Prince Andrew Accused of Underage Sex Acts

What's my posts got to do with it? I don't make up stories about CP notepads or writing on helicopter doors.

I think the humour in my post may have been a bit too subtle there.
 
Everyone else as quite happy to paint in standard small type under the helicopter cab window

'Lt 'x' Wales'

Not our Andrew, oh no indeed.In BFO letter across the whole door

'HRH THE PRINCE ANDREW'

He's an incredible arrogant individual who relishes and ruthlessly exploits his privilege

Buuuuuuuuulshit. Beat yourself to death with a cucumber you fabricating prick.

1631627824565.jpeg
 
still haven't seen any evidence being produced other than pictures which mean nothing when you consider that every Royal and celebrity is photographed literarily millions of times and in the vast amount of cases will have no clue who those people are in the photo with them - if she had a jacket with his ****, photos of him shagging her or anything that proved he'd banged her this would be a criminal case - the very fact that it is a civil case demonstrates its a money grab and trial by media which PA will obviously lose even if he wins the case
 
the very fact that it is a civil case demonstrates its a money grab

Not really. A criminal case needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. A civil case on the balance of probabilities.

A criminal case will not go ahead without the evidence to meet the required burden of proof.

I do agree with you that its a money grab, but not for the reasons you have said.
 
Not really. A criminal case needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. A civil case on the balance of probabilities.

A criminal case will not go ahead without the evidence to meet the required burden of proof.

I do agree with you that its a money grab, but not for the reasons you have said.
money grab tick,
trial by media tick,
money grab tick,
insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction tick

cant see what wrong with my reasoning! - this is a case of she said, he said but her aim is to use the media and Andys unpopularity to influence the jury and judge
 
money grab tick,
trial by media tick,
money grab tick,
insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction tick

cant see what wrong with my reasoning! - this is a case of she said, he said but her aim is to use the media and Andys unpopularity to influence the jury and judge

Will there be a jury in this civil case?
 

jmb3296

War Hero
money grab tick,
trial by media tick,
money grab tick,
insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction tick

cant see what wrong with my reasoning! - this is a case of she said, he said but her aim is to use the media and Andys unpopularity to influence the jury and judge

I see what dinger is getting at.

civil is a lower standard of proof and doesn’t need to cross any bar to get into court. Criminal there needs to be enough to pass the evidential bar.
combined with the offers to settle before it gets to court, the civil case has been used as the threat to settle it for a large sum of cash. It’s money grab.

you have both arrived at the same conclusion via different routes
 

RTU'd

LE
Will there be a jury in this civil case?
Andy hoping a settlement from 2009is going to technically get him off.
Trying to serve legal papers on a royal is a tad difficult, everyone know it.

If it goes badly for Yorkie its good bye to leaving the UK to go on holiday.
Unless he has Royal Immunity from prosecution?

But then a wife of a CIA operative got let off killing someone in an RTA in the UK?
So if they let the UK Police question her, we let the FBI grill York?
 
I’m not a fan of the Prince but I do think this is a fishing expedition for a large payout. I could be wrong but I read somewhere (it may have been on here) that the plaintiffs lawyer has significant form this kind of stuff in the US.

I‘m not a lawyer in any shape or form but I do wonder whether the Prince should be countersuing for damages for loss of reputation for example or something like that. And not just the plaintiff but her lawyers as well.

That would certainly put the cat among the pigeons so to speak!

If it is a speculative case for money and it can be shown to be as such, people might think again before trying it on like this.
 
The Yanks will issue an international police warrant for his arrest.
He leaves the UK, But it might cause an international crisis for the country he is arrested in though.

For a civil case?
 
Andy hoping a settlement from 2009is going to technically get him off.

So a genuine question. Why would Epstein have sought to indemnify Prince Andrew as part of a 2009 settlement, which primarily concerned his own conduct? Is there not a risk that a defence by PA which relies upon this, in effect acknowledges the very fact of his having committed the acts which are the subject of the civil case?


Trying to serve legal papers on a royal is a tad difficult, everyone know it.
Indeed. Which is why the US court appears to allow an ‘exhaustion’ argument where strenuous efforts have been made to serve papers. Hence PA’s QC/Security Detail/public domain e-mail address all being furnished with copies, whilst his legal team argue that UK standards of service should count.

In any case, hiding from service is not a strong look, at least not in the court of public opinion.
 
I‘m not a lawyer in any shape or form but I do wonder whether the Prince should be countersuing for damages for loss of reputation for example or something like that. And not just the plaintiff but her lawyers …
Any legal process will require disclosure, and may well entail cross examination of witnesses, including Prince Andrew. Even if there were exculpatory evidence, I imagine that the PR damage entailed by a robust cross examination of HRH would be immense.
Think about how well the interview went, which was of course on home turf and in his terms. Imagine the same engagement, in US courtroom, with huge media interest and an adversarial cross examination. I don’t see it ending well…
 

Latest Threads

Top