News Forum - Prince Andrew asks sexual assault case be dismissed in US court

[Stonker]

5 hours ago, Pinetree said:

As I say, the age of consent in this case, as it is being presented in the media,  is not relevant  She is alleging coercion/rape, so no consent given. 

No, she's alleging  statutory rape as a minor and trafficking also as a minor, so consent isn't possible.

Very different.

Under US law, the age of consent abroad is irrelevant, so 16 in the UK or 12 in the Philippines doesn't make any difference which is why she's bringing the case in the US not in the UK.

Andrew's defence are arguing that there's no case to answer as there was a civil agreement between Giuffre and Epstein made in 2009 that exonerated all 'participants' for an agreed and undisclosed fee, while her lawyers are arguing that Andrew wasn't included in the agreement (which is 'sealed' so not public).

As a back-up Andrew said that it wasn't him because he's not 'sweaty' (as Giuffre described him), couldn't recall ever meeting her,  and that when he was supposed to be with her in 2001 in the UK he was in Woking in Pizza Express with his daughters.

5 hours ago, Soidog said:

Or pay some out of court settlement (surely that’s not her motive)

Money's money

[miblish51]

There is some sloppy language here. Or course, sexual assault is a crime. However, a "minor" is someone who can't sign contracts or give consent for certain legal matters, which in New York is 18. The age of sexual consent is 16, unless she was taken across a state line, in which case a Federal law says she must be 18.

[Agudbuk]

2 minutes ago, miblish51 said:

There is some sloppy language here. Or course, sexual assault is a crime. However, a "minor" is someone who can't sign contracts or give consent for certain legal matters, which in New York is 18. The age of sexual consent is 16, unless she was taken across a state line, in which case a Federal law says she must be 18.

The age of consent in the UK is also 16.  Only physical coersion would be illegal.

[Rookiescot]

Was she coerced into doing this? I suspect not. I think she knew exactly what she was doing and was enjoying the lifestyle and or money.

Is Andrew a dirty sod? Yeah but we all kinda knew this anyway given his reputation. He was known as "Randy Andy" for a reason.

So ultimately I think the entire driver for this is not the pursuit of justice but it is for the pursuit of cash. 

So settle out of court Andrew. Your past has caught up with you. You can always tap moms if your short of money.

[Stonker]

7 minutes ago, Agudbuk said:

The age of consent in the UK is also 16.  Only physical coersion would be illegal.

The case isn't being brought in the UK, under UK law, as in the UK there would be no case.

It's being brought in New York under US law which doesn't consider age of consent abroad - only the age of consent in the US.

[Faz]

Off topic posts and quoted replies removed.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, miblish51 said:

There is some sloppy language here ... (snip) ...However, a "minor" is someone who can't sign contracts or give consent for certain legal matters, which in New York is 18. The age of sexual consent is 16, unless she was taken across a state line, in which case a Federal law says she must be 18.

The relevant law is US law is S 2423, Transportation of Minors, so it's probably OK to refer to "minors" .

[Soidog]

6 hours ago, Pinetree said:

In many ways she has won already.  His Royal life is over and whatever happens now, guilty or innocent, he is tainted for life. 

Yes it has tainted him for sure as people take the view there is no smoke without fire. I guess it depends on how much he enjoyed his official work as a Royal?  I understand he’s still carrying on with many of his charity roles and other business engagements. I obviously don’t know the guy, but whenever I’ve seen him interviewed he comes across as an arrogant individual and hence he may just blame everyone else for his predicament and move on ? 

[yselmike]

This will not end well for him, even the daily mail is having a pop at him. Slut shaming will bury him and with a bit of luck the whole royal show.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Smithydog
Expletive Removed

[Bob20]

Especially in the UK people have seen plenty of examples of those who resort to technicalities to avoid legal problems. The fact that he hasn't got a solid alibi for several incidents and he resorts to hiding behind another settlement just makes people suspicious if they weren't already. Add to that the TV interview and the court of public opinion convicted him already.

[Pinetree]

20 minutes ago, Soidog said:

he’s still carrying on with many of his charity roles and other business engagement

Not so, they have all dropped him.  He certainly appears to have had a bad reputation in the Royal Navy, for his reported  unbearable arrogance and sense of entitlement. 

