With Maxwell being found guilty of sex trafficking of minors, will she sing like a bird and bring down some big names in US politics, media and the likes or will they cut her a deal to keep her quiet??
Will be hard to sing when she'll have a sock down her throat soon
That verdict won't help Prince Andrews sweating condition.
How long until the sentencing?
Will she be allowed to make a statement? Some rich squeaky bums about
Quote from: bennydorano on December 30, 2021, 02:07:17 PM
Will she be allowed to make a statement? Some rich squeaky bums about
She was tried specifically for her role in child sex trafficking these four women.
That she might have done so for people other than Epstein would hardly be relevant or exonerating in the context of this trial, would it?
If so I'm not sure she'd be allowed to make public accusations against people who can't defend themselves in that setting.
Any leverage she would have for sentencing would be evidence that could be used to separately pursue charges against such people. Presumably she'd be required to testify and produce the goods in those trials.
But, I'm no lawyer or legal expert, so I could be wrong.
Quote from: J70 on December 30, 2021, 02:37:35 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 30, 2021, 02:07:17 PM
Will she be allowed to make a statement? Some rich squeaky bums about
She was tried specifically for her role in child sex trafficking these four women.
That she might have done so for people other than Epstein would hardly be relevant or exonerating in the context of this trial, would it?
If so I'm not sure she'd be allowed to make public accusations against people who can't defend themselves in that setting.
Any leverage she would have for sentencing would be evidence that could be used to separately pursue charges against such people. Presumably she'd be required to testify and produce the goods in those trials.
But, I'm no lawyer or legal expert, so I could be wrong.
Crazy tale
In some ways she was worse than Epstein. He obviously had some type of malignant personality disorder. She enabled him much like the Bishops enable paedophile priests in Ireland.....and for what....money! She was already loaded but that wasn't good enough for her. They should lock her up and throw away the key
I have no doubt she and Epstein procured girls for other well known powerful men and that a lot will be revealed in time
We can be sure the powers that be can be trusted to hunt them down.
Surely it's only a matter of time before Maxwell is found dead in a cell, suspected suicide ... I'd say she knows too much about too many powerful people.
Quote from: balladmaker on December 30, 2021, 03:49:50 PM
Surely it's only a matter of time before Maxwell is found dead in a cell, suspected suicide ... I'd say she knows too much about too many powerful people.
all files closed by judge , a huge coverup
Quote from: Gmac on December 30, 2021, 06:05:07 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on December 30, 2021, 03:49:50 PM
Surely it's only a matter of time before Maxwell is found dead in a cell, suspected suicide ... I'd say she knows too much about too many powerful people.
all files closed by judge , a huge coverup
I'm not a legal expert, but this is by no means the end
It's probably just some legal formality
Quote from: whitey on December 30, 2021, 06:11:17 PM
Quote from: Gmac on December 30, 2021, 06:05:07 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on December 30, 2021, 03:49:50 PM
Surely it's only a matter of time before Maxwell is found dead in a cell, suspected suicide ... I'd say she knows too much about too many powerful people.
all files closed by judge , a huge coverup
I'm not a legal expert, but this is by no means the end
It's probably just some legal formality
Especially with the elite legal expertise available to these victims.
I believe one of the women in this Maxwell case had David Boies, who worked for Elizabeth Holmes and Jerry Jones, among many others, in the past, and I think was one of Al Gore's lawyers in the Bush V Gore case.
Quote from: J70 on December 30, 2021, 02:01:51 PM
How long until the sentencing?
6 months according to her brother.
Quote from: seafoid on January 03, 2022, 12:05:58 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 30, 2021, 02:01:51 PM
How long until the sentencing?
6 months according to her brother.
I saw some commentary that he best plan is to do a deal to provide information on all the goings on, and get a shorter sentence. Of course this might be dangerous to her life, so witness protection might be needed.
Quote from: Captain Obvious on December 30, 2021, 01:58:52 PM
That verdict won't help Prince Andrews sweating condition.
:o
What sweating condition?
The trial only covered abuse, not sex blackmail.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/31/ghislaine-maxwells-doomed-love-drove-toxic-tale-abuse-power/
The intelligence angle is essential to understanding Maxwell and her activities alongside Epstein, particularly the sexual blackmail motive, which was the end goal of their procuring and abusing of minors. Intelligence agencies have used sex blackmail since at least the 40s.
