Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit

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.

...the widely published pic of the 2 ( with Grisly Ghislaine a metaphorically and pictorially sinister presence in the background ) proves they were... er...in a hands-on situation on at least one occasion......in that sense whilst the burden of proof maybe on the accuser its still difficult to positively clear your name...( although given the points on his licence & judging by this board he's largely wasting his time on that one...)

...as regards the timing of this issue would it be ridiculous to speculate if the whole post-Savile / Westminster paedo issue may have caused ripples across the Atlantic sufficient to have any bearing at all ...?
 
...the widely published pic of the 2 ( with Grisly Ghislaine a metaphorically and pictorially sinister presence in the background ) proves they were... er...in a hands-on situation on at least one occasion......in that sense whilst the burden of proof maybe on the accuser its still difficult to positively clear your name...( although given the points on his licence & judging by this board he's largely wasting his time on that one...)

...as regards the timing of this issue would it be ridiculous to speculate if the whole post-Savile / Westminster paedo issue may have caused ripples across the Atlantic sufficient to have any bearing at all ...?
I agree that it's difficult to prove a negative, but if the palace are claiming windsor had no contact at all with the girl, other than the day of the photo, they should be able to do that. Things like, 'couldn't have met her in the Virgin Islands, he was elsewhere on that date. Couldn't have met her in the club in London, he's never visited the place'. They are clearly unwilling to get into that level of detail. That might be because they traditionally don't do detail and anyway won't want to start feeding the press as that will only lead to demands for more detail. In other words they might just be playing the normal palace PR role. The other - and more likely scenario - is that he did meet her in the places and on the dates claimed, but for the moment they don't want to admit that. Most of all, they'll be hoping epstein having paid off other potential witnesses + Dershovitz's threats does the trick. Probably will to be honest.
 
I agree that it's difficult to prove a negative, but if the palace are claiming windsor had no contact at all with the girl, other than the day of the photo, they should be able to do that. Things like, 'couldn't have met her in the Virgin Islands, he was elsewhere on that date. Couldn't have met her in the club in London, he's never visited the place'. They are clearly unwilling to get into that level of detail. That might be because they traditionally don't do detail and anyway won't want to start feeding the press as that will only lead to demands for more detail. In other words they might just be playing the normal palace PR role. The other - and more likely scenario - is that he did meet her in the places and on the dates claimed, but for the moment they don't want to admit that. Most of all, they'll be hoping epstein having paid off other potential witnesses + Dershovitz's threats does the trick. Probably will to be honest.
this is the sort of thing which should be in the publick domain, being as so many people are interested in the royal family. it ought to be possible to build up a fairly full chronology of andrew's life from the times, telegraph, hello etc.
 
Wilf
hello magazine has 3682 results for prince andrew, so a fairly detailed picture of his life can be developed and we can start to get to the bottom of this nasty little suspicion we all have.
 
And rather helpfully, our rulers provide this handy search tool:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/Todaysevents.aspx
ok, there's something in region of 210 listings there for prince andrew in 2008. so there's around 146 days he has to account for. now, some of these will be filled in by publications like hello, and on some days he can't have been up to anything with this woman because of things like xmas. but it's clear he can't readily account for every day.
 
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.
As I understand, there has not been any criminal prosecution case heard on the charges that would have had a mandatory 10 year jail term if he was found guilty. Surely, if the deal made to drop those charges is illegal then he can be tried on them for the first time. The charge he pleaded guilty to and served time for wouldn't come into it.
 
As I understand, there has not been any criminal prosecution case heard on the charges that would have had a mandatory 10 year jail term if he was found guilty. Surely, if the deal made to drop those charges is illegal then he can be tried on them for the first time. The charge he pleaded guilty to and served time for wouldn't come into it.

Didn't he accept some kind of conviction on the charges? If so, there would have been no need to go to trial, as far as I understand it.

