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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A long preamble and the case for defence for Prince Andrew

The young and poor oft not often take on the rich and powerful. It costs too much. Lawyers (decent ones anyway come not cheap).

Lets be fair.In turn the powerful and rich in a minority of cases are at the mercy of the unscrupulous. I know you will find this difficult to believe. Some plaintiff's are purely after money and lots of it.

So how to reconcile the two? The plaintiff could agree ahead of trial to donate ALL future potential damages minus expenses to a holding fund. This would be overseen by the judicial system. It would be used to help the so many other poor and young to prosecute like cases. This would help the plaintiff to win the case. Especially where direct evidence is weak or does not exist due to the passage of time. They could very plainly demonstrate to juries the absent of financial gain. Also to reinforce purity of motive.


In 1989 5 Black/Hispanic were sentenced for the rape of a jogger in Central park New York. There was a very crucial element in the case. There was no DNA evidence or indeed any evidence. A former President personally waded in.He spent over £100k on newspaper ads. He said the death penalty was too good. He was right. Good for him. The poor lady was left in a coma and had a broken eye socket. The 5 got very lengthy jail terms. Justice triumphs.

The only problem is. It was justice denied The 5 were later found to be innocent. Unless one convicts on solid evidence egg DNA rather than speculation on mathematical probability of guilt. We all fall into a trap. Everyone has a right to be presumed innocence until proven guilty.

We have a current case of a Prince Andrew. One fortunate or maybe as in this case unfortunate enough to be a prince.
One just moves to the opposite end of the spectrum. Castigate not the poor but the rich.

Science would judge with the passage of time you really can't prove guilt or innocence in potential court cases like this. Pass on any verdict that's going to be in anyway fair. The legal system is different. It will eventually conjure up a decision. The decision will rest to some degree on just how expensive the lawyers on each side choose to engage. I trust science more. it isn’t biased. It does not railroad juries into arbitrary decision. It just selects truth but and here’s the catch - ONLY WHERE IT CAN.

Many female cyclists in my cycling club radiate a inner beauty. This comes not from good looks or or superlative IQ’S. Its more the honest dogged determination in their eyes as they spin the pedals on their bikes. They spurn the very idea of filthy lucre. The springboard of my proposal.

If a plaintiff's only motive is to expose monsters. They will have no problem in handing over the the readies. It will help their case. Significantly.

Money and status does play a lot into how cases go. Those with the green dollars can afford the best in legal eagles and use green dollars in ways to influence not only the case but also, the verdict in the court of public opinion. I've seen it happen too many times.

Reminds me of lyrics to a song I love and like to use as a mantra. "Money talks but it don't sing and dance and it don't walk. As long as I can have you here with me, I'd much rather be forever in blue jeans". Thank you Neil Diamond! :D
 
Haroon Siddique, legal affairs correspondent for the Guardian, has more commentary from lawyers.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...trength-of-prince-andrews-response-to-lawsuit

Nick Goldstone, head of dispute resolution at Ince Gordon Dadds LLP, said: “There are certain things where it is ludicrous for him to say he has insufficient information to admit or deny. Six months on, he has at least put forward a defence and that is interesting, but it does appear to be a boilerplate exercise, rather over-enthusiastically deployed.”

Among the allegations from Giuffre’s complaint that Andrew said he could not admit or deny were that:

  • Andrew and convicted sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell have been photographed at numerous social events together.

  • Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to the charge of procuring a minor for prostitution.

  • Andrew had been on Epstein’s private plane and stayed at some of his homes.

  • The infamous photograph depicts Andrew, Giuffre and Maxwell at Maxwell’s home.

Andrew admitted in the disastrous 2019 Newsnight interview to having been on Epstein’s jet and having stayed at several of his properties, while Epstein’s conviction is a matter of public record.

[...]

The defences in the court papers contain no reference to previous claims made by Andrew that he cannot sweat (Giuffre had alleged that he got sweaty on a dancefloor with her in 2001) and that he visited a Pizza Express on the day of the claimed sexual encounter with Giuffre.

