Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, but that's a much wider allegation; there, he's denying having sex with her. But I think he's been quite careful not to deny ever having met her.
RileyOBlimey
Well-Known Member
Remember the burden of proof for a civil case in the US is not "Beyond a reasonable doubt" it is much lower. So, Andy is less likely to get away with it.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
I would lay good money he made them up on the spot during the interview.
Athos
Well-Known Member
That's not what burden of proof means. You're referring to the standard of proof.
The burden of proof rests with her to prove her claims (to the civil standard).
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh we know and it's been chatted about above. most people here are used to it being the balance of probabilities in a civil case as opposed to the beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Palm Springs is in California and has nothing to do with this, the action here was Palm Beach in Florida.
And is it less about age of consent but actual consent seeing as she was trafficked and made to have sex against her will, i.e. raped.
And is it less about age of consent but actual consent seeing as she was trafficked and made to have sex against her will, i.e. raped.
Last edited:
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I did read the transcript, but how can he be sure it didn’t happen? How can he know, if he doesn’t remember?
Athos
Well-Known Member
His position seems to be that he doesn't recall meeting her, but that he's sure he never slept with her. Not a bad stance, given the possibility of witnesses coming forward to say they met, and given the fact the others are unlikely to have witnessed any sex. Effectively makes his account hard to disprove.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
The picture of him stood in the house of a sex trafficker, who incidentally is grinning in the background, with his arm around the bare waist of a woman trafficked for sex by the grinning madam, kind of balances the probabilities a bit.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Hopefully. But we shouldn't underestimate how hard it is to convince juries in these cases.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
If she wants to settle that’s her business and he’s utterly ruined anyway. But if her lawyers are doing some kind of no-win no-fee thing cos they are arch republicans or (more likely) will take a slice of her book/etc revenue, then why not reject a settlement and make the cunt truly pay for his crimes?
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Do you reckon that with
TopCat
Putin fanboy
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I bet most over there hate him.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Nah just self entitled arrogant English snobby Royal rapes US kid and sneers rather than be accountable. Be like a bucket of stale piss thrown in the face of small c conservative America.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
It's not really true that VG will need to prove that the Paedo Prince fucked her knowing she had been trafficked. It's a civil case so 'all' she need show is that he is lying and that her version of events is highly plausible.
PP has two essential avenues of defence - deny all knowledge of anything, or admit he met her but didn't do that. If she can provide witnesses for any of her claims - most notably being at Tramps with him - then he would have to claim that he had simply forgotten, despite the fact that he explicitly claimed he was elsewhere, and could remember being elsewhere. Show he is a liar and the rest of his testimony is effectively undermined - 'he's lied to the court once, so he is obviously willing to do so again and again.'
I daresay the attempts to claim the renowned photo was a fake will be blamed on someone else, but the strength of his denials of recalling meeting her ever will count against him - "Why can't you remember? Were there so many young girls you met in the company of paedophile Epstein and procurer Maxwell that you have forgotten this specific one?"
Any response will destroy what is left of his reputation. The story about him being in Pizza Express may not make it to the US court, but if he is made to say he was anywhere else (other than PE) he will be shown, in the court of public opinion, to be a brazen liar covering his arse in a way even Johnson would find embarrassing. His other option would be to go nuclear and do everything possible to destroy VG's reputation and claim that she is only in it for the money - "I'm a liar, but so is she." Probably not quite as bad for him as the previous option, but still a pretty shitty look. Especially given his one and only skill is his ability to put his foot in his own mouth.
Given that any such witness statements or other evidence would be shown to his team well in advance of any trial, I suspect he'll be told to pay the fuck up quietly before anything comes to court. Another shitty look, but at least he is keeping The Family's name of the appalling vista or appearing in court.
PP has two essential avenues of defence - deny all knowledge of anything, or admit he met her but didn't do that. If she can provide witnesses for any of her claims - most notably being at Tramps with him - then he would have to claim that he had simply forgotten, despite the fact that he explicitly claimed he was elsewhere, and could remember being elsewhere. Show he is a liar and the rest of his testimony is effectively undermined - 'he's lied to the court once, so he is obviously willing to do so again and again.'