But yes, if the plea bargain was illegal, I agree that does muddy the waters somewhat. I'm not quite sure on what basis it is being argued that the bargain was illegal though - some kind of statutory right, I think. Sounds a bit odd if so.
 
He accepted a conviction on lesser charges, not on the original charges. That was the deal - the main charges were dropped and none of the people named could be charged either, as long as he accepted the lesser charges. Jane Does 1-3 are now bringing g a suit saying that the lawyers had no right to make that deal because they didn't agree and weren't even consulted.
 
And all of that would make sense of the Palace's statement that Andrew Windsor would never try to influence an active case and specifically didn't in this particular case. There was no case on the charges involving Andrew. It never got to court, so technically they are telling the truth.
 
Didn't he accept some kind of conviction on the charges? If so, there would have been no need to go to trial, as far as I understand it.

But yes, if the plea bargain was illegal, I agree that does muddy the waters somewhat. I'm not quite sure on what basis it is being argued that the bargain was illegal though - some kind of statutory right, I think. Sounds a bit odd if so.
The Crime Victims' Rights Act requires victims to be informed of plea deals. The basis of this case is that victims were not. It's not odd at all.
 
Presumably the people who have been bought off will all have signed something to state that they won't testify against Epstein?
I'm unsure about American law, but a contractual term intended to stop someone from giving evidence in court would be unenforceable in the UK.

As I understand, there has not been any criminal prosecution case heard on the charges that would have had a mandatory 10 year jail term if he was found guilty. Surely, if the deal made to drop those charges is illegal then he can be tried on them for the first time. The charge he pleaded guilty to and served time for wouldn't come into it.
He would have a reasonably good abuse of process argument in court (i.e. the prosecution are fucking about and should be forced to stop).

There are good reasons to hold the prosecution to a promise not to prosecute, although English law has taken a more flexible approach in recent years. Prosecutors can now overturn decisions not to charge that were either wrong or unreasonable.

I suspect that American courts are still rigid and the prosecution would be stopped.
 
The Crime Victims' Rights Act requires victims to be informed of plea deals. The basis of this case is that victims were not. It's not odd at all.

Again, not familiar with this area specifically, but in general it is odd if there are impediments to the settlement of cases, particularly if it encourages the reinvigoration of matters that have already been brought to a conclusion.
 
I'm unsure about American law, but a contractual term intended to stop someone from giving evidence in court would be unenforceable in the UK.


He would have a reasonably good abuse of process argument in court (i.e. the prosecution are fucking about and should be forced to stop).

There are good reasons to hold the prosecution to a promise not to prosecute, although English law has taken a more flexible approach in recent years. Prosecutors can now overturn decisions not to charge that were either wrong or unreasonable.

I suspect that American courts are still rigid and the prosecution would be stopped.

Yeah, I don't know how you could reasonably run an argument to prosecute a guy who has already accepted a conviction on the same facts.

But I don't think any of this is really about getting anyone behind bars. I suspect that the reason that they're seeking disclosure of some of the documents underlying the plea bargain is to strengthen their hand in some kind of negotiation.
 
Again, not familiar with this area specifically, but in general it is odd if there are impediments to the settlement of cases, particularly if it encourages the reinvigoration of matters that have already been brought to a conclusion.

What's odd about this: The Crime Victims' Rights Act requires victims to be informed of plea deals. The basis of this case is that victims were not. Quite straightforward.

What is odd is saying that something has happened oh well, it's done now - can't be helped. If it was odd to have another look despite evidence being presented and arguments being made etc , well that would be pretty damning of the system as a whole. But i suspect that's not the sort of odd you mean.
 
  • 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.
In conclusion, what this looks like to me, overall, is a very smart and fairly sharp move by Roberts' lawyers to exert leverage in some other negotiation, which is not public.

Lets not attribute too much to Virginia Roberts. She, along with another unnamed person, wants to be added to a case that already involved two other anonymous people. So she didn't instigate this strategy, although her involvement in the case now, and the details that inevitably come with that involvement, has obviously triggered the press attention of recent days.