Richard Spafford, partner at Reed Smith, [...] said it was “interesting” they were not in the document, as might have been expected, and suggested that may mean they are not points his legal team mean to pursue. He described the document as a “standard approach” in that it contained forceful denials “but that’s frequently followed by an attempt to settle”.

[...]

Boies has said his client would be unlikely to be interested in a “purely financial settlement” but lawyers who spoke to the Guardian suggested it was imperative for Andrew to settle.


Another interview with Virginia Giuffre's lawyer David Boies. Although he has earlier said that an explicit admission or apology would be a precondition to a financial settlement out of court, he now says that they would also give consideration to accepting a financial settlement which was "large enough to be, in effect, a vindication".

The article mentions that he has been working pro bono for Virginia Giuffre since 2014.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...giuffres-lawyer-will-accept-settlement-holds/


And although [Boies] says that conversations the Duke has had with the Queen “could be used, it’s hard to get at those, because he’s probably not going to admit to them, and we’re not going to depose her. So while those conversations are fair game, on a practical level we’re probably not going to get at them.”

We now know that Prince Andrew’s deposition must be done before the July 14 deadline set by the judge. “So it has been agreed that we will go to London to depose him,” says Boies, who after all these months has not yet met him. What is he expecting?

“Somebody who is going to be a little uncomfortable.” To put it mildly. After all, depositions can last up to seven hours, and Boies anticipates this one to last “a day, or probably two.” “But I’m going to try to get him to understand that this is not going to be combative. Obviously, I’m going to ask him a lot of questions. And although some of the questions may be uncomfortable, I’m not going to be aggressive or in any way offensive to him. I’m going to be very respectful.”

[...]

“What’s important for Virginia is to vindicate herself and the other victims. Not to let someone escape responsibility, just because of their wealth and power. To hold Prince Andrew to account. But how that vindication is accomplished is still open [to discussion],” says Boies, who is now choosing his words carefully.

“I think that we would be unlikely to settle in a situation in which somebody just handed over a cheque. So if Prince Andrew maintains ‘I've never heard of this person’, ‘I don't know who she is’, ‘The photographs are fake’, then I don’t think that we would want to settle on that basis.” He pauses, inclines his head to the left, then to the right. “That said, “if you had a settlement that was large enough to be, in effect, a vindication, then it’s something we would obviously look at.”

It’s about the bigger issue at stake, a visibly emotional Boies expands as we return to Giuffre, whom he took on pro bono way back in 2014, and the subsequent dealings he had with Ghislaine Maxwell in 2016, when he deposed the socialite [...]
 
I would think that any conversation that could be used in a court of law (not hearsay from a staff member or courtier) between the Queen and Andrew would be next to impossible to obtain no matter what the reason behind getting them. Of course Mr. Boies goes onto say that they probably wouldn't use them.

This part here shows me that this American legal team *did* think of dragging HM, The Queen into this and for this reason alone, I am now very, very pleased with the stance that the Queen, the monarchy and it's "Firm" has taken to show in word and deed that Andrew stands in this ungodly mess as a "private citizen".

It sounds to me like plaintiff side will be able to fight and win when it comes to discrediting some of the things that Andrew has stated but still, to me, there still is no credible evidence or witness that'd show and prove Andrew's wrongdoings with Ms. Giuffre.