Quote from: seafoid on January 04, 2022, 04:09:17 AM
The trial only covered abuse, not sex blackmail.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/31/ghislaine-maxwells-doomed-love-drove-toxic-tale-abuse-power/
The intelligence angle is essential to understanding Maxwell and her activities alongside Epstein, particularly the sexual blackmail motive, which was the end goal of their procuring and abusing of minors. Intelligence agencies have used sex blackmail since at least the 40s.
I genuinely believe that Mossad are in on this and used Maxwell and Epstein to snare as many US politicians, celebs etc etc to hold sway on the Israel question...
Quote from: johnnycool on January 04, 2022, 10:02:54 AM
Quote from: seafoid on January 04, 2022, 04:09:17 AM
The trial only covered abuse, not sex blackmail.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/31/ghislaine-maxwells-doomed-love-drove-toxic-tale-abuse-power/
The intelligence angle is essential to understanding Maxwell and her activities alongside Epstein, particularly the sexual blackmail motive, which was the end goal of their procuring and abusing of minors. Intelligence agencies have used sex blackmail since at least the 40s.
I genuinely believe that Mossad are in on this and used Maxwell and Epstein to snare as many US politicians, celebs etc etc to hold sway on the Israel question...
Read a good piece that the photo in Central Park showing Epstein and PA was staged by Epstein to ensure he had his hooks in PA from every conceivable angle. And as you say, who better to entrap and then use as leverage on the Israel question than the British monarchy.
Quote from: johnnycool on January 04, 2022, 10:02:54 AM
Quote from: seafoid on January 04, 2022, 04:09:17 AM
The trial only covered abuse, not sex blackmail.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/31/ghislaine-maxwells-doomed-love-drove-toxic-tale-abuse-power/
The intelligence angle is essential to understanding Maxwell and her activities alongside Epstein, particularly the sexual blackmail motive, which was the end goal of their procuring and abusing of minors. Intelligence agencies have used sex blackmail since at least the 40s.
I genuinely believe that Mossad are in on this and used Maxwell and Epstein to snare as many US politicians, celebs etc etc to hold sway on the Israel question...
I do too.
Maxwell, Epstein and Wexner, source of Epstein's fortune, were all Jewish. Maybe Epstein blackmailed Wexner.
I think so far only the surface has been skimmed.
https://unherd.com/2022/01/we-all-enabled-ghislaine-maxwell/The conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell has divided feminists. I don't know any who would suggest she is innocent. But there are those who would argue she was nothing but a handmaiden, coerced and abused by Jeffrey Epstein into luring those poor girls to be raped and prostituted. Others say she is both victim and perpetrator, and that her behaviour was a direct result of being sexually abused by her father, the late Robert Maxwell.
My take is pretty straightforward. Yes, there is evidence to suggest she was abused by her father, and it is clear that Epstein had a certain level of power and control over her. But Maxwell is a woman with immense privilege and power of her own. She was not convicted for associating with Epstein, she was convicted for procuring young women into prostitution. There is nothing of the victim about Maxwell.
She was corrupted by her own power. She wasn't just a "daddy pleaser" who transferred her subservience to Epstein as a replacement for her father. She was an agent in her own downfall; she used her wealth and class superiority to outsource abuse. Maxwell had scant respect for her victims: during the trial, we heard how she would refer to the poor, barely educated, vulnerable young women as "scum". It's all grimly reminiscent of what happened during the grooming gang cases in England, where the girls were viewed as "troublesome slags" who had "chosen" a lifestyle of prostitution.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/06/prince-andrew-has-not-ruled-pay-off-virginia-roberts-giuffre/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
The Duke of York has not ruled out making a financial settlement with his accuser in order to avoid further damaging the reputation of the Royal family, The Telegraph understands.
A potential pay-off for Virginia Roberts Giuffre could be "at least" several-million pounds and would be paid by his mother, the Queen.
If the Duke fails in his bid to get the sexual abuse case thrown out, an argument largely based on a 2009 settlement deal Ms Giuffre struck with Jeffrey Epstein, it will underline the severity of the uphill battle he would face in continuing to fight the legal action.
Those close to him privately acknowledge that the judge's comments during a "brutal" 75-minute hearing this week made very clear to which side he was leaning on the motion to dismiss.
The next step is a potentially very exposing discovery process, in which the Duke will have to give sworn testimony under oath, before a trial, scheduled for the autumn, which could land further devastating blows to his reputation, as well as that of the monarchy.
Quote from: seafoid on January 06, 2022, 11:47:23 AM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/06/prince-andrew-has-not-ruled-pay-off-virginia-roberts-giuffre/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
The Duke of York has not ruled out making a financial settlement with his accuser in order to avoid further damaging the reputation of the Royal family, The Telegraph understands.
