Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
"I was chatting with a convicted sex offender, and he's upset about this".
Who gives a fuck? Is there any reason anyone should give a fuck about how irritated a convicted sex offender is about a lawsuit relating to alleged sex offences?
Who gives a fuck? Is there any reason anyone should give a fuck about how irritated a convicted sex offender is about a lawsuit relating to alleged sex offences?
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
I think the key word there is supposed to be "further".
In other words, the Palace already had all the facts at their fingertips and had no need to do any additional verification. So we can all rest assured that They are Playing Cricket.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Guardian now playing the game of using a convicted nonce's word as reason to disbelieve Virginia Roberts:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/05/prince-andrew-sex-claims-rehashed-says-epstein-lawyer
They could so easily framed the story in terms of the palace 'source's' refusal to give any detail as to whether he had met her on 3 occasions.
edit - all in contrast to the mail who are giving it the whole '10 questions for the prince thing' (along with, inevitably, a bit of simpering over sarah ferguson)
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/05/prince-andrew-sex-claims-rehashed-says-epstein-lawyer
They could so easily framed the story in terms of the palace 'source's' refusal to give any detail as to whether he had met her on 3 occasions.
edit - all in contrast to the mail who are giving it the whole '10 questions for the prince thing' (along with, inevitably, a bit of simpering over sarah ferguson)
Last edited:
gosub
~#
Don't be so heartless, the man has had to cut short his skiing holiday.
Some would like to see him as smooth as snow for this.
A few thoughts and my rough "feel" on the case:
Caveat - I may be completely wrong about all of that but my sense is that this whole affair is a bit of a charade - not without truth per se, but being used for a specific purpose that is not being publically acknowledged.
- Epstein is clearly an offender and has a proven history of such offences.
- He cut a deal with the prosecutors on the criminal charges and then has been settling the civil cases ever since, for roughly $150,000 a go as far as I understand.
- This case doesn't actually involve Epstein, or Dershowitz or Prince Andrew directly at all; rather it goes to the federal prosecutors.
- That is a pretty odd development - either it means that Virginia Roberts has decided, at a pretty late stage, to try and disturb the plea bargain so as to reinstate a criminal prosecution, although that would seem impossible under the principle of double jeopardy which is a very important point, or else this is a tactical move in a wider battle, which seems far more likely to me.
Caveat - I may be completely wrong about all of that but my sense is that this whole affair is a bit of a charade - not without truth per se, but being used for a specific purpose that is not being publically acknowledged.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
The action against the federal prosecutors seems to be intended to show that the original plea bargain offered to Epstein was unlawful, and if this is shown to be the case then it's possible Epstein could be charged again.
Also, Epstein never actually went to trial. Double jeopardy applies to cases where a defendant is tried and found not guilty, I'm not sure how it pertains to someone pleading guilty to a lesser charge to avoid a trial.
Of course that this could all be a leverage tactic for a civil lawsuit or something, but in that case dragging the Windsors in to it all would seem like a pretty risky nuclear option.
I'm not sure that that is the case. Double jeopardy is a pretty broad principle. If it doesn't apply to plea bargains, then that would undermine the whole settlement process, which in turn would undermine the rule of law in general.
Or to put it another way - I would be surprised if any court was prepared to hear another criminal prosecution against Epstein on the same charges, especially given that he has been convicted and has served time in prison. That would seem incredible to me.
I agree with your point about the nuclear option though - this may well be the public manifestation of Roberts' team pressing the red button in some other affair.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
So Dershowitz is planning to sue Roberts for defamation to the tune of $100 million. He's claiming that court privilege doesn't apply to Roberts' claims because, well because he doesn't like them 
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
But can there be a retrial if the original proceedings are subsequently invalidated?
I'm sure they can subtract the forty-five minutes he's already served in prison from whatever new sentence may be passed.
Also - to correct you there, double jeopardy doesn't rest on the way the decision goes.
It's not important what plea you have entered, nor what decision is handed down - the point is more procedural than that, i.e. if you have defended a specific claim, or if the state has prosecuted you for that claim, and a decision has been handed down, you cannot then be tried again for the same claim.
The manifest idea is to prevent people from being relentlessly tried and tried again and again on the same charges.
It's not important what plea you have entered, nor what decision is handed down - the point is more procedural than that, i.e. if you have defended a specific claim, or if the state has prosecuted you for that claim, and a decision has been handed down, you cannot then be tried again for the same claim.
The manifest idea is to prevent people from being relentlessly tried and tried again and again on the same charges.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Presumably the people who have been bought off will all have signed something to state that they won't testify against Epstein?
Almost certainly - the settlement agreements will most likely bind them very tightly.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Not our place to say I'm sure.
I'd say it seems extremely unlikely that Roberts would make such claims if there were no factual basis to them.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Also I personally wouldn't trust a word Andrew said. The kindest thing that could be said about him is that he's a complete waste of space.
hot air baboon
Well-Known Member
...whilst I agree it's actually very difficult for Andy Panderer to disprove if he didn't .... ( given there were occassions when they were in the same place on the same day )
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
But if Roberts' team were to pursue such a claim against Windsor, the burden of proof would, of course, be on them to prove that it did happen.
hot air baboon
Well-Known Member
...true...which presumably means he was doing it in front of other witnesses, she's still got her unwashed underwear or they've got piccies...!?
That was my starting assumption.
It strikes me now that IF the plan was to maximise an out-of-court settlement, it's not necessarily working, because everyone is now digging their heels in.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I've not seen anything denying Roberts was part of the nonce's 'entourage'. Equally, if she hadn't been present on the days and in the places windsor was, we'd have heard about it by now. In fact one of reports in the guardian had 'sources' refusing to be drawn on that issue. Given that this was a decade ago and was discussed in 2011, both the palace and Dershovitz have had ample time to get their alibis in place.
Vile Andrew?
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
No, I meant that she was part of epstein's 'entourage'. To be honest, given that he is a convicted sex offender, I'm not sure why I'm using mealy mouthed terms like that. He was her pimp.
This is all pure speculation but I can see a number of different scenarios in which these developments make sense.
The first thing that has to be understood, the predicate starting point, is that this dispute is not new.
We are coming at this very late in the day, after years of criminal and civil proceedings. However, because of the scandal promised in recent developments, the whole affair gives the impression of being fresh and new when it is in fact rather stale.
So, against that backdrop, I can see the following scenarios making sense - (i) some ambitious and entrepreneurial lawyers looking to make a name for themselves and not being 100% honest with their client (after all the only victory I can see here is to give the federal prosecutor a bloody nose on a point of procedure...), (ii) to exert leverage in some other, secret negotiations (which is the nuclear option and seems like a very risky strategy), or, and this is my preferred conclusion, (iii) to try and bring a party to the negotiating table (again very risky, but if there are no negotiations then there is no prospect of any kind of positive outcome).
But, I agree, in any event, it looks likely that this will be a tactical failure.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
If you're correct, that 'failure' has been a massive win for those of us keen to see the RF portrayed as the depraved parasites that they are. But I hope, for the sake of the victim(s) that you're wrong.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
To be honest, I think we all realise that not one single person will see the inside of a prison cell over this, just as not one single establishment figure will do time in the UK. It shines a light on their priveliged and abusive lives, but that's about it. Fuck 'em all, the whole shower of dirty bastards.
Just to clarify - none of that speculation goes to whether Prince Andrew had sex with an underage girl at one of Epstein's properties.
The initial thing that does start to make you wonder though is the use of the phrase "sex slave". In any of the circumstances proposed, that is rather over-egging things.
Similar threads
