Prince Andrew and the secret sealed document

[ComUtoR]

He's a 'spare' anyway.

 

[Gloster]

Not so many years ago there would have been a simple way of resolving the problem: a bottle of whisky and a hand-gun.

 

[brad465]

Her Maj organising him a trip to paris?

He's already caused one "car crash" (Newsnight), so you'd think he know when to spot one coming.

 

[Trackman]

Apparently he'll still remain the Duke of York as it's a bit complicated to remove the title, something to with Parliament.

 

[Shrop]

Apologies if I missed anything about this, but I do find the Prince Andrew story quite baffling. I'm no fan of his, he's displayed many traits of being a pompous idiot, but I do wonder what he's actually done wrong, other than just being plain stupid.
I can only see that he's had his arm around a young woman who has shown all the hallmarks of being the worst kind of gold digger. She looked under no stress whatsoever when pictured with him, apparently enjoying a lavish lifestyle being whisked to all manner of high class places. And she was 17, ie the age when millions of young women all around the world legally have children. Andrew might have been a bit pushy with her, we'll probably never know that, but how can she really be classed as a "minor" except by some quirk of the law? If it's US law, then plenty of States have a legal marrying age much lower than 17, so if it's their definition of "minor" then it's odd. So what am I not understanding?

 

[najaB]

If it's US law, then plenty of States have a legal marrying age much lower than 17, so if it's their definition of "minor" then it's odd. So what am I not understanding?

First thing first, it's a civil suit not criminal so the legal marriage age doesn't really enter into it, and in any case the alleged abuse happened in London, New York state and the Virgin Islands so those are the only places whose age of consent laws would matter.

I can only see that he's had his arm around a young woman who has shown all the hallmarks of being the worst kind of gold digger.

As a note, that's very close to victim blaming.

She looked under no stress whatsoever when pictured with him, apparently enjoying a lavish lifestyle being whisked to all manner of high class places.

What she has stated is that she was subject to sexual abuse from an early age (from around 7 years old) and so came to see the life she was living as "normal". That's consistent with behaviour of people who have survived abuse (physical, sexual, mental, etc) - it's not uncommon to see victims of domestic abuse smiling and laughing with their abuser in public despite what is happening in private.

I'm no fan of his, he's displayed many traits of being a pompous idiot, but I do wonder what he's actually done wrong, other than just being plain stupid.

The specific allegation is that, when she was 17 years old, she was told by Epstein (who at the time basically controlled her life) to "do for Andrew what she did for him" - the precise nature of the 'services' provided (on three separate occasions) hasn't been made public (as far as I am aware).

The key point on which the case rests isn't that she was under age to engage in sexual activity (though, it's worth noting that the age of consent in the USVI is 18), but rather that she was subject to sexual trafficking - in which case age wouldn't enter into it.

 

[DarloRich]

Apologies if I missed anything about this, but I do find the Prince Andrew story quite baffling. I'm no fan of his, he's displayed many traits of being a pompous idiot, but I do wonder what he's actually done wrong, other than just being plain stupid.
I can only see that he's had his arm around a young woman who has shown all the hallmarks of being the worst kind of gold digger. She looked under no stress whatsoever when pictured with him, apparently enjoying a lavish lifestyle being whisked to all manner of high class places. And she was 17, ie the age when millions of young women all around the world legally have children. Andrew might have been a bit pushy with her, we'll probably never know that, but how can she really be classed as a "minor" except by some quirk of the law? If it's US law, then plenty of States have a legal marrying age much lower than 17, so if it's their definition of "minor" then it's odd. So what am I not understanding?

I think you may need to read more widely around the topic. The allegations regarding the control over the life of the lady in question are shocking and disturbing.

 

[Shrop]

What she has stated is that she was subject to sexual abuse from an early age (from around 7 years old) and so came to see the life she was living as "normal". That's consistent with behaviour of people who have survived abuse (physical, sexual, mental, etc) - it's not uncommon to see victims of domestic abuse smiling and laughing with their abuser in public despite what is happening in private.