A potential pay-off for Virginia Roberts Giuffre could be "at least" several-million pounds and would be paid by his mother, the Queen.
If the Duke fails in his bid to get the sexual abuse case thrown out, an argument largely based on a 2009 settlement deal Ms Giuffre struck with Jeffrey Epstein, it will underline the severity of the uphill battle he would face in continuing to fight the legal action.
Those close to him privately acknowledge that the judge's comments during a "brutal" 75-minute hearing this week made very clear to which side he was leaning on the motion to dismiss.
The next step is a potentially very exposing discovery process, in which the Duke will have to give sworn testimony under oath, before a trial, scheduled for the autumn, which could land further devastating blows to his reputation, as well as that of the monarchy.
They're fucked either way and good enough for them too. Go to court get convicted and its the beginning of the end for the British monarchy, pay the lass off and it'll be read as an admission of guilt, same road, the direction of travel is set for these scumbags. When QEII pops her clogs it'll slowly unravel to dissolution, unless the Great British public are prepared to endorse a Pedo family as head of state, wouldn't put it past them.
Quote from: seafoid on January 06, 2022, 11:47:23 AM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/06/prince-andrew-has-not-ruled-pay-off-virginia-roberts-giuffre/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
The Duke of York has not ruled out making a financial settlement with his accuser in order to avoid further damaging the reputation of the Royal family, The Telegraph understands.
A potential pay-off for Virginia Roberts Giuffre could be "at least" several-million pounds and would be paid by his mother, the Queen.
If the Duke fails in his bid to get the sexual abuse case thrown out, an argument largely based on a 2009 settlement deal Ms Giuffre struck with Jeffrey Epstein, it will underline the severity of the uphill battle he would face in continuing to fight the legal action.
Those close to him privately acknowledge that the judge's comments during a "brutal" 75-minute hearing this week made very clear to which side he was leaning on the motion to dismiss.
The next step is a potentially very exposing discovery process, in which the Duke will have to give sworn testimony under oath, before a trial, scheduled for the autumn, which could land further devastating blows to his reputation, as well as that of the monarchy.
Their minions, the ordinary working British taxpayer
From following the trial, Maxwell came across as just a horrible person with very few redeeeming features. Being brought up into a life of privilege she appeared to think that the rules didn't apply to her. In terms of Prince Andrew and the rumours of a multi million pound pay off from the Queen, well what's a few million to buy protection when you are worth £350m. The media and establishment will be semi-complicit if he is allowed to avoid the trial that any other normal citizen would ordinarily face.
Maxwell verdict could very well be thrown out
Looks like a juror may not have been honest on the questionnaire
Quote from: whitey on January 06, 2022, 01:41:33 PM
Maxwell verdict could very well be thrown out
Looks like a juror may not have been honest on the questionnaire
A new jury of ordinary people would also find her guilty, surely
Quote from: seafoid on January 04, 2022, 06:31:41 PM
https://unherd.com/2022/01/we-all-enabled-ghislaine-maxwell/The conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell has divided feminists. I don't know any who would suggest she is innocent. But there are those who would argue she was nothing but a handmaiden, coerced and abused by Jeffrey Epstein into luring those poor girls to be raped and prostituted. Others say she is both victim and perpetrator, and that her behaviour was a direct result of being sexually abused by her father, the late Robert Maxwell.
My take is pretty straightforward. Yes, there is evidence to suggest she was abused by her father, and it is clear that Epstein had a certain level of power and control over her. But Maxwell is a woman with immense privilege and power of her own. She was not convicted for associating with Epstein, she was convicted for procuring young women into prostitution. There is nothing of the victim about Maxwell.
She was corrupted by her own power. She wasn't just a "daddy pleaser" who transferred her subservience to Epstein as a replacement for her father. She was an agent in her own downfall; she used her wealth and class superiority to outsource abuse. Maxwell had scant respect for her victims: during the trial, we heard how she would refer to the poor, barely educated, vulnerable young women as "scum". It's all grimly reminiscent of what happened during the grooming gang cases in England, where the girls were viewed as "troublesome slags" who had "chosen" a lifestyle of prostitution.
What evidence is there to suggest she was abused by her father?
Quote from: seafoid on January 06, 2022, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 06, 2022, 01:41:33 PM
Maxwell verdict could very well be thrown out
Looks like a juror may not have been honest on the questionnaire
A new jury of ordinary people would also find her guilty, surely
I wouldn't bet on that happening
Quote from: whitey on January 06, 2022, 03:11:25 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 06, 2022, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 06, 2022, 01:41:33 PM
Maxwell verdict could very well be thrown out
Looks like a juror may not have been honest on the questionnaire
A new jury of ordinary people would also find her guilty, surely
I wouldn't bet on that happening
Issues on double jeaporardy may also arise.
Probable retrial with same result, juror could could under pressure due to conflicting interest
Quote from: David McKeown on January 08, 2022, 06:47:32 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 06, 2022, 03:11:25 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 06, 2022, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 06, 2022, 01:41:33 PM
Maxwell verdict could very well be thrown out
Looks like a juror may not have been honest on the questionnaire
A new jury of ordinary people would also find her guilty, surely
I wouldn't bet on that happening
Issues on double jeaporardy may also arise.
Double jeopardy issues might arise if the prosecution was acting in bad faith which is not the case here. Considering the high profile of this case it would most probably go to a retrial unless of course the fix was in. You'd wonder if Ghislaine sleeps soundly at night in the knowldge that the deep dark protectors of state security are not going to end her life while the prison guards are absent under dubious circumstance.
Quote from: Main Street on January 09, 2022, 02:33:21 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on January 08, 2022, 06:47:32 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 06, 2022, 03:11:25 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 06, 2022, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 06, 2022, 01:41:33 PM
Maxwell verdict could very well be thrown out
Looks like a juror may not have been honest on the questionnaire
A new jury of ordinary people would also find her guilty, surely
I wouldn't bet on that happening
Issues on double jeaporardy may also arise.
Double jeopardy issues might arise if the prosecution was acting in bad faith which is not the case here. Considering the high profile of this case it would most probably go to a retrial unless of course the fix was in. You'd wonder if Ghislaine sleeps soundly at night in the knowldge that the deep dark protectors of state security are not going to end her life while the prison guards are absent under dubious circumstance.
Now they think a third juror was a victim of child sexual abuse
This verdict is going to get tossed
Say it's a retrial. What line can the defence take? Attacking the credibility of the witnesses crashed and burned. Maidwell can hardly justify her actions.
On a side note, apparently Roberts is not entertaining any kind of payment from Prince Andrew and wants it to go to trial if the judge points them in that direction, which looks likely. In saying that, one of the witnesses from Maxwells trial, who was brought into the fold by Roberts, has revealed some interesting details on Roberts and how she may not be the victim she is trying to make herself out to be.
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2022, 09:01:51 AM
Say it's a retrial. What line can the defence take? Attacking the credibility of the witnesses crashed and burned. Maidwell can hardly justify her actions.
There's no guarantee with any of these trials
Who knows, what may come out between now and the beginning of a new trial ?
As much as I hate her, she is entitled to a fair trial. 3 jurors lying on the most important question on the questionnaire (if it's proven) is shocking to say the least.
If they had all maintained their silence, that would be one thing, but for that big mouth to come public like he did is just outrageous
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/prince-andrew-in-difficult-situation-says-royal-correspondent-mp4/vi-AASzqxg?ocid=msedgntp
Quote from: whitey on January 09, 2022, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2022, 09:01:51 AM
Say it's a retrial. What line can the defence take? Attacking the credibility of the witnesses crashed and burned. Maidwell can hardly justify her actions.
There's no guarantee with any of these trials
Who knows, what may come out between now and the beginning of a new trial ?
As much as I hate her, she is entitled to a fair trial. 3 jurors lying on the most important question on the questionnaire (if it's proven) is shocking to say the least.
If they had all maintained their silence, that would be one thing, but for that big mouth to come public like he did is just outrageous
It's a slam dunk regardless. Juries are made up or ordinary people. Child trafficking is abhorrent.
Quote from: Main Street on January 09, 2022, 02:33:21 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on January 08, 2022, 06:47:32 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 06, 2022, 03:11:25 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 06, 2022, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 06, 2022, 01:41:33 PM
Maxwell verdict could very well be thrown out
Looks like a juror may not have been honest on the questionnaire
A new jury of ordinary people would also find her guilty, surely
I wouldn't bet on that happening
Issues on double jeaporardy may also arise.
Double jeopardy issues might arise if the prosecution was acting in bad faith which is not the case here. Considering the high profile of this case it would most probably go to a retrial unless of course the fix was in. You'd wonder if Ghislaine sleeps soundly at night in the knowldge that the deep dark protectors of state security are not going to end her life while the prison guards are absent under dubious circumstance.
