Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Not sure what it isDon’t address me - address the point!
You got this.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I feel duty bound not to give you any prompts.
mx wcfc
Well-Known Member
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Oh ffs, can people grow up?
The cunt topped himself. No one broke in and done it. No one paid guards to do it.
He knew he fluked it before and that he wouldn’t again. Life in stir as a nonce is all he had.
The cunt topped himself. No one broke in and done it. No one paid guards to do it.
He knew he fluked it before and that he wouldn’t again. Life in stir as a nonce is all he had.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Either his lawyers are olfactorily overdoing it on the miscellaneous client expenses fund, or they're testing out a new legal strategy based on Derren Brown's THIS IS THE WINNING TICKET spiel...
www.theguardian.com
Court to unseal deal between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre
Prince Andrew’s lawyers believe 2009 agreement could shield him from Giuffre’s civil sexual assault lawsuit
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Can someone please explain to me in simple terms why it's to Windsor's advantage to argue that he's a beneficiary of this agreement? If he insists he's covered doesn't it just show that he's implicated but can't be sued? Mind you, 'can't be sued' has significant financial advantages and maybe that matters more than reputation at this stage.
www.theguardian.com
Court to unseal deal between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre
Prince Andrew’s lawyers believe 2009 agreement could shield him from Giuffre’s civil sexual assault lawsuit
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Can’t say this would be my ideal fallback position at this point.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
The line that he was killed to avoid him revealing stuff in a sweatheart deal seems flawed, particularly if the argument is that it's the government who would have been offering that deal that actually killed him. In other words, they killed him to stop him releasing information that they were offering a deal which would have required him to release. 
The only way that kind of analysis works is if it was 'rogue elements' or a bloke that Alan Dershovitz knew down the pub who killed him. Well, applied for a job in NY Corrections, then got assigned to the right prison, then got on the right shift on the right day, on the right wing, then bribed the other guards, then fecked the cctv ... and then killed him.
The only way that kind of analysis works is if it was 'rogue elements' or a bloke that Alan Dershovitz knew down the pub who killed him. Well, applied for a job in NY Corrections, then got assigned to the right prison, then got on the right shift on the right day, on the right wing, then bribed the other guards, then fecked the cctv ... and then killed him.
Weller
So ermm ... You know ermm
All else has failed so far though and if the deal that Epstein got and who etc were shielded from action in his first conviction is going to be released , as well as Giuffres deal hopefully unredacted , him being instructed that several maybe many victims of of Maxwell and Epstein will be giving victim impact statements including Giuffre before Ghislanes sentencing it may not be ideal but surely a court case could now bring out much more damaging stuff connections made etc
They have also been told that there are at least 6 witnesses who will appear to say he was there when he said he wasn't or couldnt remember some meetings , things are not going as planned since his appearance on T.V you could see how shocked he was when he was told others he knew that were at Epsteins house had already spoken about him being there
Whos to say what else there may be or whos in the original deal hushed up for years there was a an outcry about Epsteins deal that allowed him out of prison every day to work in his penthouse suite office as well as keeping him and others from investigation for years
He doesn't seem to have any witnesses even his own daughter to say they were at a pizza party or proof he cant sweat , if hes lied and hes mentioned in the deal or implicated in other things in the case
Randy Andy as the newspapers here once called him regular was a very very good friend and visitor , user of Epsteins jet and holiday homes it seems for many years I find it hard to believe if hes guilty it was just with the 1 girl that kept a photo or somebody else released really there could be more at stake
Last edited:
Weller
So ermm ... You know ermm
Last edited:
Ming
I shot a man in Reno...
To reiterate. It's easy in a professional and well run facility to prevent someone in crisis from killing themselves. I've been doing it for 13 years in 3 countries. No deaths on my wards. The best i would say in this case was he was allowed enough space to kill himself. Imagine the amount of media attention the staff must have known they were under. If i was in their shoes i'd have been double vigilant. But they weren't. They ignored the most basic SOPs. Now why is that? TBH I wouldn't be surprised if Maxwell went the same way. It's the powers that be saying 'i'll kill you in public because i can'. To set another example.
Athos
Well-Known Member
The advantage is being immune from civil proceedings. There's no real disadvantage*, since being covered by the agreement doesn't mean (in law, at least) that he did anything. *Obviously, it doesn't look great, but then most people already think he did it, and that wouldn't change even if he successfully defended the claim, so nothing to lose, really.Can someone please explain to me in simple terms why it's to Windsor's advantage to argue that he's a beneficiary of this agreement? If he insists he's covered doesn't it just show that he's implicated but can't be sued? Mind you, 'can't be sued' has significant financial advantages and maybe that matters more than reputation at this stage.
Court to unseal deal between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre
Prince Andrew’s lawyers believe 2009 agreement could shield him from Giuffre’s civil sexual assault lawsuit
scalyboy
They’re taking the piss now
Is it just me, or is that one of those Magic Tree car deodorisers at far left, below the speech bubble and parallel to the royal elbow?
The sort of deodoriser someone might hang on a door if there was a sweaty nonce leaping and cavorting around the room?
Just a thought
scalyboy
They’re taking the piss now
Makes sense. Yes it doesn’t look great, but even if - in his tower of arrogance, foolishness and entitlement - he cannot see it yet, his lawyers may have explained to him that his reputation is already f**ked anyway.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Much depends on the contents of the agreement (when do we get to see it?). He might have to admit to being a nonce rapist to be covered for example. His lawyers have claimed it covers him but when the terms come out that claim of cover in itself might be hugely damaging.
Athos
Well-Known Member
There's absolutely no chance it'll be in those terms. If it was, he'd not seek to rely on it, since he'd be opening himself to a criminal prosecution (and they'd have sought to keep it secret).
It's likely to be a list of individuals and entities, by name or class, that's she's barred from proceeding against (without prejudice to liability). I suspect there's a term in there about "royalty", but the question will be whether that suffices or whether there's some other qualification, either explicitly in the agreement, or implied.
But we'll see very soon - due to be unsealed from today; could be as early as 1400 our time.
Last edited:
8ball
Decolonise colons!
She’s getting on a bit, but it wouldn’t be right to have a machine do it. I reckon let her have up to 20 medically-supervised swings.
Athos
Well-Known Member
If and when he loses the procedural arguments, he'll have three options:
1. To settle. But this requires the plaintiff's agreement.
2. To refuse to participate in the proceedings. Judgement would be entered against him, but he'd be gambling on it not being enforceable here.
3. Contested proceedings. A full trial, with him giving evidence on oath. Which would be a media circus, with the potential for loads of embarrassing stuff to come out, and for him to lose. Of course, he might win; it's still an uphill battle for her to prove that they had sex, never mind that he knew she was trafficked.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I reckon it will be option 1. Draws a line under things and gives a little mental
wiggle-room to deluded Royalists.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
When LVF leader Billy Wright was assasinated in prison in Northern Ireland by the INLA, one of the details of the case was that state-of-the-art CCTV cameras had failed on the day.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Because he might think that he'd win a trial and be vindicated. It's a dangerous game but far from out of the question.
bemused
Well-Known Member
Given he has a 24/7/365 security there must be a UK government record of where he's been. If he's innocent he can wheel that out, if he was on child abuse Island at the time I can't see why he'd go to trial.
Similar threads