Thanks for the comments, it's still a tricky one though. For centuries people in positions of power have abused others in all manner of ways, so it could be argued that Andrew's behaviour had been almost "normalised" by others in positions of power before him, at least in his own eyes. Of course that doesn't excuse him, but just as his "victim" had learned to smile when actually being less happy behind the scenes, did Andrew really know that what he was doing was all that bad, especially if she might not have exhibited too much distress and was 17 at the time? Did he actually know about all of her background at the time, prior to when he met her?

If we're saying that of course he should have known better, then you could quickly argue that Trump should have known he was inciting a riot which led to the deaths of several people, yet somehow he managed to get away with it.

In short I don't excuse Andrew, nor Trump, nor Boris, I think all of them should have known better, but it does seem that some are better than others at getting away with things. Meanwhile, is Anne Sacoolas getting away with killing Harry Dunne? The Americans seem hell bent on destroying Andrew, but comparatively quiet about one of their own who has actually killed an innocent British lad. Maybe I should think about all this a bit less!

 

[najaB]

If we're saying that of course he should have known better, then you could quickly argue that Trump should have known he was inciting a riot which led to the deaths of several people, yet somehow he managed to get away with it.

People only get away with things until they are called to account. Ms Giuffre's suite is aimed to call Prince Andrew to account for what she claims he did.

If it did happen then I hope she is able to bring sufficient evidence to win her case, and if it did not then I hope that the jury finds in his favour.

 

[Shrop]

People only get away with things until they are called to account. Ms Giuffre's suite is aimed to call Prince Andrew to account for what she claims he did.

If it did happen then I hope she is able to bring sufficient evidence to win her case, and if it did not then I hope that the jury finds in his favour.

Yes, I hope justice is done, and I have to say that even if the things are found in Andrew's favour, he's still been the author of his own present turmoil by his pompous attitude.

As for you first point though, Trump was called to account over the White House storming, and yet he still got away with it, as has Anne Sacoolas over her killing to date. I can never quite understand American law!

 

[najaB]

As for you first point though, Trump was called to account over the White House storming, and yet he still got away with it, as has Anne Sacoolas over her killing to date.

Trump was impeached over his involvement in the Capitol storming, it was only the self-interest of the GOP that resulted in his acquittal by the Senate. We'll probably see civil actions being brought against him after the January 6th Committee completes its investigation, and there are reports that information has been passed to the Department of Justice that could see criminal charges brought against people in his administration - though we don't know how high up those charges might go.

As to Ms Sacoolas, I thought that she had a date with a UK court?

 

[Ediswan]

As to Ms Sacoolas, I thought that she had a date with a UK court?

Postponed. No new date as yet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-59996219

 

[baz962]

People only get away with things until they are called to account. Ms Giuffre's suite is aimed to call Prince Andrew to account for what she claims he did.

If it did happen then I hope she is able to bring sufficient evidence to win her case, and if it did not then I hope that the jury finds in his favour.

To be honest though , is he really being called to account. He might have to pay out , but it's a civil suit. He can afford it and won't have a criminal conviction. If guilty , he should be on the sex offenders register .

 

[najaB]

To be honest though , is he really being called to account. He might have to pay out , but it's a civil suit. He can afford it and won't have a criminal conviction. If guilty , he should be on the sex offenders register .

The reputational damage would be done though if the jury finds in favour of the plaintiff.

 

[dgl]

The reputational damage would be done though if the jury finds in favour of the plaintiff.

and it sounds like the accuser wants more than money

 

[AM9]

and it sounds like the accuser wants more than money

The accuser wants her day in court, something that everybody with a viable case to prosecute (or defend) is entitled to. Do you think that a person guilty of the alleged action(s) should be able to buy their way out of court? Ironically threats and buy-offs were the currency of Ms Maxwell's father.

 

[Shrop]

and it sounds like the accuser wants more than money

One might wonder whether the accuser has been in contact with a certain interviewee of Oprah, who also seems to have aspirations involving using the royals as unwilling beneficiaries.

 

[najaB]

and it sounds like the accuser wants more than money

And for someone in Andrew's position reputation means more than money - which is exactly why they're willing to pay people off.

 

[Busaholic]

And for someone in Andrew's position reputation means more than money - which is exactly why they're willing to pay people off.

In any case, raising almost any amount of the money that might be required won't exactly be a problem.

