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.
It seems the Duke wants it all-out. No settlement, a trial. That means he and his team seems sure they can fight Ms Giuffre's allegations. After all: a settlement always keeps a cloud above someone ("he probably is guilty, but his $$$ washed his sins away".)
 
Prince Andrew will have "demanded" a trial by jury to preserve the right should he wish to exercise it. It is not indicative either way as to whether he wishes to settle or go to trial, or indeed whether it will be a bench trial or a jury trial.
 
Well, he has nothing to lose so might as well dive in. The court of public already convict him guilty and to settle it out of court can be seen as him admitting it. If he can win the trial, he may still able to save a bit of his reputation (though I doubt he can return to public life again) or at least he can also drag her with him because I'm sure his lawyers will do whatever it is to discredit her.

It will be ugly.

I think it might be the best thing to do, except that Andrew isn't clever enough to pull it off! If he takes the stand, all is lost.
 
Would someone mail Andrew a reality check or perhaps start slipping brain food into his diet? Does the man really want to involve himself in a US court jury trial that will, most likely, end up being the grandest three ring circus that has ever come to NYC in decades. What a jury trial will most definitely do is increase Andrew's fame and notoriety as a royal that behaved badly no matter if he wins or loses in the battle. He's already lost the war if you ask me. Silly, silly man.

Perhaps this is a good reason why such pains have been taken lately to assure the public that Andrew is in no way connecting this dog and pony show to the UK monarchy, its Queen and its "Firm". We *know* the Queen, Charles and William and whomever decide on the workings of the monarchy want the world to know that Andrew is in this on his own to sink or swim. No help from the royal galleries or the royal funds or the royal relatives. Now watch Ghislaine Maxwell apply to discredit Andrew's statement that they weren't close friends to get time off her sentence and "tell all". Make that a five ring circus if that happens. :D

I believe Andrew is on a path to make even a greater fool out of himself than he already is. :sad:
Love the "Reality Check" comment, that is perfect!! And I could not agree with you more. "Why?", is what I want to know. Does he have no respect for his family, the monarchy or his country in general? 5-Ring circus is an appropriate description of what may come to pass.
 
Surely he is bluffing?!?

A trial by jury would have the odds against him. A jury is supposed to be unbiased but...

In one corner, we have a rich, arrogant spoiled, foreign, royal. A proven associate of Epstein and who has a history of unfortunate behavior. And on top of that he sucks when being interviewed.
In the other corner we have a female victim, who was exploited as a teen, who comes from a poor/less privileged background and who is a fellow citizen.
Who, I wonder, is a jury-member per default inclined to feel most sympathy for?

- There is no way in this world I would appear before a foreign court, let alone a jury if I were Andrew.
 
Some commenters seem to be emphasizing the fact that Virginia Giuffre herself desires a jury trial (i.e., the Duke of York's demand for a jury trial is superfluous as there will be one unless Ms. Giuffre has a change of heart or the Duke's lawyers successfully petition for dismissal of the case). Analysis from Nicholas Witchell of the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60149024

In terms of the strategy, I think Prince Andrew's lawyers are trying to give the impression that Virginia Giuffre's reputation will be damaged if this does come to court.

They will attempt to assert that her conduct was sufficiently wrong in itself that she has forfeited the right to benefit in any way from this situation.

Though one has to wonder how that argument will play in front of a New York jury - a British prince trying to blame Virginia Giuffre.

It's a great final line in this document that Prince Andrew demands the right to be tried by a jury. But as I understand it he gets a jury trial anyway.

Could this all be part of a softening up process in the hope that, as the other side recognises the sort of defence that will be mounted, perhaps they will be more inclined to consider an out of court settlement?

Though at the moment, everything that Virginia Giuffre and her lawyers are saying is indicating that they do want to push this to a trial and they do want their day in court.
 
Andrew either has the worst most incompetent legal counsel in the history of jurisprudence, or they are all geniuses.

We shall see.:sad::eek:
 
Surely he is bluffing?!?

A trial by jury would have the odds against him. A jury is supposed to be unbiased but...

In one corner, we have a rich, arrogant spoiled, foreign, royal. A proven associate of Epstein and who has a history of unfortunate behavior. And on top of that he sucks when being interviewed.
In the other corner we have a female victim, who was exploited as a teen, who comes from a poor/less privileged background and who is a fellow citizen.
Who, I wonder, is a jury-member per default inclined to feel most sympathy for?

- There is no way in this world I would appear before a foreign court, let alone a jury if I were Andrew.

The qualifications rich, arrogant, spoiled are pretty subjective. What is rich, what is arrogant and what is spoiled? And what has that to do with the accusations by Ms Roberts pardon Giuffre ?
 
If he couldn't come off well on a TV interview what makes him think the will survive a jury trial.

He needs to settle ASAP. Better to have people think you were possibly guilty than to face a foreign jury trial and make a bigger arse of himself.
 
The qualifications rich, arrogant, spoiled are pretty subjective. What is rich, what is arrogant and what is spoiled? And what has that to do with the accusations by Ms Roberts pardon Giuffre ?

Indeed they are and that's the whole point.