Yeah I was trying to type in a hurry there. What I meant is there could be arguments over double jeopardy issues which even if likely to be unsuccessful mean that its not just as easy as saying lets have a retiral. I would imagine the defence also arguing it is far more difficult to get a fair trial now as you need a jury unaware of the previous result. All that said the US system is much keener on kicking cases out on double jeopardy issues than we are here so its also not a given that they wouldn't be successful. Its been more than 15 years since I did a federal case though so my memory may be a bit hazy on that one.
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2022, 01:29:00 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 09, 2022, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2022, 09:01:51 AM
Say it's a retrial. What line can the defence take? Attacking the credibility of the witnesses crashed and burned. Maidwell can hardly justify her actions.
There's no guarantee with any of these trials
Who knows, what may come out between now and the beginning of a new trial ?
As much as I hate her, she is entitled to a fair trial. 3 jurors lying on the most important question on the questionnaire (if it's proven) is shocking to say the least.
If they had all maintained their silence, that would be one thing, but for that big mouth to come public like he did is just outrageous
It's a slam dunk regardless. Juries are made up or ordinary people. Child trafficking is abhorrent.
Not necessarily
You only need one juror to have a doubt for the whole thing to get tossed out
The likelihood of such a juror existing just increased exponentially if this first one is a mistrial
Quote from: whitey on January 09, 2022, 03:07:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2022, 01:29:00 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 09, 2022, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2022, 09:01:51 AM
Say it's a retrial. What line can the defence take? Attacking the credibility of the witnesses crashed and burned. Maidwell can hardly justify her actions.
There's no guarantee with any of these trials
Who knows, what may come out between now and the beginning of a new trial ?
As much as I hate her, she is entitled to a fair trial. 3 jurors lying on the most important question on the questionnaire (if it's proven) is shocking to say the least.
If they had all maintained their silence, that would be one thing, but for that big mouth to come public like he did is just outrageous
It's a slam dunk regardless. Juries are made up or ordinary people. Child trafficking is abhorrent.
Not necessarily
You only need one juror to have a doubt for the whole thing to get tossed out
The likelihood of such a juror existing just increased exponentially if this first one is a mistrial
The likelihood of one juror being a paedophile is pretty low.
Maxwell's team cost USD7m and are desperate.
So having a doubt makes one a Paedo....interesting
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2022, 03:34:02 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 09, 2022, 03:07:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2022, 01:29:00 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 09, 2022, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2022, 09:01:51 AM
Say it's a retrial. What line can the defence take? Attacking the credibility of the witnesses crashed and burned. Maidwell can hardly justify her actions.
There's no guarantee with any of these trials
Who knows, what may come out between now and the beginning of a new trial ?
As much as I hate her, she is entitled to a fair trial. 3 jurors lying on the most important question on the questionnaire (if it's proven) is shocking to say the least.
If they had all maintained their silence, that would be one thing, but for that big mouth to come public like he did is just outrageous
It's a slam dunk regardless. Juries are made up or ordinary people. Child trafficking is abhorrent.
Not necessarily
You only need one juror to have a doubt for the whole thing to get tossed out
The likelihood of such a juror existing just increased exponentially if this first one is a mistrial
The likelihood of one juror being a paedophile is pretty low.
Maxwell's team cost USD7m and are desperate.
The queen has an open chequebook on this one. As David Mc alluded to, the defence will try every stunt so that it will end here and not go to a retrial.
I see Lizzie must have got the cheque book out. Its probably not a major surprise as the whole system is rotten but that is what privilege will buy you.
I heard that it wasnt a huge surprise as in the US 95%of civil cases reach settlements out of court. Same time she had said she wanted her day in court and it wouldve been great to see him squirm/sweat a bit....
What does this mean now for Andrews reputation and his position in the royal family. He has effectively owned up to what he did by settling out of court.
Don't understand Roberts taking the money when she said she wanted to get him in court. Plus, after the court case she would have made millions anyway. She isn't the innocent victim she is making herself out to be either though.
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 15, 2022, 07:27:20 PM
Don't understand Roberts taking the money when she said she wanted to get him in court. Plus, after the court case she would have made millions anyway. She isn't the innocent victim she is making herself out to be either though.
Whats not to understand? Andrew more than likely did what he did but she was only really interested in the money or they thought that there would be a chance of him winning the court case..
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 15, 2022, 07:27:20 PM
Don't understand Roberts taking the money when she said she wanted to get him in court. Plus, after the court case she would have made millions anyway. She isn't the innocent victim she is making herself out to be either though.
How so? You can look at it both ways. Either she was not confident of getting a conviction or perhaps she didn't want to put herself through the trauma of a highly publicised trial.