Heck. I was on stage once upon a time with Meat Loaf. That doesn't mean I slept with him or even had any kind of a conversation that he'd remember. I would. He wouldn't. :D
 
Heck. I was on stage once upon a time with Meat Loaf. That doesn't mean I slept with him or even had any kind of a conversation that he'd remember. I would. He wouldn't. :D

Hey Osipi - I once got to sing backup for Barbra Streisand! I was within ten feet of her but she wouldn't know me from Adam...:D
 
I walked away from seeing that interview thinking that Andrew was a man without a clue about a whole lot of things. I don't think the man is the brightest crayon in the box when it comes to the people around him. Perhaps because of being raised a "prince", he has a different outlook on people around him and doesn't know how to stop and consider how they and/or their actions could possibly affect him. :D

Still if he did know of Maxwell's role in procuring girls for Epstein, he'd have been very very stupid to try and say something like "I was friends iwht Epstein but not that close, it was really Ghislaine that I was friendliest with" If he knew that she was a procurer. I know Andrew is very stupid, but surely not quite that dumb. I think that while he vaguely knew that Ep invited him to see these girls and enjoy their services, and that they were in Epsteins entourage, he did not really know much about the mechainics of it and did not know of Maxwell's role...
 
Hey Osipi - I once got to sing backup for Barbra Streisand! I was within ten feet of her but she wouldn't know me from Adam...:D

But that's not the point. The point is that this girl was an escort.. or sex worker. If Andrew met her and danced with her, the odds are that he also slept with her. Thats what she was there for. He may genuinely not remember it.. but he would have been better to just say that he did not recollect her at all.. and not make a firm denial that he had slept iwth her.
 
But that's not the point. The point is that this girl was an escort.. or sex worker. If Andrew met her and danced with her, the odds are that he also slept with her. Thats what she was there for. He may genuinely not remember it.. but he would have been better to just say that he did not recollect her at all.. and not make a firm denial that he had slept iwth her.

For me, the bottom line is that it can be proven that Andrew *did* meet Virginia. There's a photograph in Maxwell's London home. Someone could witness seeing the two of them at Tramps. When it comes down to the actual accusations of Andrew sexually abusing Virginia, it's her word against his.

Even if Andrew *did* sleep with her, to prove *abuse* is a unicorn of a totally different rainbow. The way my mind works is telling me (this is in relation to the London incident) that Virginia was compensated nicely for her troubles. She was provided airfare to London by Epstein/Maxwell. She was provided with lodging and sustenance (I don't know how expensive Tramps is but your run of the mill 17 year old teenage girl don't usually frequent places well known like that) and *if* she did provide service for Andrew, it was done willingly on Virginia's part as that was what she was there for in the first place.

Sure, she was trafficked and she was expected to perform services on Epstein/Maxwell's command but that's on those two perverted souls and not on Andrew's head for abuse and forcing her to perform. Giuffre *knew* why she was there and she's (all these years later) is using Andrew as an example of *all* the men she was forced to sleep with. Why not do a class action civil lawsuit (is there such a beast?) against *all* the men Giuffre can remember sleeping with during her time with Epstein.

What would really rock this case in Virginia's favor would be to be able to relate and actually prove is that Virginia continued to fly to locations and continue to have sex with Andrew *after* she'd left Epstein/Maxwell's circle of perversion. Until she left those two were her "pimp" and she did what she was told. Andrew was just the end user. One among many, many men.

I'm not the judge of this case but if I was, I'd be very leery of deeming Andrew guilty of what he's charged with and award Virginia compensation. If she was to get compensation from anyone, it should be Epstein's estate or from Maxwell's bank accounts. She's not going to be using her funds for much for a very long time anyways. :D
 
Even in hte UK Virginia was barely of legal age.. and if Andrew knew that she was employed as a sex worker by Epstein I think htat he would have some legal guilt. She was not a freelance hooker, making her own deals iwht her clients.. and she was not going to bed with him because she was madly attracted to him.. but because she was told to by her pimp.
 
Even in hte UK Virginia was barely of legal age.. and if Andrew knew that she was employed as a sex worker by Epstein I think htat he would have some legal guilt. She was not a freelance hooker, making her own deals iwht her clients.. and she was not going to bed with him because she was madly attracted to him.. but because she was told to by her pimp.