I feel especially bound to make this point because according to the documents I've read this action started over 6 years ago, so it doesn't seem right to paint this legal stuff as being attempts to disturb the plea bargain at such a late stage.

eg:

As the Court is aware, more than six years ago, Jane Doe #1 filed the present action against the Government, alleging a violation of her rights under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. DE1. She alleged that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused her and that the United States had entered into a secret non-prosecution agreement (NPA) regarding those crimes in violation of her rights. At the first court hearing on the case, the Court allowed Jane Doe #2 to also join the action. Both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 specifically argued that the government had failed to protect their CVRA rights (inter alia) to confer, to reasonable notice, and to be treated with fairness. In response, the Government argued that the CVRA rights did not apply to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 because no federal charges had ever been filed against Jeffrey Epstein.

The Court has firmly rejected the United States’ position. In a detailed ruling, the Court concluded that the CVRA extended rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 even though federal charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had “standing” to assert violations of the CVRA rights. Id. The Court deferred ruling on whether the two victims would be entitled to relief, pending development of a fuller evidentiary record. Id.

Two other victims, who are in many respects similarly situated to the current victims, now wish to join this action. The new victims joining at this stage will not cause any delay and their joinder in this case is the most expeditious manner in which to pursue their rights. Because the background regarding their abuse is relevant to the Court’s assessment of whether to allow them to join, their circumstances are recounted here briefly.

Taken from http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2015_0102_epsteindershowitz.pdf
 
...as regards the timing of this issue would it be ridiculous to speculate if the whole post-Savile / Westminster paedo issue may have caused ripples across the Atlantic sufficient to have any bearing at all ...?

I can't answer that directly but I can add a couple of related themes:

The USA has had its own high-profile scandals and court cases, involving both sexual abuse/rape/minors and also issues of domestic violence have been in the news a lot. The most obvious examples would be Michael Jackson, and Jerry Sandusky the Penn State Uni football coach who was convicted of abusing boys over a 15 year period and received a very long sentence. And most recently the accusations against Bill Cosby which have certainly received fresh attention in a way never given to them in the past.

Regardless of whether this stuff is happening now because of momentum built up in the UK, the following fits absolutely perfectly with the best, most potentially helpful phenomenon of the post-Savile era:

"These types of aggressive attacks on me are exactly the reason why sexual abuse victims typically remain silent and the reason why I did for a long time. That trend should change. I'm not going to be bullied back into silence," Roberts said through her lawyer, as reported by AAP.
 
Yeah, I don't know how you could reasonably run an argument to prosecute a guy who has already accepted a conviction on the same facts.
They are not the same facts.

One subset of all the possible facts would have resulted in stronger changers and harsher sentencing. Another, smaller subset of the facts resulted in a lesser charge with lighter sentencing.
 
Yeah, I don't know how you could reasonably run an argument to prosecute a guy who has already accepted a conviction on the same facts.

You could argue that the original plea bargain was unlawful. It certainly sounds pretty suspect. I doubt a man without Epstein's money and connections would have been offered the same deal in light of the same evidence.
 
He accepted a conviction on lesser charges, not on the original charges. That was the deal - the main charges were dropped and none of the people named could be charged either, as long as he accepted the lesser charges. Jane Does 1-3 are now bringing g a suit saying that the lawyers had no right to make that deal because they didn't agree and weren't even consulted.

I don't know how this can possibly hold water. Not to say that such a deal wasn't made, but if it was it makes no earthly sense.
 
They are not the same facts.

One subset of all the possible facts would have resulted in stronger changers and harsher sentencing. Another, smaller subset of the facts resulted in a lesser charge with lighter sentencing.

Not sure what you're getting at here. If there's new evidence, then sure, that merits a review depending on how germane it is to the central elements of the case but, if there is no new evidence, then we're dealing with the same set of facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom