why ill timed?
have you ever kicked up a fuss about not being called as a witness in a trial?
My approval or opinion isn't really needed by anyone is it? Based on what I've seen and read myself I'm firmly on Team Giuffre rather than Team Nonce at this point, however yes we don't all know the facts of the case as they say. However a US Federal Judge (who might reasonably be expected to know a bit about US law and whether a case is sound or not) has been sufficiently convinced by what he has seen to send the matter to trial. If he thought her case was weak, he had the absolute power to stop it there and then, he hasn't done so. That would seem to me her claims are credible, as to whether they are true that's kind of what the jury gets to decide.
Perhaps I worded my post badly. Am running late.
It is this kind of binary thinking and lack of appreciation of complexity that I find extremely disturbing and that may get people into problems with m'learned friend later down the road that concerns me
That makes no sense at all. It wouldn't undermine the prosecution case for the defence to discredit a witness they've called, and upon whom the prosecution are not relying!
Yeah, there's clearly enough of an arguable case to put before a jury. But I don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge that question marks over the plaintiff's credibility and culpability are likely to pose challenges.
Quite.
I would lay good money that the crux of his case is going to be undermining her credibility, since ultimately it comes down to his word vs hers. I would presume she knows what she is likely to be in for.
yes, because she will have a) read the papers, or at least seen his strategy unveiled on the internet; and b) have spoken to her attorneys about it
I'm sure. Suspect it'll suit both parties to settle, if terms can be reached.
Her lawyer, David Boies is reported to have said:Although she says she won’t settle if it means Andrew avoids culpability whilst that’s exactly what he’ll probably want so
Yeh it's like they are persuaded of his guilt
Yeh no one gets rich by handing over vast sums in out of court settlements
It’s certainly the message they know full well they’re giving out. They have long practice in the science of subtle messaging, so it’s not as if they’re oblivious.
I think dlr is talking about prince andrew
Oh, of course. I was meaning Andrew not VG. I wouldn’t blame her in the least.
On that note apparently HWCS doesn't have much in the way of spare dosh either, it might be difficult for him to offer a generous out of court settlement if there is no guarantee that his Mum/Bro/British Taxpayer will sub him.
Because going to court is an expensive and uncomfortable gamble. Even if you know you should win, you have to accept there's often a real chance you won't.