The conundrum is how do you prove what Andrew knew or didn't know at that time in past history. There are many different *proven* occasions where Epstein and Maxwell were both in Andrew's company (even at Balmoral and at BP if memory is awake enough today). Obviously this depraved couple didn't take their girls with them to every single event or meeting. When did Andrew really know what they were up to and willingly took advantage of it? That is next to impossible to really know and convince a judge and a jury that Andrew is guilty as charged.

As far as the London accusations go, even the Met Police looking at it several times has deemed "no crime here". Doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that legally it is considered consensual sex between two people of age to consent. In a court of law, judgment is passed on proving as fact that there was a crime committed against someone. For Virginia to cry "abuse" by Andrew, she needs to show that Andrew, himself, perpetrated abuse against her person. In my eyes, the blame lies with Epstein and Maxwell who solicited these girls for this person and brainwashed them into the "good life". The "perks" the girls received from these two were dangled like sugar plums dancing in little kids eyes as incentive and therein lies the real abuse against these young girls.

Epstein is dead and Maxwell is in prison. Andrew actually, I believe, is a huge patsy and fall guy in all this. Andrew's huge mistake is on him alone and that is his judgment of character in who he associates with. Looks like Epstein trained Virginia well in cut throat methods to get what she wants eh?
 
well Im no legal expert but I am not so sure he's completely exonerated. Yes, he did not have illegal sex wiht her because she was of legal age. However if she was trafficked, I think that there are issues that would negate her consent.. and well of course Andrew is going to say that he did not know she was trafficked.. but again thats hard to prove... If a young girl is hanging around, and sleeps with him and he knows she is part of Eps entourage, then surely he knew that she was not a secretary or housekeeper or whatever.. she was part of entourage of girls who were there to sleep with Epstein himself and his friends.

Im not sure he has a strong case for saying that he didn't know she was basically a prostitute provided by Epstein for him and other men... and that she was moved around from place to place to service Epsteins clients and friends. Of course Andrew IS so arrogant and unnoticing that perhaps he genuinely didnt realise it but - he is not IMO on the strongest ground. That is why doing that interview was the stupidest thing, and the queen should never have allowed it... for him to say definitively that he was clear that he had not had sex with her... well...
 
Last edited:
Denville, thank you for putting in words so clearly what my thoughts are on this sordid debacle.
The waters are so very muddied around this now 20 year old disgrace and depraved Scandal with Epstein, it is difficult to know how it will play out.
That being said, I will throw in my two cents.
Andrew is now saying he will fight this to the bitter end, to save face and retain a shred of dignity with the only People that he still cares about . His daughters and his Mother. Now a Grandfather too. But reviled as a possible predator, but certainly a fool and laughingstock.

I truly believe everyone one else has written the arrogant and entitled clown off. They, the rest of the Family, would like nothing better than to see Andrew settle this Civil Suit and disappear. For good. Charles, William and The Courtiers want this unseemly chapter, a PR disaster for The Windsors closed. Over.
Which is why is firmly believe, in spite of Andrew promising a vigorous defense, its all bravado. An act.

All kinds of damaging information could and would come out during Deposition, especially involving his years as "UK's Trade Ambassador", then Andrew's "Pitch @ Palace" endeavors. Subpoena's going EVERYWHERE. The crux of the matter would be finding out about Andrews finances.
Yep, that's where it will get interesting. How much is he worth and how did he accumulate his wealth ?
So I bet, in spite of his protests to fight Virginia's claims and clear his name (not happening) behind the scenes it will be worked out to settle.
There is ZERO upside in the Queen's Jubilee Year to have a constant leak about damaging information regarding Andrews private life and "murky" Business Dealings.
The Royals HATE anything to do with private financial information coming out about the Family. I suspect Andrew has many millions from backdoor dealings with unsavory types from the Kazakh Oligarch who strangely bought the dilapidated Sunninghill Estate for millions over the asking price !! To Andrew being "friends" with Muammar Gaddafi's son.
It will certainly be interesting in any case.
 