[Soidog]

19 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

Not so, they have all dropped him.  He certainly appears to have had a bad reputation in the Royal Navy, for his reported  unbearable arrogance and sense of entitlement. 

Oh ok. I haven’t checked over recent weeks what he’s been doing. Whatever it is, he will be doing it in a more affluent setting than I will be in today. Yes I seem to recall stories like that from his Navy days. He does seem like the type you would love to punch

[JohninDublin]

18 hours ago, DiJoDavO said:

Why? If he really didn't do anything, then he would just win the case, right? 

I don't advocate for Andrew, and I also don't believe his version of events. But I am not sure that he has committed any crimes here.

According to the complainant, the matter took place in the UK when she was 17. The age of consent in the UK, with certain limited exceptions is 16. Among those exceptions, is prostitution (18). I've not read anywhere that he paid her, though I can't rule out that Epstein did so.  Unless she was being paid and Andrew knew of this at the time, or he knew she was being trafficked, I can't think what crimes he might have committed.

I do realise that this matter is taking place in Civil Court, but this is often the venue that is used when crimes are likely to fail the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. 

Now we are hearing that Giuffre herself was involved in trafficking girls for Epstein. Do I believe that? Probably. It has been well reported elsewhere that Epstein would use other under-age girls to recruit similar victims. 

[JohninDublin]

11 hours ago, EdwardV said:

I don’t really follow the case but it might be they are claiming statutory rape. Since she was 17, in many parts of America she’s not legally capable of giving consent. I don’t know about the other places but that’s going to be problematic for the NY part since the age of consent there is 17. 

But the matters complained of, took place in GB where the AoC is 16. 

I know the AoC question muddies the waters, and it is a defence in cases of "under-age sex" that you believed she was of age, but once she says she's of age, even if it turns out that she later lied about that, it's unlikely in all the circumstances that he would have faced charges in the UK.

[JohninDublin]

8 hours ago, Pinetree said:

The age of consent is irrelevant in a case of child (not a legal adult)  trafficking, coercion, or rape, as is apparently  alleged here.

Where is the evidence that Andrew knew she was trafficked, or of forcible rape, or coercion. 

[JohninDublin]

8 hours ago, Soidog said:

I’m also struggling to see the case he has to answer. If she was 17 at the time and the legal age was 17 or older then no case in my book. May be a naughty man taking advantage of a much younger girl, but how many other people could be guilty of that. If the age of consent where it happened was older than 17 then a case to be made. I’m just not clear at all. I thought the alleged event took place at Epstein’s place in New York when she was 17? 

Happened in London. AoC in GB 16 (17 in NI) with certain limited exceptions such as payment if she is under 18, trafficking, coercion etc. She went with him to a Disco in Mayfair, she is photographed looking happy to be with her alleged abuser. No evidence that he paid her, or that he knew if Epstein had paid her. It is difficult to believe that a girl who is flying 1st class, and dancing in Mayfair discos had any thoughts that she was being trafficked at the time. 

[JohninDublin]

7 hours ago, gummy said:

With his privileged lifestyle it will hardly be effected.

Not so sure about that. To have to hide from the public view and be a social pariah is quite a comedown.

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

The case isn't being brought in the UK, under UK law, as in the UK there would be no case.

It's being brought in New York under US law which doesn't consider age of consent abroad - only the age of consent in the US.

It seems to me that this is like "Libel Tourism". Though the case has no connection to the state in which it is pursued (Giuffre was a FL resident at the time, and the events took place in the UK), she is going to the state which gives her the best deal legally.

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, Bob20 said:

Especially in the UK people have seen plenty of examples of those who resort to technicalities to avoid legal problems. The fact that he hasn't got a solid alibi for several incidents and he resorts to hiding behind another settlement just makes people suspicious if they weren't already. Add to that the TV interview and the court of public opinion convicted him already.

I think he did it, but I fail to see that he has done anything illegal. 

What I would be interested to see is whether he goes into the witness box. In the US, SCOTUS confers an absolute right to silence in criminal cases and failure to give evidence on your own behalf, cannot be held against you, But in civil matters it can be. If he's caught in a lie, then he faces possible perjury charges.