Andrew has had a pretty rough time in the British press - and also the British public.
What are the odds that he won't be shredded by the American press and public?

The whole point with a jury system is that you have to overcome the bias of twelve strangers.
And this one is a classic: The little man or in this case woman, someone's daughter, who was exploited as a teen.
Against:
Some rich and no doubt spoiled foreign royal big shot, who used to hang out with some seriously shady characters. A man who hasn't come across as sincere or even convincing in his statements so far.
So yes, no matter what there are a lot of prejudices within the jury members (consciously or not) that Andrews lawyers have to overcome.

Fat chance of that happening. Especially if Andrew has to take the stand. - He may even start to perspire again, when sitting in the dock...

ADDED:

Having said that. I do not believe Andrew would be found guilty in a criminal court consisting only of professional legal minds.
Simply because it IMO cannot be proved that Andrew knew she was underage, knew she was trafficked (if she even was), knew she was a prostitute, knew she was exploited.
And without such proof, he is not proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

But a civil lawsuit... - He's toast!
 
Last edited:
Could this all be part of a softening up process in the hope that, as the other side recognises the sort of defence that will be mounted, perhaps they will be more inclined to consider an out of court settlement?

The German "BBC", the ARD, has the same argument, but with a slightly different spin:

So, Andrew let's the trial start not to soften up the Virgina girl and her lawyers, but to show by this to the public, that he is not afraid of a trial, because he is innocent - money as a settlement can be paid until the last day of the trial anyway....
 
One thing I know is that if Andrew is counting on who he is, what his titles are and what his standing as a "prince" denotes, it will mean absolutely nothing at all in a US court of law with an American jury and an American judge and American laws determining his fate. He will be just a man accused by a woman in a lawsuit and those laws and the jury and the judge will determine his fate. No "leg up" or booster because of who he is or who his mama is. Andrew is solely alone in all of this and I sincerely hope that his legal counsel is running the show rather than being sycophants to Andrew's whims.

I find it absolutely astonishing that his legal counsel would even think of allowing him to take the stand in his own defense after the mess he made out of his disastrous interview. He wasn't coached at all at what to say or not to say during that interview and there's no way legal counsel can control what comes out of his mouth if and when he takes the stand. They may advise him until the cows come home but Andrew, I believe, knows his own mind so well that he won't heed their advice.

Although I know this lawsuit and the possible jury trial that looms ahead is a very serious one, one thing I believe to be true. So many people in the public domain will be following this as it happens for the entertainment value it brings to ordinary, everyday life. It really is kind of sad that a man that had such a global platform to do good and had the world on a silver platter served up to him has sunken so low as to be deemed a clown for entertainment of the masses to see how much further damage he can possibly do to himself. This alone guarantees that no matter the outcome, no matter if he's exonerated from all wrongdoing and his name is cleared, he'll always be remembered and tagged as the "Disgraced Clown Prince".

No ruling or money or even Ms. Giuffre even admitting she made the whole thing up for publicity can restore Andrew in the eyes of the world ever again. This is why I say he's already lost the war. :sad:
 
Surely he is bluffing?!?

A trial by jury would have the odds against him. A jury is supposed to be unbiased but...

In one corner, we have a rich, arrogant spoiled, foreign, royal. A proven associate of Epstein and who has a history of unfortunate behavior. And on top of that he sucks when being interviewed.
In the other corner we have a female victim, who was exploited as a teen, who comes from a poor/less privileged background and who is a fellow citizen.
Who, I wonder, is a jury-member per default inclined to feel most sympathy for?

- There is no way in this world I would appear before a foreign court, let alone a jury if I were Andrew.

I think most American jurors are accustomed to rich, arrogant and spoiled people - not so unusual in that society. Foreign and Royal are unlikely to sway them either way.

So it will come down to how they view Ms Giuffre and her evidence against him.
I suppose we shall see!
 
Is it possible that Andrew's stated wish for a jury trial is a gauntlet being thrown down to coerce HM to contribute to the settlement?
 
Is it possible that Andrew's stated wish for a jury trial is a gauntlet being thrown down to coerce HM to contribute to the settlement?

I don't think so. The Queen has already taken the steps needed to assure the public that Andrew is on his own in all this as a "private citizen". There's no way the Queen as monarch or the "Firm" or even the UK government and it's Parliament is going to touch any of these proceedings with a 10 foot long light saber or death ray weapon. They're making sure they're totally and completely divorced from anything that may happen next with Andrew and this lawsuit. :D

Heck... Andrew doesn't even have the Metropolitan Police to stand by him. All they've determined is that there was no crime committed in London at Ghislaine Maxwell's residence as Giuffre has presented. ;)
 
Last edited:
Another really odd thought here. How hard would it be for both sides to dig and find out just who the RPOs were at the times Giuffre accuses Andrew of sexually abusing her and finding them and subpoenas for them to give statements of what they observed and saw and witnessed for this case.

I wouldn't want to be in one of those RPOs shoes right now and called into this hot mess. :D
 
Another really odd thought here. How hard would it be for both sides to dig and find out just who the RPOs were at the times Giuffre accuses Andrew of sexually abusing her and finding them and subpoenas for them to give statements of what they observed and saw and witnessed for this case.