Or the fact that Andrew has agreed a settlement is an admission of his guilt, after all he would have had access to the beat lawyers money could buy and if he was innocent then you would think that he'd want to clear his name in court.
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 15, 2022, 07:27:20 PM
Don't understand Roberts taking the money when she said she wanted to get him in court. Plus, after the court case she would have made millions anyway. She isn't the innocent victim she is making herself out to be either though.
Ah, this case could go on for weeks/months. These girls come from not so well to do backgrounds. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell picked these girls because they had no solid background. I'd imagine they'd have a lot of skeletons in the closet that Andy's legal team would bring out in the open.
Settling out of court is as good as an admission of guilt in my opinion - it's damage limitation.
Absolutely. He's paying someone he never met millions of pounds. Says it all.
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on February 15, 2022, 10:50:05 PM
Absolutely. He's paying someone he never met millions of pounds. Says it all.
He did meet her though. That's the whole point.
How convenient how it ended ;D
Shameful from her to take a payout, she obviously has no principles to stand up for herself.
Sexual abuse is all well and good in her opinion now as long as she gets her bank balance topped up.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on February 15, 2022, 11:16:25 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on February 15, 2022, 10:50:05 PM
Absolutely. He's paying someone he never met millions of pounds. Says it all.
He did meet her though. That's the whole point.
How convenient how it ended ;D
Shameful from her to take a payout, she obviously has no principles to stand up for herself.
Sexual abuse is all well and good in her opinion now as long as she gets her bank balance topped up.
I was being sarcastic. Can you imagine how many white aerial top vans have been putting the squeeze on this girl.
I imagine the terms of this deal will include no admission of liability so it will be interesting to see how the establishment react. Will Andrew seek and will he get the return of his military honours.
By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on February 16, 2022, 12:24:01 AM
By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.
In the court of public opinion it absolutely is. Legally though it may not be. Settlements are often made with no admission of liability. There are tactical reasons for making them such as saving on stress, costs etc. Whether winning would really assist I mean the damage to his reputation is probably already done regardless of what way the trial would have gone. I just think it will Be interesting to see how Andrew addressees these issues over the coming days
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on February 16, 2022, 12:24:01 AM
By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.
She was brave enough to go public and take on a Big Wig. Begrudging her the money is unfair. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell picked these girls because they had no solid background for a reason. They thought there was little or no chance of later come back. I'm sure there were many other girls.
Quote from: From the Bunker on February 15, 2022, 09:20:26 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 15, 2022, 07:27:20 PM
Don't understand Roberts taking the money when she said she wanted to get him in court. Plus, after the court case she would have made millions anyway. She isn't the innocent victim she is making herself out to be either though.
Ah, this case could go on for weeks/months. These girls come from not so well to do backgrounds. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell picked these girls because they had no solid background. I'd imagine they'd have a lot of skeletons in the closet that Andy's legal team would bring out in the open.
Epstein lived in wealthy Palm Beach. His victims came from working class West Palm Beach.
Quote from: David McKeown on February 16, 2022, 05:15:11 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on February 16, 2022, 12:24:01 AM
By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.
In the court of public opinion it absolutely is. Legally though it may not be. Settlements are often made with no admission of liability. There are tactical reasons for making them such as saving on stress, costs etc. Whether winning would really assist I mean the damage to his reputation is probably already done regardless of what way the trial would have gone. I just think it will Be interesting to see how Andrew addressees these issues over the coming days
If it was me, and I was innocent, and I had a bottomless pit of money, I would 100% settle without admission, to avoid the stress, publicity, etc. And because the courts don't always get it right!
Not that I think Andy boy is innocent!
Maybe she didn't want the stress/trauma. After the US judge ruled against him he was in a weaker position. Boies played the cards well.
Quote from: Hound on February 16, 2022, 07:30:48 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 16, 2022, 05:15:11 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on February 16, 2022, 12:24:01 AM
By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.
In the court of public opinion it absolutely is. Legally though it may not be. Settlements are often made with no admission of liability. There are tactical reasons for making them such as saving on stress, costs etc. Whether winning would really assist I mean the damage to his reputation is probably already done regardless of what way the trial would have gone. I just think it will Be interesting to see how Andrew addressees these issues over the coming days
If it was me, and I was innocent, and I had a bottomless pit of money, I would 100% settle without admission, to avoid the stress, publicity, etc. And because the courts don't always get it right!
Not that I think Andy boy is innocent!