 

[brad465]

Looks like Andrew and his legal team are going after the idea that Virginia Giuffre suffered from false memories:

Prince Andrew's lawyers say accuser may have false memories

Court documents say the Duke of York wants to question Virginia Giuffre's psychologist and husband.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Duke of York's lawyers want to question a psychologist who treated the woman accusing him of sexual assault, claiming she may "suffer from false memories".
Court documents show they want Virginia Giuffre's husband, Robert, and psychologist Dr Judith Lightfoot to be examined under oath.
Ms Giuffre's legal team want to call the prince's former assistant.
Prince Andrew has repeatedly denied the allegations.
With a trial due to go ahead after a judge threw out the prince's motion to dismiss the civil case, both parties are requesting help with calling witnesses overseas to give evidence.
Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is hearing the case in New York, has asked for witnesses' evidence to be taken by lawyers by 14 July and said a trial could take place in court later this year.
Prince Andrew, 61, faces allegations by Ms Giuffre that he was one of the men who had sex with her while she was being trafficked by the late financier Jeffrey Epstein at the age of 17 - a minor under US law.

The prince's lawyers want to question his accuser's husband, Robert Giuffre, about their household finances and how he met his wife around 2002, according to court documents.
They also want to ask her psychologist, Dr Judith Lightfoot, about subjects they discussed at her sessions and see her doctors' notes and medicines prescribed.
The legal team argue Ms Giuffre, now 38, "may suffer from false memories", and also want to examine Dr Lightfoot about the "theory of false memories".
Dr Lightfoot and Mr Giuffre, who both live in Australia, would be requested to be examined under oath in person or by videolink, the documents show.
A false memory expert, psychologist Dr Elizabeth Loftus, testified at the trial of Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell in December, before Maxwell's conviction on sex-trafficking charges.
She said people continually reconstructed their memories rather than retrieving them as if from a recording device, and they could be subject to "post-event suggestion".
But she conceded while "peripheral memories" of traumatic events may be forgotten, core memories may get stronger.
Meanwhile, court documents show lawyers for Ms Giuffre are seeking testimony from two people in the UK.
Her legal team want Robert Olney, the prince's former assistant, to provide a statement.
A letter submitted to the Royal Courts of Justice in London says Ms Giuffre has reason to believe Mr Olney has relevant information about Prince Andrew's relationship with convicted child sex offender Epstein.
This is because Mr Olney's name appears in publicly-available copies of Epstein's phone book, her lawyers say.

 

[Gloster]

I would have thought that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s best defence ploy would be the stupidity one: he is far from being the brightest member of a not particularly brilliant family. He could claim that he did not know that all the young females who appeared at Epstein’s parties were not just friends, acquaintances and hangers-on who liked to be seen with the very rich and who just saw sleeping with them as part of the fun. He could claim that his ever-popular ability to amuse (everybody laughs at any joke he makes) and his chat-up line of, ‘I’m fourth in line to the throne of England’, was why they jumped into bed with him. He had absolutely no idea, no sir, that they had been in any way forced or pressured by Epstein or Maxwell (or others?) into doing what they did. It might even be true.

 

[najaB]

I would have thought that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s best defence ploy would be the stupidity one: he is far from being the brightest member of a not particularly brilliant family. He could claim that he did not know that all the young females who appeared at Epstein’s parties were not just friends, acquaintances and hangers-on who liked to be seen with the very rich and who just saw sleeping with them as part of the fun. He could claim that his ever-popular ability to amuse (everybody laughs at any joke he makes) and his chat-up line of, ‘I’m fourth in line to the throne of England’, was why they jumped into bed with him. He had absolutely no idea, no sir, that they had been in any way forced or pressured by Epstein or Maxwell (or others?) into doing what they did. It might even be true.

Unfortunately for him I don't think that would work as a defence against the claim being made by Ms Giuffre. He isn't being accused of trafficking her, but of being the "beneficiary" (not sure if that's the right word) of Epstein's actions.

 

[Gloster]

Unfortunately for him I don't think that would work as a defence against the claim being made by Ms Giuffre. He isn't being accused of trafficking her, but of being the "beneficiary" (not sure if that's the right word) of Epstein's actions.

