[News] Prince Andrew interviewed about allegations

[banjo]

it seems if you’ve got enough money you can what you want.

 

[clapham_gull]

It takes both sides to agree a settlement. Liz doesn't just phone her up and say it's settled. This smells on both sides.

Not sure it does and it's a civil case after all, often settled out of court.

Much talk above above missing photos and lack of witnesses but that all should act in his favour.

But no. The "firm" doesn't want any more embarrassment (after his performance on Newsnight) in a Jubilee Year and as we move closure to his his brother becoming Monarch.

The cheque book came out and a deal has been found. He doesn't have to admit "guilt", but "regret" and a huge sum going to charity. He's also finished in public life.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Or she was after the money all along. All she had to do was insist on going ahead with the case. According to her she met him in three different countries. There must be dozens of people who could bear witness. I honestly don't know whether he screwed her or not. If she had provided evidence that they had met in three countries as she said then he was toast in a civil court. Instead of that she went for the shakedown.

Of course there are loads of people who 'could bear witness' to where he was on the dates in question and whose sole job was to protect him and record where they were every minute of everyday whilst doing it.

Maybe it's a coincidence that when their records were checked by those that employed them, that he was removed from public life and all 'titles' taken away, rather than it being used for a robust and well documented defence

 

[Seagull58]

The money is going to charity.

Then it makes no sense whatsoever. Why the hell would she drop the case and have him give money to a charity? I don't see the logic of that at all. She has achieved nothing, neither an admission of guilt, a judge's verdict nor a large wad in her bank account.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Then it makes no sense whatsoever. Why the hell would she drop the case and have him give money to a charity? I don't see the logic of that at all. She has achieved nothing, neither an admission of guilt, a judge's verdict nor a large wad in her bank account.

American courts.

Quit while you're ahead.


EDIT... Even if you're behind.

 

[Seagull58]

Of course there are loads of people who 'could bear witness' to where he was on the dates in question and whose sole job was to protect him and record where they were every minute of everyday whilst doing it.

Maybe it's a coincidence that when their records were checked by those that employed them, that he was removed from public life and all 'titles' taken away, rather than it being used for a robust and well documented defence

There were also Epstein's staff; pilot, flight crew, housemaids, butlers, cooks, waiting staff. None of those owe any allegiance to Andrew.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

it seems if you’ve got enough money you can what you want.

Unfortunately this has been, is now, and will be true in the future. Just ask NUFC.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Of course there are loads of people who 'could bear witness' to where he was on the dates in question and whose sole job was to protect him and record where they were every minute of everyday whilst doing it.

Maybe it's a coincidence that when their records were checked by those that employed them, that he was removed from public life and all 'titles' taken away, rather than it being used for a robust and well documented defence

This is what I don’t get.

Given the propensity of the media to hone in on the most trivial of issues and give them huge amounts of reporting time, why has no one drilled down on this?

Maybe they have and hit a wall of silence i guess.

Neither looks good….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[WATFORD zero]

Then it makes no sense whatsoever. Why the hell would she drop the case and have him give money to a charity? I don't see the logic of that at all. She has achieved nothing, neither an admission of guilt, a judge's verdict nor a large wad in her bank account.

I could imagine you struggling with this, but I would guess that you haven't considered it may be a matter of principle

 

[Seagull58]

American courts.

Quit while you're ahead.


EDIT... Even if you're behind.

In my view she's not ahead, not even a little bit. Unless I've missed something we have never heard from a single person confirming they were there when Andrew met her. Now she's lost the photo. I'm absolutely not saying she's not telling the truth but I also can't say that he's not telling the truth. No doubt the confidentiality agreement included in the settlement means we will never know.

 

[WATFORD zero]

There were also Epstein's staff; pilot, flight crew, housemaids, butlers, cooks, waiting staff. None of those owe any allegiance to Andrew.

What does that have to do with Andrew's security staff who book in and out, record their movements and are paid by us

 

[Seagull58]

I could imagine you struggling with this, but I would guess that you haven't considered it may be a matter of principle

But she hasn't got an admission of guilt, not even an admission that he met her, not even the word of any third party that says he met her. Where is the principle in that?

 

[clapham_gull]

Then it makes no sense whatsoever. Why the hell would she drop the case and have him give money to a charity? I don't see the logic of that at all. She has achieved nothing, neither an admission of guilt, a judge's verdict nor a large wad in her bank account.

No she has achieved a remarkable moral victory in the face of one of the most powerful families in the world.

Even if a judge and/or jury finds you "guilty" you can still spend the rest of your life saying you are innocent.

If you decide (as the accused) not to go through the process and have the opportunity to settle, you'll spend the rest of your life with people thinking "there must be something in it" even if there wasn't.

With respect to the accuser, this case wasn't just about what he did or didn't do.

It was also about what we know he did and that was to associate with a serial abuser even after that abuser's conviction.

There is only one person who has come of this badly and it definitely isn't Virginia Giuffre.

Whatever "support" there is for his "situation" will only exist on the fringes of reality.

 

[WATFORD zero]

But she hasn't got an admission of guilt, not even an admission that he met her, not even the word of any third party that says he met her. Where is the principle in that?

I think you are VERY VERY wrong, but I have a football match to concentrate on and really can't be arsed to argue about that ****

 

[Seagull58]

What does that have to do with Andrew's security staff who book in and out, record their movements and are paid by us

Any of the people I mentioned could have been called as witnesses to prove that she was telling the truth and he was not. None of them owe any allegiance to him and they would have been under oath. If they exist, I just cannot see why she would have settled.

 

[GT49er]

Very strange , why would he pay a person he has not met for something he hasn't done

Because forking out what is likely to be a sizeable wedge is a lot cheaper than going within a hundred miles of an American court case?

Do you really need this guy? Cant you just sack him?

We pretty much have done.

The money is going to charity.

Hmmm............... I think Many Rice-Davies might have had an appropriate quote for that.................

 

[pb21]

Any of the people I mentioned could have been called as witnesses to prove that she was telling the truth and he was not. None of them owe any allegiance to him and they would have been under oath. If they exist, I just cannot see why she would have settled.

All those people could very likley spill a lot of other beans too.

 

[Seagull58]

All those people could very likley spill a lot of other beans too.

I really hope they do. I want to hear someone saying "I was there (London, Epstein's island or wherever) and I saw them together". That is all it needs to blow him out of the water.

 

[clapham_gull]

But she hasn't got an admission of guilt, not even an admission that he met her, not even the word of any third party that says he met her. Where is the principle in that?

Remember this was a civil case and there was actually a subject of debate whether "if he did do that, was he actually guilty of anything if he didn't know that..."

However, she has got an admission of "regret", an apology for any doubts that were inferred about her character and (probably) a stonkingly humongous donation to charity.

All this against an individual from an extremely powerful family (who've never been prosecuted) with unlimited access to the best legal minds (and general public support) that there is.

Looks like a huge moral and "principled" victory from where I'm sitting.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

As we, the tax payer are paying for this, Shirley we should be advised of the amount?