Prince Andrew

[Windsor 2,142]

1 minute ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Another highly dodgy strategy - it's true abuse victims can have memory distortion but if this does end up in court he's struggling to prove she mistook him for someone else and her memories may well be pitted alongside flight logs from Epstein's "Lolita Express" aircraft and the records of Andrew's staff and other official sources, like diplomatic records from the US when Andrew was on his trade missions. 

 

Surely, the scramble is already on amongst British thesps for the lead in the first television adaptation - i think Johnny Vegas would be ideal and would scrub up to sweaty noncedom with minimal make up. 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but its still her word against his.

 

Granted if a woman says she was raped these days there is no argument...

[maryportfuncity 9,987]

1 minute ago, Windsor said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but its still her word against his.

 

Granted if a woman says she was raped these days there is no argument...

 

Yeah, but...

 

A New York judge just ruled that there's evidence her word has substance and that his grasp of the legalities of when and where that word is allowable as testimony is misguided. So, technically we haven't kicked off yet but the pre-match form studying suggests some tactical advantages on her side. 

 

[Windsor 2,142]

15 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

Yeah, but...

 

A New York judge just ruled that there's evidence her word has substance and that his grasp of the legalities of when and where that word is allowable as testimony is misguided. So, technically we haven't kicked off yet but the pre-match form studying suggests some tactical advantages on her side. 

 

 

Because shes a woman in 2022?

[CastAway 475]

1 hour ago, Windsor said:

 

Because shes a woman in 2022?

 

As MPFC notes, it's because the judge believes that there's evidence her word is reliable - with evidence being the key point here. I'd imagine it doesn't help that Andrew's argument during the last round of hearings wasn't "didn't do it!" it was "according to the last deal she made, she can't go after me legally."

 

Yes, I know he's claiming he didn't do it to the media, but saying things to the media is different from saying things in court. In court, his argument was about whether she could legally go after him for money given her deal with Epstien, and they ruled she could. But that also meant he wasn't pushing the "didn't do it" angle, legally speaking at least. 

 

Now, there's evidence that they'll go with the "didn't do it" push in the upcoming trial, but that doesn't do much to change what the existing rulings have been.

[Windsor 2,142]

7 hours ago, CastAway said:

Yes, I know he's claiming he didn't do it to the media, but saying things to the media is different from saying things in court. In court, his argument was about whether she could legally go after him for money given her deal with Epstien, and they ruled she could. But that also meant he wasn't pushing the "didn't do it" angle, legally speaking at least. 

Indeed. The accuser has said a lot to the media over the years and to courts. So much so that her accounts of the fact differ, thus proving that she is either lying or remembering false memories. 
 

She used to deny categorically that she had sex with Prince Andrew - and this was after she had escaped Epstein’s chains and dragged him through court. 
 

The only thing that’s changed over that time is that the benefit of the doubt has sung massively the other way; that is to say that Courts (particularly in liberal parts of America) are now over compensating for the injustices of the past. 
 

I heard her lawyer saying that photographs don’t lie. I think the whole thing is a scam dreamt up by a single photo. A photo which she allegedly requested be taken. Not bad going for someone who portrays themselves as a trafficked piece of meat. 
 

I do agree thought that Andrew is a twat and only has himself to blame for his current situation. 

[maryportfuncity 9,987]

53 minutes ago, Windsor said:

Indeed. The accuser has said a lot to the media over the years and to courts. So much so that her accounts of the fact differ, thus proving that she is either lying or remembering false memories. 
 

She used to deny categorically that she had sex with Prince Andrew - and this was after she had escaped Epstein’s chains and dragged him through court. 
 

The only thing that’s changed over that time is that the benefit of the doubt has sung massively the other way; that is to say that Courts (particularly in liberal parts of America) are now over compensating for the injustices of the past. 
 

I heard her lawyer saying that photographs don’t lie. I think the whole thing is a scam dreamt up by a single photo. A photo which she allegedly requested be taken. Not bad going for someone who portrays themselves as a trafficked piece of meat. 
 

I do agree thought that Andrew is a twat and only has himself to blame for his current situation. 

 

 

Well, if you want to see accounts crumble in public the sight of Andrew, his ex-missus and their two kids being ravaged by a legal Rottweiler in a New York court might put Virginia's lapses into perspective. 

[Windsor 2,142]

1 hour ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Well, if you want to see accounts crumble in public the sight of Andrew, his ex-missus and their two kids being ravaged by a legal Rottweiler in a New York court might put Virginia's lapses into perspective. 

Yes, courts have a way of destroying the innocent and promoting the hard faced money grabbing cunts who know how to play the system.

 

Particularly in America were factual evidence is always secondary to a good sob story by a vulnerable white girl.

[maryportfuncity 9,987]

3 hours ago, Windsor said:

Yes, courts have a way of destroying the innocent and promoting the hard faced money grabbing cunts who know how to play the system.

 

Particularly in America were factual evidence is always secondary to a good sob story by a vulnerable white girl.

 

 

Well, yeah, but...

 

They also test evidence and there's some potentially explosive information already in the public domain that Andrew's side haven't mentioned or challenged - the Daily Mail reported ages ago that Andrew had rescheduled part of an American jaunt where he was promoting British trade so's he could take a short break. The Mail cited Epstein's pilot and the flight log of the Epstein plane in their claim that Andrew was flown to Epstein's private island - one of the three places Virginia Guiiffre claims she had sex with him. 

[Windsor 2,142]

Already accused of victim blaming whilst trying to defend himself against something he claims didn't happen.

 

See what I mean.

[maryportfuncity 9,987]

1 hour ago, Windsor said:

Already accused of victim blaming whilst trying to defend himself against something he claims didn't happen.

 

See what I mean.

 

 

Well, whether he's victim blaming or reacting to genuine innacuracies spouted by a gold-digger is up to a New York court. It'll get tested, assuming he doesn't buy off the plaintiff or simply duck his day being attacked by sharp legal eagles. 

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,132]

22 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Well, whether he's victim blaming or reacting to genuine innacuracies spouted by a gold-digger is up to a New York court. It'll get tested, assuming he doesn't buy off the plaintiff or simply duck his day being attacked by sharp legal eagles. 

If I read it right, his team want to delve into some of the transcripts ( if such things exist) from when she was getting therapy etc.

Her side is arguing confidentiality, in a nutshell, and his team is arguing that it is evidence that needs to be examined.

Personally, I do not see why they cannot see these transcripts and ask questions about it, perhaps without Joe Public getting to dribble all over the contents.

I find it a tad off when, before anything has been presented in court, he/his team are being accused of victim blaming when there has been no verdict that she has actually been a victim of Andrew.

It must be noted that the accuser of the whole victim blaming schtik is a Cambridge academic who specialises in 'violence against women' but knows fuck all about U.S law.

Ok, he MAY be as guilty as hell but the tendency to pass judgement before the evidence has been heard has become a bit of a 21st Century pastime.

 

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,132]

36 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Well, whether he's victim blaming or reacting to genuine innacuracies spouted by a gold-digger is up to a New York court. It'll get tested, assuming he doesn't buy off the plaintiff or simply duck his day being attacked by sharp legal eagles. 

Seeing how well he did when he was interviewed about it all, against the advice of Buck Palace, I wouldn't fancy his chances in being cross examined in court.

I am mindful of that scene in The Goodfellas when Joe Pesci, having almost fooled Ray Liotta in the 'How am I funny' scene remarks 'He may fold under questioning.

 

[Windsor 2,142]

26 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

If I read it right, his team want to delve into some of the transcripts ( if such things exist) from when she was getting therapy etc.

Her side is arguing confidentiality, in a nutshell, and his team is arguing that it is evidence that needs to be examined.

Personally, I do not see why they cannot see these transcripts and ask questions about it, perhaps without Joe Public getting to dribble all over the contents.

I find it a tad off when, before anything has been presented in court, he/his team are being accused of victim blaming when there has been no verdict that she has actually been a victim of Andrew.

It must be noted that the accuser of the whole victim blaming schtik is a Cambridge academic who specialises in 'violence against women' but knows fuck all about U.S law.

Ok, he MAY be as guilty as hell but the tendency to pass judgement before the evidence has been heard has become a bit of a 21st Century pastime.

 

I just think it’s a logical defence considering how much her well publicised interviews have changed through time, as well as her recollections of events. 
 

I also think the technical defence he has chosen to pursue (eg having the case dismissed) was because his legal team knew that if he went on the attack he would be accused of exactly what he has now been accused of.

 

Having said that, I wasn’t there so have to concede that you are right and that he MAY be guilty as hell…

[The Old Crem 3,164]

One if the newspapers hinted recently that they seem to think other allegations - unconnected to her directly, will emerge in the coming months and years. 

[maryportfuncity 9,987]

Man-baby revelations, will this get tested in a New York courtroom?

 

[Ulitzer95 10,942]

3 hours ago, maryportfuncity said:

Man-baby revelations, will this get tested in a New York courtroom?

 

Saw this on the paper review this morning. For starters, it’s an old story that The Sun have resurrected.

 

As Eamonn Holmes correctly pointed out, the story carefully avoids disclosing whether this was the case when he himself was a child or whether this was a few years ago.

 

Imagine The Sun trying to engineer twists in a crisis in order to sell papers. Hillsborough anyone?

[The Old Crem 3,164]

The more interesting thing is the Sun’s readership would be the type most likely to be forgiving if he did get cleared. But the Sun itself is very hostile towards him.

[Ulitzer95 10,942]

5 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

The more interesting thing is the Sun’s readership would be the type most likely to be forgiving if he did get cleared. But the Sun itself is very hostile towards him.

I'm someone who is generally in the political know, and even to this day I still haven't been to work out who their readership actually is. Their publication is equally despised by Tories and Labourites alike, by young and old, smart and stupid etc.

Indeed they're losing millions of £ a year now, and in June of last year the paper was revalued to zero by Murdoch himself. One of my mates at the Telegraph believes he will keep it going by propping it up with money from elsewhere for as long as he's alive, as a "pride thing" as its his "baby". After he kicks the bucket, his sons will likely shut it down. It won't be missed by many.

[maryportfuncity 9,987]

58 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

I'm someone who is generally in the political know, and even to this day I still haven't been to work out who their readership actually is. Their publication is equally despised by Tories and Labourites alike, by young and old, smart and stupid etc.

Indeed they're losing millions of £ a year now, and in June of last year the paper was revalued to zero by Murdoch himself. One of my mates at the Telegraph believes he will keep it going by propping it up with money from elsewhere for as long as he's alive, as a "pride thing" as its his "baby". After he kicks the bucket, his sons will likely shut it down. It won't be missed by many.

 

 

Murdoch, btw, will be 91 on 11 March

[msc 17,712]

27 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Murdoch, btw, will be 91 on 11 March

 

Aye if there's ever anyone you feel was destined to be a future 8+ list DL pick...

[Ulitzer95 10,942]

12 minutes ago, msc said:

 

Aye if there's ever anyone you feel was destined to be a future 8+ list DL pick...

Jerry Hall is just biding her time. She'll wait until he's frail enough not to survive a "fall" down the stairs.

And then...

[Bentrovato 988]

Is this the last straw?  Prince Andrew sex assault case leads to name change of £100,000 Duke of York race (msn.com)

[maryportfuncity 9,987]

7 minutes ago, Bentrovato said:

Is this the last straw?  Prince Andrew sex assault case leads to name change of £100,000 Duke of York race (msn.com)

 

 

Nah, it's a distraction - if there is a last straw it'll be down to a New York jury

[Toast 14,795]

9 minutes ago, Bentrovato said:

Is this the last straw?  Prince Andrew sex assault case leads to name change of £100,000 Duke of York race (msn.com)

 

They shouldn't change it.  Duke of York is a title, not an individual, and there have been many over the years. 

[Redrumours 814]

33 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

They shouldn't change it.  Duke of York is a title, not an individual, and there have been many over the years. 

Pubs, Schools,Trains and Ships will they be at risk also?