I daresay the attempts to claim the renowned photo was a fake will be blamed on someone else, but the strength of his denials of recalling meeting her ever will count against him - "Why can't you remember? Were there so many young girls you met in the company of paedophile Epstein and procurer Maxwell that you have forgotten this specific one?"
Any response will destroy what is left of his reputation. The story about him being in Pizza Express may not make it to the US court, but if he is made to say he was anywhere else (other than PE) he will be shown, in the court of public opinion, to be a brazen liar covering his arse in a way even Johnson would find embarrassing. His other option would be to go nuclear and do everything possible to destroy VG's reputation and claim that she is only in it for the money - "I'm a liar, but so is she." Probably not quite as bad for him as the previous option, but still a pretty shitty look. Especially given his one and only skill is his ability to put his foot in his own mouth.
Given that any such witness statements or other evidence would be shown to his team well in advance of any trial, I suspect he'll be told to pay the fuck up quietly before anything comes to court. Another shitty look, but at least he is keeping The Family's name of the appalling vista or appearing in court.
Last edited:
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
I wonder if the lawyers will be seeking to get hold of talking points, practice videos, emails of feedback etc from whichever over-priced damage-limitation 'experts' the Glowing Gordonstounian hired to prep him for his Maitlis interview?
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
In ‘The Photo’ there are four people present. One says she was abused by one who says he wasn’t there. The photographer is thought to be dead, that leaves one other who could verify the claim by one of the other two people. A person who is facing the rest of her life inside. Wonder if she may be minded to say anything?
If true, I suppose it's possible he was reminded by his daughter and/or her friend. Pizza express would be trivial to him but having a prince at your party won't have been for the friend. But as if they were sitting there at the same time Tramp was open. It's nonsense.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Pizza Express · Hours
65/67 Goldsworth Road, Woking GU21 6LJ
Closed · Opens tomorrow 11:30 am
| Days of week | Open hours |
|---|---|
| Wednesday | 11:30 am - 10 pm |
| Thursday | 11:30 am - 11 pm |
| Friday | 11:30 am - 11 pm |
| Saturday | 11:30 am - 11 pm |
| Sunday | 11:30 am - 10 pm |
| Monday | 11:30 am - 10 pm |
| Tuesday | 11:30 am - 10 pm |
Exactly. If Tramp was even open at 11PM it would just be warming up.
Pizza Express · Hours
65/67 Goldsworth Road, Woking GU21 6LJ
Closed · Opens tomorrow 11:30 am
Days of week Open hours Wednesday 11:30 am - 10 pm Thursday 11:30 am - 11 pm Friday 11:30 am - 11 pm Saturday 11:30 am - 11 pm Sunday 11:30 am - 10 pm Monday 11:30 am - 10 pm Tuesday 11:30 am - 10 pm
Calamity1971
If Mr Peanut says It's okay, then it is.
Just watching newsnight from earlier and Kirsty wark .... ' Coming up, the prince Charles sex case to go ahead' 
5 mins in and no correction 
5 mins in and no correction 
Elpenor
Dancing as fast as I can
A royal family member at a Palm Springs White Party would be a good story though
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
I'm fairly sure that having sex with a victim of trafficking is illegal irrespective of that age. If someone's been trafficked then there is no age of consent, so age of consent is a moot point.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
That seems kind of odd. So if someone is trafficked from A to B they lose their capacity to consent to sex with anyone?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
That is essentially what trafficked means. It doesn't mean given a lift someplace.That seems kind of odd. So if someone is trafficked from A to B they lose their capacity to consent to sex with anyone?
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Trafficking for non-sexual exploitative means is possibly at least as common as for sexual exploitation (figures are fuzzy).
Let's just assume we are talking about trafficking for coerced sexual reasons and let that lie for now.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
you seem to have a problem with the notion of 'against their will' and what that entails.
Similar threads