I wouldn't want to be in one of those RPOs shoes right now and called into this hot mess. :D

I had read somewhere that an RPO who has with him quite a bit during that time period has since died.
 
:previous: I don't suppose they were standing right next to the bed though...

Nor being present during the foreplay, which I imagine would be the young woman exclaiming every 15 seconds: "Wow! A real prince?!? Wow wow and triple wow! - The bed is in here. - Wow and wow again, a genuine royal!"

If they were, they would probably shoot themselves on the spot with their service weapon after five minutes of listening to this - or alternatively being "entertained" themselves? Epstein was a pig, but no idiot.
 
:previous: I don't suppose they were standing right next to the bed though...

Nor being present during the foreplay, which I imagine would be the young woman exclaiming every 15 seconds: "Wow! A real prince?!? Wow wow and triple wow! - The bed is in here. - Wow and wow again, a genuine royal!"

If they were, they would probably shoot themselves on the spot with their service weapon after five minutes of listening to this - or alternatively being "entertained" themselves? Epstein was a pig, but no idiot.

As always, dear Muhler, we can count on you to keep a clear focus on the reality of things when we post some off the wall ideas. :D

Reminds me too that when Harry had his big blowout playing naked pool in Las Vegas, the RPOs were stationed outside and were not admitted into whatever was going on inside. It makes sense. They're there to serve and protect, not babysit. ;)
 
Many people are tying his guilt or innocence to the court trial. What he has done and said is the reason he has been stripped of his titles and honors. He chose to continue a relationship with Epstein and Maxwell after he was a convicted criminal. He found nothing wrong with it. He stayed in Epstein’s home because it was convenient. I know how difficult it can be to find lodgings in rural outback of New York City. His lack of compassion for the proven victims of Epstein’s crimes.

Who would want to be associated or lead by a man with such poor judgment?

The monarchy is held to a high standard because that is what is expected of them for the privileges that the citizens provide to them, and he has fallen far below the mark expected.
 
It really is kind of sad that a man that had such a global platform to do good and had the world on a silver platter served up to him has sunken so low as to be deemed a clown for entertainment of the masses to see how much further damage he can possibly do to himself. This alone guarantees that no matter the outcome, no matter if he's exonerated from all wrongdoing and his name is cleared, he'll always be remembered and tagged as the "Disgraced Clown Prince".

No ruling or money or even Ms. Giuffre even admitting she made the whole thing up for publicity can restore Andrew in the eyes of the world ever again. This is why I say he's already lost the war. :sad:


And the really bad thing is that when we see that Andrew was still friends with Epstein and Maxwell after Epstein was first accused and then judged for "lifestyle choices" that were illegal, all the other scandals of Andrew and Sarah come back to mind. They all point to a life in a section of society where common "decency" has not played a big part when it came to decision making. So if Andrew did or did not what Ms. Giuffre claims, it doesn't matter because she as well as all the sleazy folks that inhabit this segment of society and have been connected with Andrew and Sarah's life simply should never be able to sue a prince of the UK at all!



IMHO, of course.
 
Prince Andrew....Science never presumes guilt

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.
 
And the really bad thing is that when we see that Andrew was still friends with Epstein and Maxwell after Epstein was first accused and then judged for "lifestyle choices" that were illegal, all the other scandals of Andrew and Sarah come back to mind. They all point to a life in a section of society where common "decency" has not played a big part when it came to decision making. So if Andrew did or did not what Ms. Giuffre claims, it doesn't matter because she as well as all the sleazy folks that inhabit this segment of society and have been connected with Andrew and Sarah's life simply should never be able to sue a prince of the UK at all!


\IMHO, of course.

My opinion is that it doesn't matter to me if a person is a prince, a pauper, a baker or a candlestick maker. No one is above the law and everyone and their grandmother's pet meerkat are to be held responsible for their actions. Well.... maybe not the pet meerkat. :D
 
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.

Not sure what you are suggesting but it seems to me that it is unrealistic if someone has a genuine case, to expect them to hand over whatever they get in settlement. If they do bring a civil case, the award is to compensate them for whatever ills they have suffered.
 
Some reporters have been suggesting that Prince Andrew is trying to publicly distance himself from Ghislaine. That seems an impossible task, what with the many photos of them together and her many visits to royal residences. He also gave anecdotal evidence of their friendship in his interview with Emily Maitlis.
 
Some reporters have been suggesting that Prince Andrew is trying to publicly distance himself from Ghislaine. That seems an impossible task, what with the many photos of them together and her many visits to royal residences. He also gave anecdotal evidence of their friendship in his interview with Emily Maitlis.

I watched some of the interview and it seemed that he was back then saying that his friendship was with Ghislaine rather than with Epstein.. so possibly he was not aware that she was so complicit in Epsteins exploits....
 
I watched some of the interview and it seemed that he was back then saying that his friendship was with Ghislaine rather than with Epstein.. so possibly he was not aware that she was so complicit in Epsteins exploits....

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom