Quite!pwa wrote: ↑5 Jan 2022, 6:59amI agree that everyone has a right to their day in court, and that court should be guided by the evidence. But what we have here is a wealthy person in a position of privilege, whose lawyers are wriggling like mad to avoid him needing to have a day in court. The man was unquestionably a friend of two convicted sex offenders, he has had an accusation made against him personally, and so far he has not spent one minute in a police station. As far as I know, he has not been properly interviewed. That is very odd.briansnail wrote: ↑5 Jan 2022, 12:21am We have two discussions on this good and very active post.The first the merits (or not) of the Monarchy. The second the supposed guilt (or innocence) of the prince.Lets focus on the second.Mixing the two merely risks inviting prejudice.
In 1989 5 Black/Hispanic were sentenced for the rape of a jogger in Central park New York.There was a very crucial element in the case.There was no DNA evidence or indeed any evidence. Former President Trump personally waded in.He spent over £100k on newspaper ads.He said the death penalty was to good.He was right .Good for him.The poor lady was left in a coma and had a broken eye socket.The 5 got very lengthy jail terms.Justice triumphs.
The only problem is.It was justice denied The 5 were later found to be innocent.Unless one convicts on solid evidence eg DNA rather than speculation on mathematical probability of guilt.We all fall into a trap.We are no better than the supposed failings of a monarchy. Every one has a right to be presumed innocence until proven guilty.Even if one is fortunate or maybe as in this case unfortunate enough to be a prince.
One just moves to the opposite end of the spectrum.Castigate not the poor but the rich.
Science would judge with the passage of time you really can't prove guilt or innocence. Pass on any verdict that's going to be in anyway fair.The legal system is different.It will eventually conjure up a decision.The decision will rest to some degree on just how expensive the lawyers on each side choose to engage.I trust science more. it ain't biased.It does not railroad juries into arbitrary decision.It just selects truth But and heres the catch - ONLY WHERE IT CAN.
PS The US public remains bemused by the Trump intervention.Some past cavalier remarks made about women and their rights would lead one to suspect he was not not really ideal candidate to comment.However I remain totally sure he would never have any personal involvement or even associate with any of the people in a sordid case like this one.
***********************************8*******************
My main cycles of 5 are a (100% British hand built) old vintage Bike and a Brompton (..... and no car).
The "Royals" Thread
Re: The "Royals" Thread
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: The "Royals" Thread
briansnail wrote: ↑5 Jan 2022, 12:21am
...PS The US public remains bemused by the Trump intervention.Some past cavalier remarks made about women and their rights would lead one to suspect he was not not really ideal candidate to comment.However I remain totally sure he would never have any personal involvement or even associate with any of the people in a sordid case like this one....
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Exactly,and also to question why our own institutions show little curiosity.
People in high places are put on a pedestal by others who shore up that high standing so much so the one's atop of such pedestals think they needn't show any degree of balance whilst up there!
The present PM is a classic example for other reasons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
-
- Posts: 3151
- Joined: 5 May 2009, 6:32am
Re: The "Royals" Thread
That's it.reohn2 wrote: ↑5 Jan 2022, 9:19amNo win no fee?francovendee wrote: ↑5 Jan 2022, 8:14am As far as I know legal costs in the USA are huge. Andrew can well afford it but where is his accuser getting her backing?
I know she had an earlier pay out but I suspect that it wouldn't cover the costs even if she had it sitting in a bank.
I'm guessing it's done on a no win no cost basis?
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: The "Royals" Thread
There's been a lot of legal cases involving these people and it's covered in some detail in Wiki.
A central point about costs is this
pro bono (publico) - "for the public good" means "free" in legalfriendspeak
A central point about costs is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_GiuffreDavid Boies and his firm Boies Schiller Flexner began representing Giuffre pro bono in 2014
pro bono (publico) - "for the public good" means "free" in legalfriendspeak
- NATURAL ANKLING
- Posts: 13780
- Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
- Location: English Riviera
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Hi,
One nil to Giuffre so far.
One nil to Giuffre so far.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
- NATURAL ANKLING
- Posts: 13780
- Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
- Location: English Riviera
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Hi,
So I miss read what I have read this morning , I mean I thought I saw a result somewhere mentioned, but maybe not the result of the judges decision, as possibly have not been mentioned yet. huh
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
Re: The "Royals" Thread
I (maybe unfairly) regard "royal correspondents" as being supportive of the monarchy. I don't follow or remember each by name/record but if they were not pro-monarchy they'd never stand any chance of getting confidential pointers or info from insiders ...
So I noted this reported today
So I noted this reported today
Ianhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-epstein-news-latest-b1986928.html wrote:BBC Royal Correspondent Nicholas Witchell said Prince Andrew is in a “difficult situation” following Tuesday’s hearing even if the case gets dismissed.
...
“Even if it is dismissed it means he wouldn’t have cleared himself in open court in a full hearing. It would leave him in a position where many people would feel he emerged on the basis of a technicality,” Mr Witchell told BBC Breakfast.
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Royal correspondents contribute to the endless speculation which counts as news these days.
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Indeed. He was photographed with his arm around his accuser (when she was well under age) in the accused "facilitator's" house (Maxwell) with her grinning in the background.
Nothing dodgy here, clearly.
-
- Posts: 244
- Joined: 5 Jul 2020, 11:12am
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Leave aside everything else and just consider why any member of the royal family and/or multi millionaires/billionaires would be socialising with teenagers from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Correct. Whichever way you look at it - even if you go out of your way to give him every benefit of the doubt - it stinks to high hell.wheelyhappy99 wrote: ↑5 Jan 2022, 7:11pm Leave aside everything else and just consider why any member of the royal family and/or multi millionaires/billionaires would be socialising with teenagers from disadvantaged backgrounds.
It's the photograph which does for him. Unless it's faked (of which there's no evidence) or he provides a rational explanation (which he has repeatedly refused to do) then it's damning. Without that photo he'd be in the clear, which itself is a deeply disturbing thought.
As has been said, the episode also shows the queen in a bad light. She has always claimed to have taken her position as head of state with great responsibility, yet is shielding her son from the legal scrutiny that would be meted out to any other citizen. That's an abuse of power IMO.
Re: The "Royals" Thread
According to her wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_ ... Early_life
she was very nearly 18 when they first met - yes she would have been under age in New York but not at Maxwells house in London. Still very seedy for 40+ year old bloke to be with 17½ yo.
It does appear that she had an horrendous childhood and had already been the victim of another sex trafficker when only 13 - if the following link is correct,It does seem very odd that this other sex trafficker got less than two years! seems odd maxwell could be getting the rest of her life behind bars.
https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-sta ... ion-78970/
-
- Posts: 244
- Joined: 5 Jul 2020, 11:12am
Re: The "Royals" Thread
What is an appropriate sentence for someone who has spent years exploiting their wealth and influence to attract girls from poor backgrounds into their homes and those of their social circle, whereupon they are sexually abused? What percentage of abused children end up with their lives destroyed by drugs or dead because they can't deal with what has happened to them? What would a wealthy responsible adult with a functioning moral compass do if they happened to meet a teenager who had been abused in the past? Make sure they got appropriate help to rebuild their life? Or lure them into their social circle to be abused again by one, or more than one, of their powerful friends? Sometimes for years.