[JohninDublin]

53 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Oh ok. I haven’t checked over recent weeks what he’s been doing. Whatever it is, he will be doing it in a more affluent setting than I will be in today. Yes I seem to recall stories like that from his Navy days. He does seem like the type you would love to punch

And yet at one time, he was described in the media as the public favourite among the Queen's children, because of his "laddish" behaviour, He was regarded as the only one who knew how to have "fun". 

[Soidog]

8 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

And yet at one time, he was described in the media as the public favourite among the Queen's children, because of his "laddish" behaviour, He was regarded as the only one who knew how to have "fun". 

Looks a miserable sod these days. Am I allowed to say that?

[Rookiescot]

19 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Happened in London. AoC in GB 16 (17 in NI) with certain limited exceptions such as payment if she is under 18, trafficking, coercion etc. She went with him to a Disco in Mayfair, she is photographed looking happy to be with her alleged abuser. No evidence that he paid her, or that he knew if Epstein had paid her. It is difficult to believe that a girl who is flying 1st class, and dancing in Mayfair discos had any thoughts that she was being trafficked at the time. 

This is what I dont understand. She says herself it happened on several occasions. She also settled out of court with other alleged "abusers".

So we are supposed to believe this woman was a victim of sex trafficking. 

But you have to ask yourself the question. Why did she keep getting on those planes if she knew she was going to be abused?

I suspect she was enjoying the game. Enjoying all the attention and money. Going with several people to be "wined and dined" and knowing full well what she would have to put out at the end of it.

Then she got older. Suddenly no-one wants her any more. But she does realise she can still cash in on her history.

Andrews arrogance has allowed this to all become public. When her lawyers first approached him he should simply have settled and made her sign a contract to never come back for more money. Just like all the other guys did.

Now he is going to have to pay even more money to get her to shut up and he is also persona non grata in UK society. 

This has wider implications too. Its becoming increasingly obvious that the UK's royal familly are a bunch of dysfunctional clowns. 

It needs to end when the Queen leaves us. I hope that is not going to happen for many years yet but she needs to be the last unelected head of State in the UK.

The only royal I would go for a pint with is Harry.

[JohninDublin]

40 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Looks a miserable sod these days. Am I allowed to say that?

Funny you should say that. My post was held up for "pre-moderation". I can't think what I wrote that triggered that.

[JohninDublin]

42 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

This is what I dont understand. She says herself it happened on several occasions. She also settled out of court with other alleged "abusers".

So we are supposed to believe this woman was a victim of sex trafficking. 

But you have to ask yourself the question. Why did she keep getting on those planes if she knew she was going to be abused?

I suspect she was enjoying the game. Enjoying all the attention and money. Going with several people to be "wined and dined" and knowing full well what she would have to put out at the end of it.

Then she got older. Suddenly no-one wants her any more. But she does realise she can still cash in on her history.

Andrews arrogance has allowed this to all become public. When her lawyers first approached him he should simply have settled and made her sign a contract to never come back for more money. Just like all the other guys did.

Now he is going to have to pay even more money to get her to shut up and he is also persona non grata in UK society. 

This has wider implications too. Its becoming increasingly obvious that the UK's royal familly are a bunch of dysfunctional clowns. 

It needs to end when the Queen leaves us. I hope that is not going to happen for many years yet but she needs to be the last unelected head of State in the UK.

The only royal I would go for a pint with is Harry.

Not a criticism, but the way you present it does make it look like she is cashing in. I am not too well up on the various claims made by all and sundry in this matter, but if it is as you have portrayed, I certainly hope the question that will be put to her is, "How many NDA settlements have you signed"?

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that she was not an unwilling participant with both Andrew and several others of prominence. It can almost be compared to a legalised blackmail racket. I'd also be inclined to think that her Lawyers are on contingency.

[Pinetree]

2 hours ago, Soidog said:

Oh ok. I haven’t checked over recent weeks what he’s been doing. Whatever it is, he will be doing it in a more affluent setting than I will be in today. Yes I seem to recall stories like that from his Navy days. He does seem like the type you would love to punch

Indeed.  Maybe rough justice for him, but some justice nevertheless.