Last edited:
Therein lies the biggest threat of this civil lawsuit. We all know that there's nothing that can happen that will "restore Andrew's good name" and that he'd be reinstated as the wonderful, prince of a man he is. His reputation has been shot down, dragged through the mud, drawn and quartered and hung out for all to see and has yet to be buried and put to rest.

As you state, Grenada, what remains to be uncovered and brought to light of Andrew's life by being gone over with a fine tooth comb and analyzed and dissected by depositions and investigations can only serve to paint the man in even a bleaker and blacker light than he already is.

This civil lawsuit is going to turn into a free for all that'll make Andrew feel like he's one of those unlucky froggies that were selected for a high school biology class for dissection. And this is what Andrew is aiming for and wants? Not a very smart move if you ask me. ?
 
Shouldn’t we be reminded that in a civil suit, the standard of proof is ‘preponderance of the evidence’, not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ ?
 
Shouldn’t we be reminded that in a civil suit, the standard of proof is ‘preponderance of the evidence’, not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ ?

Even so, there isn't a whole lot of preponderance of evidence that points to Andrew actually doing the dirty deed with Ms. Giuffre. All signs may point to it being a possibility but it still remains she says/he says. It's all the digging into Andrew's private life that really is going to give the tabloids a lot of headlines to make public things that perhaps Andrew would prefer to remain undisclosed and buried. He's actively asking for a fight and he's going to get it. He really doesn't have much to lose right now but this possibly can drag him down even further than he already is.

What good name for Andrew? Did he actually ever have one?
 
Even so, there isn't a whole lot of preponderance of evidence that points to Andrew actually doing the dirty deed with Ms. Giuffre. All signs may point to it being a possibility but it still remains she says/he says. It's all the digging into Andrew's private life that really is going to give the tabloids a lot of headlines to make public things that perhaps Andrew would prefer to remain undisclosed and buried. He's actively asking for a fight and he's going to get it. He really doesn't have much to lose right now but this possibly can drag him down even further than he already is.

What good name for Andrew? Did he actually ever have one?

Of course Andrew ever had a good name. Once he was was a dashy young Prince and one of the most popular members of the royal family.

And if he feels he is dragged through the mud, his reputation is blown up, by accusations which are not true: go and fight for it.
 
Of course Andrew ever had a good name. Once he was was a dashy young Prince and one of the most popular members of the royal family.

And if he feels he is dragged through the mud, his reputation is blown up, by accusations which are not true: go and fight for it.

Of course one should always fight to defend oneself. What I question is Andrew's weapons and armor going into this battle. I just hope he has great legal counsel that is also adept at keeping Andrew from going rogue. :D
 
Of course Andrew ever had a good name. Once he was was a dashy young Prince and one of the most popular members of the royal family.

And if he feels he is dragged through the mud, his reputation is blown up, by accusations which are not true: go and fight for it.

As Osipi points out if Andrew goes to court he will be shredded!
People who have been more "innocent" than him have ended up with their reputation in tatters after appearing in court.
Any reasonable competent lawyer should be able to tear Andrew apart.
That Miss Virginia will get a rough time as well is besides the point.
The main focus is on Andrew, simply because of who he is.

Considering his track record of defending himself so far - in a reasonably friendly environment that is - he is lawyer-fodder if he appears in the stand.
 
I would think that any conversation that could be used in a court of law (not hearsay from a staff member or courtier) between the Queen and Andrew would be next to impossible to obtain no matter what the reason behind getting them. Of course Mr. Boies goes onto say that they probably wouldn't use them.

I find it funny and somewhat pretentious of Mr. Boies to say that he is not "going to depose the Queen" as if that were something he could do, but is not doing as a favor or token of respect.

well Im no legal expert but I am not so sure he's completely exonerated. Yes, he did not have illegal sex wiht her because she was of legal age. However if she was trafficked, I think that there are issues that would negate her consent.. and well of course Andrew is going to say that he did not know she was trafficked.. but again thats hard to prove... If a young girl is hanging around, and sleeps with him and he knows she is part of Eps entourage, then surely he knew that she was not a secretary or housekeeper or whatever.. she was part of entourage of girls who were there to sleep with Epstein himself and his friends.

Im not sure he has a strong case for saying that he didn't know she was basically a prostitute provided by Epstein for him and other men... and that she was moved around from place to place to service Epsteins clients and friends. Of course Andrew IS so arrogant and unnoticing that perhaps he genuinely didnt realise it but - he is not IMO on the strongest ground. That is why doing that interview was the stupidest thing, and the queen should never have allowed it... for him to say definitively that he was clear that he had not had sex with her... well...

If there were a criminal case to be pursued in the UK, e.g. on the ground of human trafficking, I am pretty sure the Met Police would not have closed down the investigation.
 
Last edited:
I find it funny and somewhat pretensious of Mr. Boies to say that he is not "going to depose the Queen" as if that were something he could do, but is not doing as a favor or token of respect.

I smelled the sarcasm in that statement too. That's why it was obvious that at least the *thought* of deposing the Queen and getting access to conversations even had rent free space in Boies' head. :lol:
 
Even so, there isn't a whole lot of preponderance of evidence that points to Andrew actually doing the dirty deed with Ms. Giuffre. All signs may point to it being a possibility but it still remains she says/he says. It's all the digging into Andrew's private life that really is going to give the tabloids a lot of headlines to make public things that perhaps Andrew would prefer to remain undisclosed and buried. He's actively asking for a fight and he's going to get it. He really doesn't have much to lose right now but this possibly can drag him down even further than he already is.

What good name for Andrew? Did he actually ever have one?

I know Duc_et_pair answered this, but I think it is one of the most mind-blowing parts of this whole affair. Andrew was once one of the most eligible bachelors in all the world- an impossibly handsome war hero. If he had been of his daughters' generation, young in the age of social media, he undoubtedly would have been an international icon. The goodwill he could have harnessed was limitless. Sadly, through poor decision making, he squandered that goodwill and then some decades ago and has shrouded the twilight of his mother's 70-year reign in scandal.
 
What good name for Andrew? Did he actually ever have one?

Andrew? He was a national hero when he came back from the Falklands War. He'd piloted a helicopter which rescued the survivors of a ship which'd been sunk.

He'd be greeted by crowds of screaming girls whenever he went anywhere, as if he were the lead singer of a popular boyband. He had all the good looks and charisma that his two brothers lacked, as well as being a war hero. He had so much popularity and goodwill. Everyone loved him.

When he married Sarah Ferguson, everyone was so excited. Obviously it wasn't the big international occasion that Charles marrying Diana was, but Andrew and "Fergie" seemed so much warmer and more approachable. Young girls like I was at the time went around wearing "Fergie bows" in our hair. There's even a section in an Adrian Mole book about how wonderful they were and how Adrian wished he was marrying Sarah instead!

Andrew had everything going for him.
 
It sounds as if 'anything' is free game. Doesn't information that is requested need to pertain to the case at hand or is that very broadly defined?

And while justice should be served equally independent of who both parties are. I am quite sure Andrew's won't be a fair case but he will be judged more harshly as the sympathy lies with his accuser - which especially in a jury case (a system that I personally still don't understand very well - why would a country adopt it instead of ensure a fair trial by those who took the time to understand the law?) seems a recipe for an unfair trial.
 
It sounds as if 'anything' is free game. Doesn't information that is requested need to pertain to the case at hand or is that very broadly defined?

And while justice should be served equally independent of who both parties are. I am quite sure Andrew's won't be a fair case but he will be judged more harshly as the sympathy lies with his accuser - which especially in a jury case (a system that I personally still don't understand very well - why would a country adopt it instead of ensure a fair trial by those who took the time to understand the law?) seems a recipe for an unfair trial.

I understand your point of view. The jury system is closely associated with English law and most common law countries have kept it for criminal trials at least of indictible offenses that are equivalent to felonies in the US. Having said that, the use of juries in civil lawsuits is, I think, far more restricted in other common law countries than in the US. And there are countries like South Africa for example, which incidentally has a mixed system of English criminal law and Roman-Dutch civil law, where juries have been abolished altogether even in criminal cases (remember Oscar Pistorius' trial), but that was related to how fair jury trials could be in racially polarized countries.

Overall I think there are pros and cons to the jury system and I don't personally have a definitive opinion on it. But I agree with you, and I said it before, that the NY jury will likely be biased against Andrew, although I admit I cannot back that "feeling" yet with hard evidence at this point.
 
Last edited:
In general we can say that on the Continent the justice system is based on codified law and in Anglosaxon type justice systems it is based on common law (case law).

Generally speaking, in Continent legal systems proceedings are inquisitorial. The judges themselves take an active role in investigation and pursuing truth.

In Anglosaxon legal systems, proceedings are adversarial. It is the responsibility of the lawyers to present evidence to a jury and to tell the judge what the law is on a particular matter. The judge essentially acts as a passive referee and has no investigative role.

I am not used to Anglosaxon justice but often looks more like circus, with effect and bluster. For my personal feeling in an Anglosaxon case the Duke has to prove he is not guilty before "a public" (the jury) In a Continental case the Duke is not guilty until the opposite has convincingly been proven before law (before Judges).

But okay, in this case it was the Duke himself to demand a jury trial.
 
In general we can say that on the Continent the justice system is based on codified law and in Anglosaxon type justice systems it is based on common law (case law).

Generally speaking, in Continent legal systems proceedings are inquisitorial. The judges themselves take an active role in investigation and pursuing truth.

In Anglosaxon legal systems, proceedings are adversarial. It is the responsibility of the lawyers to present evidence to a jury and to tell the judge what the law is on a particular matter. The judge essentially acts as a passive referee and has no investigative role.

I am not used to Anglosaxon justice but often looks more like circus, with effect and bluster. For my personal feeling in an Anglosaxon case the Duke has to prove he is not guilty before "a public" (the jury) In a Continental case the Duke is not guilty until the opposite has convincingly been proven before law (before Judges).

But okay, in this case it was the Duke himself to demand a jury trial.

If I understand it correctly he demands a trial which happens to be a jury trial but I could be mistaken.
 
In general we can say that on the Continent the justice system is based on codified law and in Anglosaxon type justice systems it is based on common law (case law).

Generally speaking, in Continent legal systems proceedings are inquisitorial. The judges themselves take an active role in investigation and pursuing truth.

In Anglosaxon legal systems, proceedings are adversarial. It is the responsibility of the lawyers to present evidence to a jury and to tell the judge what the law is on a particular matter. The judge essentially acts as a passive referee and has no investigative role.

I am not used to Anglosaxon justice but often looks more like circus, with effect and bluster. For my personal feeling in an Anglosaxon case the Duke has to prove he is not guilty before "a public" (the jury) In a Continental case the Duke is not guilty until the opposite has convincingly been proven before law (before Judges).

But okay, in this case it was the Duke himself to demand a jury trial.

As an American, I really loved getting a peak into the inquisitorial style. Thank you.

In America, the burden of proof is upon Ms. Guiffre, who will need to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% likely). That will be up to a jury to decide and the basic question will be did Ms. Guiffre prove by a preponderance of the evidence (that it is more likely than not) that Andrew had sex with her, knowing she was trafficked?
 
As an American, I really loved getting a peak into the inquisitorial style. Thank you.

In America, the burden of proof is upon Ms. Guiffre, who will need to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% likely). That will be up to a jury to decide and the basic question will be did Ms. Guiffre prove by a preponderance of the evidence (that it is more likely than not) that Andrew had sex with her, knowing she was trafficked?

The inquistorial style is optically visible by placing the Prosecution aside the Judges' dais, instead of having two opposite tables left and right of an aisle. This hybride positioning shows that the Prosecution represents the State but has also has to defend the accused by the recommendation of an acquittal when they feel there is no coherent case or when there are doubts which will not "survive" the inquisition by the Judge(s).
 