Can't agree with that. Paying somebody a bucket load of money for something that you didn't do! It is not even up to Andrew to prove that he is innocent if faced with trial. It is down to the prosecution to prove that he is guilty. So the odds would be massively stacked in his favour given his access to the best lawyers money could buy. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the permanent damage to his reputation, I would definitely be going to trial and then suing for defamation afterwards if innocent.
A few people straying dangerously close to victim blaming here.
Quote from: From the Bunker on February 16, 2022, 07:09:02 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on February 16, 2022, 12:24:01 AM
By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.
She was brave enough to go public and take on a Big Wig. Begrudging her the money is unfair. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell picked these girls because they had no solid background for a reason. They thought there was little or no chance of later come back. I'm sure there were many other girls.
Yes brave enough to go public and take him on, though only as far as getting a few quid, not to have him punished.
The big picture is interesting. It was like the run up to a boxing match
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/11/30/duke-york-avoiding-confronting-misconduct-blaming-victim-accusers/
New court documents filed on behalf of Virginia Roberts Giuffre condemn Prince Andrew, 61, for launching a "baseless, defamatory" attack on her credibility, character and motives.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family//11/30/duke-york-avoiding-confronting-misconduct-blaming-victim-accusers/a
In a bid to get the case thrown out, the Duke's lawyers last month launched a furious rebuttal of her "threadbare" complaint, accusing her of trying to secure "another payday at his expense".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/01/02/prince-andrew-could-face-legal-action-despite-agreement-virginia/
The remote hearing currently represents the Duke's only chance to have the case dismissed. Should he fail, he faces the prospect of a lengthy discovery and deposition process, which could involve close members of the family and his police protection officers, ahead of a trial in the autumn.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59871514
Prince Andrew *can* be sued by Virgina Guiffre, the woman who accuses him of4 sexually assaulting her. His lawyers have failed to persuade a judge in New York to throw the civil case out. He denies her allegations.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/01/12/prince-andrew-faces-long-road-clear-name-civil-sex-abuse-trial/
On the face of it, Judge Lewis Kaplan's refusal to dismiss Virginia Roberts Giuffre's civil sex assault case against the Duke of York appears a catastrophic blow to the already beleaguered prince.
Effectively defenestrated from the monarchy, the Queen's son now potentially faces the ignominy of a warts-and-all trial that will make his car crash Newsnight interview feel like a Q&A on Mumsnet.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/28/virginia-roberts-giuffres-lawyer-will-accept-settlement-holds/
In his calm Midwestern tones, he goes on: "But we tried to avoid this, even in the face of his denials and avoidance last year before we brought the lawsuit. We tried to avoid litigation; we suggested a mediation.
But to say 'I never met her' is so contrary to all the other evidence that's out there. Evidence that is so strong: testimonies from uninvolved people, photographs, things it's hard to explain away."
Boies is adamant that for Giuffre this isn't about the money. "What's important for Virginia is to vindicate herself and the other victims. Not to let someone escape responsibility, just because of their wealth and power.
He pauses, inclines his head to the left, then to the right. "That said, "if you had a settlement that was large enough to be, in effect, a vindication, then it's something we would obviously look at."
She got what she wanted. Game, set and match
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 16, 2022, 09:27:12 AM
A few people straying dangerously close to victim blaming here.
I think people are entitled to their opinion as soon as the victim accepts wads of cash.
By not having the definitive verdict in court leaves this open ended forever, regardless of what we already know or the opinions we have about Andrew, Maxwell and Epstein.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on February 16, 2022, 12:24:01 AM
By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.
Damage limitation at its finest. His reputation is in taters already, but imagine what else would have come out during the course of the trial, innocent or not. If the lack of trail helps him salvage his relationship with his family, then what is x amount of million to a guy that done nothing to earn it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/15/queen-help-pay-12m-prince-andrew-settlement/The terms of the deal prevent either side from discussing the case or the settlement itself in public.
However, The Telegraph understands the total amount that will go to Ms Giuffre and her charity exceeds £12 million.
Did she take money from a previous case?
12 mill is some lift/hit. It was said Andrew wasnt "that" wealthy so would be v interesting to see how its being paid.
And that not able to discuss the terms shizzle really grinds my gears...but ill leave it here lol
He recently sold his chalet in the Alps for 16 million of which 6 million was mortgaged. Taxpayers have paid the rest.
Andy is fcuked. He's up to his neck in it and how many more civil cases can he afford to settle?
Quote from: thebigfella on February 16, 2022, 01:47:49 PM
Andy is fcuked. He's up to his neck in it and how many more civil cases can he afford to settle?
You reckon there's more coming down the track for "handy" Andy???
They'd be better welcoming Harry back into the fold at this juncture.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 16, 2022, 12:38:13 PM
Did she take money from a previous case?
Think she took $500k from Epstein back in the day
Quote from: johnnycool on February 16, 2022, 01:51:06 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on February 16, 2022, 01:47:49 PM
Andy is fcuked. He's up to his neck in it and how many more civil cases can he afford to settle?
You reckon there's more coming down the track for "handy" Andy???
They'd be better welcoming Harry back into the fold at this juncture.
The tabloids called him "Randy Andy". I imagine they wouldn't have given that nick name to a member of the royal family if he didn't earn it.
Quote from: yellowcard on February 16, 2022, 08:57:14 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 16, 2022, 07:30:48 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 16, 2022, 05:15:11 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on February 16, 2022, 12:24:01 AM
By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.
In the court of public opinion it absolutely is. Legally though it may not be. Settlements are often made with no admission of liability. There are tactical reasons for making them such as saving on stress, costs etc. Whether winning would really assist I mean the damage to his reputation is probably already done regardless of what way the trial would have gone. I just think it will Be interesting to see how Andrew addressees these issues over the coming days
If it was me, and I was innocent, and I had a bottomless pit of money, I would 100% settle without admission, to avoid the stress, publicity, etc. And because the courts don't always get it right!
Not that I think Andy boy is innocent!
Can't agree with that. Paying somebody a bucket load of money for something that you didn't do! It is not even up to Andrew to prove that he is innocent if faced with trial. It is down to the prosecution to prove that he is guilty. So the odds would be massively stacked in his favour given his access to the best lawyers money could buy. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the permanent damage to his reputation, I would definitely be going to trial and then suing for defamation afterwards if innocent.
This was a civil suit though so no prosecution as such and a much lower standard of proof. You also have to factor in juries and how unpredictable they can be. Also anything said in court is protected speech so a subsequent defamation campaign would be highly unlikely and ultimately just a complete waste of money
Quote from: johnnycool on February 16, 2022, 01:51:06 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on February 16, 2022, 01:47:49 PM
Andy is fcuked. He's up to his neck in it and how many more civil cases can he afford to settle?
You reckon there's more coming down the track for "handy" Andy???
They'd be better welcoming Harry back into the fold at this juncture.
Absolutely. I'd say this is the tip of the iceberg and he'll be sweating a few more times.
Quote from: Capt Pat on February 16, 2022, 02:23:45 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on February 16, 2022, 01:51:06 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on February 16, 2022, 01:47:49 PM
Andy is fcuked. He's up to his neck in it and how many more civil cases can he afford to settle?
You reckon there's more coming down the track for "handy" Andy???
They'd be better welcoming Harry back into the fold at this juncture.
The tabloids called him "Randy Andy". I imagine they wouldn't have given that nick name to a member of the royal family if he didn't earn it.
And he'd an uncle who went by the moniker Tricky Dickie....
Wonder how he got that title?
Quote from: johnnycool on February 16, 2022, 03:32:38 PM
Quote from: Capt Pat on February 16, 2022, 02:23:45 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on February 16, 2022, 01:51:06 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on February 16, 2022, 01:47:49 PM
Andy is fcuked. He's up to his neck in it and how many more civil cases can he afford to settle?
You reckon there's more coming down the track for "handy" Andy???
They'd be better welcoming Harry back into the fold at this juncture.
The tabloids called him "Randy Andy". I imagine they wouldn't have given that nick name to a member of the royal family if he didn't earn it.
And he'd an uncle who went by the moniker Tricky Dickie....
Wonder how he got that title?
I'd say dressing little boys up as little girls and abusing them might have had something to do with it.
Quote from: red hander on February 16, 2022, 04:04:47 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on February 16, 2022, 03:32:38 PM
Quote from: Capt Pat on February 16, 2022, 02:23:45 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on February 16, 2022, 01:51:06 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on February 16, 2022, 01:47:49 PM
Andy is fcuked. He's up to his neck in it and how many more civil cases can he afford to settle?
You reckon there's more coming down the track for "handy" Andy???
They'd be better welcoming Harry back into the fold at this juncture.
The tabloids called him "Randy Andy". I imagine they wouldn't have given that nick name to a member of the royal family if he didn't earn it.
And he'd an uncle who went by the moniker Tricky Dickie....
Wonder how he got that title?
I'd say dressing little boys up as little girls and abusing them might have had something to do with it.
Kin
coraky, eh!