True, but he might claim that he cannot be held responsible for something if he was totally unaware that it was happening. He may have been the ‘beneficiary’ (I can’t think of a better word either), but if he was totally unaware that anything untoward or illegal was going on, he could claim that he was not complicit in in any way. It does strain the limits a bit, but it means that the prosecution (Ms Giuffre’s lawyers) do need to push the ‘Ignorance is no excuse’ line a long way.

 

[najaB]

True, but he might claim that he cannot be held responsible for something if he was totally unaware that it was happening. He may have been the ‘beneficiary’ (I can’t think of a better word either), but if he was totally unaware that anything untoward or illegal was going on, he could claim that he was not complicit in in any way. It does strain the limits a bit, but it means that the prosecution (Ms Giuffre’s lawyers) do need to push the ‘Ignorance is no excuse’ line a long way.

That might have worked in the first instance, but given that up until now he has strenuously denied any sexual contact occurred, it would be very difficult to now change his story to "Well, actually... but."

 

[Busaholic]

True, but he might claim that he cannot be held responsible for something if he was totally unaware that it was happening. He may have been the ‘beneficiary’ (I can’t think of a better word either), but if he was totally unaware that anything untoward or illegal was going on, he could claim that he was not complicit in in any way. It does strain the limits a bit, but it means that the prosecution (Ms Giuffre’s lawyers) do need to push the ‘Ignorance is no excuse’ line a long way.

Why does nobody ask this very basic question of 'Prince' Andrew? Now it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Jeffery Epstein devoted all of his spare time to engaging in sex acts with (mostly) minors on his private island why did you return time after time to it when he was there? I'd love to see him squirming (and sweating ) if even Emily Maitlis were to ask him that question.

 

[najaB]

Why does nobody ask this very basic question of 'Prince' Andrew? Now it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Jeffery Epstein devoted all of his spare time to engaging in sex acts with (mostly) minors on his private island why did you return time after time to it when he was there?

Well, that would depend on what he saw when he was there. If none of the young ladies he saw were obviously under-age then he has a reasonable answer to that question.

After all, it was only proven beyond a reasonable doubt what Mr Epstein was up to some years after the events in question.

 

[Busaholic]

Well, that would depend on what he saw when he was there. If none of the young ladies he saw were obviously under-age then he has a reasonable answer to that question.

After all, it was only proven beyond a reasonable doubt what Mr Epstein was up to some years after the events in question.

I wouldn't be expecting an answer that wasn't a complete lie or utterly risible, possibly both, but I'd just love to observe his body language. As for 'obviously under-age' I believe that was part of the attraction to Jimmy Savile and, by many accounts, to Epstein.

 

[najaB]

As for 'obviously under-age' I believe that was part of the attraction to Jimmy Savile and, by many accounts, to Epstein.

Oh, definitely. But Andrew doesn't have to answer for Epstein's evils, just what he did or did not do.

 

[ComUtoR]

One might wonder whether the accuser has been in contact with a certain interviewee of Oprah, who also seems to have aspirations involving using the royals as unwilling beneficiaries.

I think there is a difference between being trafficked by a serial abuser for sex and forced to have sex; potentially due to fear for your life and 'bagging a Prince' which, in case you are that naïve, a certain Duchess has done exactly that but hasn't been vilified by the media.

The behaviour of Royalty and those in power has been 'accepted' for hundreds of years. Thankfully the world has moved on and Prince Andrew should have, and no doubt did, know better.

 

[Shrop]

I think there is a difference between being trafficked by a serial abuser for sex and forced to have sex; potentially due to fear for your life and 'bagging a Prince' which, in case you are that naïve, a certain Duchess has done exactly that but hasn't been vilified by the media.

The behaviour of Royalty and those in power has been 'accepted' for hundreds of years. Thankfully the world has moved on and Prince Andrew should have, and no doubt did, know better.

Of course there is a difference here, the only comparison was the possibility of seeing an opportunity to use encounters with royalty as a meal ticket. There's a lot we don't yet know, and I've already said that Andrew should have known better, but don't forget that Diuffre has already been accused of being part of the recruitment. I don't think we should judge either way just yet.