jurisdictions, she would have a better chance of winning a civil suit.

With respect to criminal prosecution, I don't see it. The US Mann Act prohibits transporting a child less than 18 years old for prostitution or for criminal sexual activity. Since age of consent in London is 16 and she was 17 when the encounter allegedly occurred, the prosecutor would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Andrew knew that she was prostitute and/or coerced. Unless there is a recording, letter or email, I think that would be very difficult to prove.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

It would be interesting to read the actual complaint and see what has been alleged. If she is only alleging sexual relations in London, I think she will have a hard time winning, unless there is evidence that Andrew knew she was forced into prostitution.

My understanding is that the age of consent in New York and the Virgin Islands is 18 years old and neither have a statute of limitations on child sexual assault. If she is alleging sexual assault in those two jurisdictions, she would have a better chance of winning a civil suit.

With respect to criminal prosecution, I don't see it. The US Mann Act prohibits transporting a child less than 18 years old for prostitution or for criminal sexual activity. Since age of consent in London is 16 and she was 17 when the encounter allegedly occurred, the prosecutor would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Andrew knew that she was prostitute and/or coerced. Unless there is a recording, letter or email, I think that would be very difficult to prove.

Yes, this is why I want to read the actual statement of claim. I think the filed documents are available to the public if you know where to look.

[Harald]

Virginia Guiffre's lawyers are cleverly deploying the tremendous fire power of the U.S. legal system. They will likely try to corner Prince Andrew by compelling him to give evidence by invoking the Hague Evidence Convention, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

Best for Andrew to perform a bit better during that future deposition of his then he did in a certain interview in late 2019. It was, after all, alleged perjury in a civil trial that for a large part got Ghislaine Maxwell in her present predicament.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Unless this lawyer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew did anything by force, the case isn't going to go anywhere.

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof is set only for criminal trials, in both the US and UK. Civil trials in either country are generally determined under the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, under which the plaintiff needs only to persuade the judge or jury that their allegations have a greater probability of being true than false.

[Claire]

I saw on SKY that the suit only came about as the statue for limitation expires in a few days and that Ms. Giuffre's lawyers and Prince Andrew's lawyers were unable to reach an out of court settlement.
Is this reported anywhere else?

[Alison H]

I wouldn't have thought that Prince Andrew's lawyers would agree to an out of court settlement, because that would effectively be admitting that he'd done something wrong. Even if he had, it's going to be almost impossible to prove, so I can't see him agreeing to any sort of settlement.


This isn't getting as much publicity in the UK as Virginia Giuffre's lawyers probably expected, because it's happened on the same day as school exam results being announced, with a lot of debate going on over how grades were assessed due to schools closing during lockdown, and that's very much pushed the Andrew story out of the headlines.

[Mbruno]

As Tatiana Maria mentioned, "beyond reasonable doubt" is not the standard of proof here since we are talking about a civil lawsuit, rather than a criminal prosecution, and therefore balance of probability should be enough.

In any case, if it came to a criminal case, the meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt" itself is not entirely clear in the legal systems that use this criterion. Personally, I interpret "beyond reasonable doubt" as meaning that there exists an alternative explanation for the facts, which may even be less likely, but is nonetheless still plausible based on the evidence (or lack thereof). In that case, the defendant may be acquitted even if he/she is probably guilty.

[Claire]

okay - not been a lawyer here is a few questions
1. Does Andrew have to personally attend the trail ? Is there a trail ? Or is it just a lawyer get together.
1. to prove probability of guilt the layers in NY have to proof that Andrew knew or had knowledge of Ms. Giuffre's age and that she was coerced into the sexual act. Now unless she told him her age and the rest of the detail - can they pull emails and letters ect from the other cases?

[Harald]

Originally Posted by Claire

1. Does Andrew have to personally attend the trail ? Is there a trail ? Or is it just a lawyer get together.

Andrew will for a certainty have to be present at his deposition during the pre-trial discovery process, either in person or by video link.

[Mbruno]

[.....]
Anyway, as I said before, I think it will be difficult for a case to be made against Prince Andrew specifically, although there is probably a case against Mrs Maxwell and certainly Mr Epstein, who, unfortunately, is already deceased.

[GracieGiraffe]

At some point the complaint will appear on Google. Right now it would be readily available on PACER which is the federal court database unless for some unlikely reason it has been restricted. One needs a login and then pays a nominal fee to download the complaint. Rather than use
My firm login I’ll wait a few days.

[Magnolia471]

According Giuffree's declaration, from the age of seven she was molested by 'a family friend' and she lived on the streets at age 13 before getting abused by a 65-year-old sex trafficker, Ron Eppinger.
She was trafficked to a large amount of wealthy men since she was a child but why Virginia is suing only Prince Andrew who had one or two intercourses with her when she was almost an adult?
In the previews interview she actually never said anything negative about Andrew, stating that he was 'nice' to her.
I don't doubt any of her worlds but she should make public names of all of her clients/abusers. If she is taking to the court only her well-know client seems like she is more interested in public attention and money that she could make out of this trial....
I'm not trying to defend Andrew, who is a complete jerk. But Giuffree life is a proff that outhere there a men who literally abusing and exploiting little children which is far from having an intercourse with someone who is almost a legal adult.

[Ista]

Several posts have been deleted as being speculative, insulting or both. Let's remember that the subjects under discussion are real human beings, and post according to forum rules:

Insulting comments about other posters and royals are not permitted. Criticism is acceptable; insults and flames are not. We expect our members to treat each other with respect.
Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources. The moderators reserve the right to delete posts containing the more fanciful types of gossip and speculation, whether they originate in gossip magazines and websites or are simply fabricated.

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by Claire

I saw on SKY that the suit only came about as the statue for limitation expires in a few days and that Ms. Giuffre's lawyers and Prince Andrew's lawyers were unable to reach an out of court settlement.
Is this reported anywhere else?

The reports on Sky and elsewhere say that the statute of limitation expires on 14th August - it may well be renewed, but, for the time being, it expires later this week.

As I understand it, Prince Andrew could refuse to appear in court or to give evidence, but could be found guilty in absentia and asked to pay damages ... if the court were to find against him, which seems unlikely because there's no proof.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Alison H

The reports on Sky and elsewhere say that the statute of limitation expires on 14th August - it may well be renewed, but, for the time being, it expires later this week.

As I understand it, Prince Andrew could refuse to appear in court or to give evidence, but could be found guilty in absentia and asked to pay damages ... if the court were to find against him, which seems unlikely because there's no proof.

If jurisdiction is properly obtained over Andrew by the court and he refuses to appear he is in default. Usually as a consequence of a default the party admits to all allegations against him. Proof unnecessary.

[ACO]

This is not going away. I don't know why Andrew has his hand in the sand. He needs to do something because honestly nothing is helping him at the moment.