Andrew? He was a national hero when he came back from the Falklands War. He'd piloted a helicopter which rescued the survivors of a ship which'd been sunk.

He'd be greeted by crowds of screaming girls whenever he went anywhere, as if he were the lead singer of a popular boyband. He had all the good looks and charisma that his two brothers lacked, as well as being a war hero. He had so much popularity and goodwill. Everyone loved him.

When he married Sarah Ferguson, everyone was so excited. Obviously it wasn't the big international occasion that Charles marrying Diana was, but Andrew and "Fergie" seemed so much warmer and more approachable. Young girls like I was at the time went around wearing "Fergie bows" in our hair. There's even a section in an Adrian Mole book about how wonderful they were and how Adrian wished he was marrying Sarah instead!

Andrew had everything going for him.
He idd have a period of popularity back late 70s into the 80s. He was in the Falklands war, he was handsome and charming and he then married Sarah who was lively and fun - breath of fresh air etc. Charles was liked but was increasingly seen as rather stuffy and dull and Edward was not that exciting and was the third son. But I think that Andrew's popular time ran out quickly. he was arrogant, rather crass and stupid, and after a couple of years, the charms of him and Fergie being all puppy love ran out and wore thin. She too wore out her welcome. She was vulgar, silly, left her baby at home, seemed to be rather free spending.. She left Andrew but still hung round, and He seemed to disappear into kind of obscurity, in his private life. I suppose he was bored and lonely and knew that he and Fergie would never get back togehter except as friends.. and he began to embark on that life of making money in dubious deals and letting freinds like Epstein entertain him and provide him with girls.. since he had no intention of remarrying.
 
He idd have a period of popularity back late 70s into the 80s. He was in the Falklands war, he was handsome and charming and he then married Sarah who was lively and fun - breath of fresh air etc. Charles was liked but was increasingly seen as rather stuffy and dull and Edward was not that exciting and was the third son. But I think that Andrew's popular time ran out quickly. he was arrogant, rather crass and stupid, and after a couple of years, the charms of him and Fergie being all puppy love ran out and wore thin. She too wore out her welcome. She was vulgar, silly, left her baby at home, seemed to be rather free spending.. She left Andrew but still hung round, and He seemed to disappear into kind of obscurity, in his private life. I suppose he was bored and lonely and knew that he and Fergie would never get back togehter except as friends.. and he began to embark on that life of making money in dubious deals and letting freinds like Epstein entertain him and provide him with girls.. since he had no intention of remarrying.

Looking at who Andrew used to be and what he's evolved into now kind of makes me sad to see so much potential go to waste. Amazing how one's inner self awareness and how one perceives the world around them makes such a huge difference in a lifetime.
 
Looking at who Andrew used to be and what he's evolved into now kind of makes me sad to see so much potential go to waste. Amazing how one's inner self awareness and how one perceives the world around them makes such a huge difference in a lifetime.

Im not sure how much potential he had, really. He was liked becuase he was handsome and young...but even then I think his arrogance and vulgarity was known about and crept out into hte public domain and he began to be less liked. He really does seem to have a horribly strong sense of entitlement, and Its odd because one would have thought that the queen would have made it clear to him that he couldn't act just as he pleased, that being a Prince doesn't mean you are an absolute ruler... or that his nannies would have brought him up to know this too.
But yes I think that altho' Andrew was always full of himself and arrogant he was not unlikeable, many years ago. I think that he was angered and hurt by the break up of his marriage.. felt let down by Fergie's stupidly public messing around.. and he grew resentful that he had less money than his brohter yet he now had an ex wife who was always short of money and inclined to get into messes.. and I think that then he began to become more and more self indulgent, hanging round wiht rich but dubious people, and sleeping around with lots of girls rather than making any effort to find a new settled relationship.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom