Ghislaine Maxwell trial

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118412678#Comment_118412678

Jeffrey Epstein's public reputation as a sexual predator goes back almost 2 decades. You'd think Andrew would have cut off all association at that time, to cover his arse, but he stayed at his island even the years following.

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118413025#Comment_118413025

Wanting the jetset lifestyle he couldn’t afford. Lie down with dogs and all that. He’s brought it all on himself.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118413025#Comment_118413025

And when Andrew did decide to end their friendship after Epstein was being charged with his offences around 2010, Andrew decided to distance himself from the accused paedophile sex trafficker in the most sensible way possible. He went to New York and stayed at his house with him for a few days.

The Newsnight interview is still hilarious to me. So determined was he to deny everything, that he even denied being physically able to sweat during that time period, and couldn't possibly have been there on the date she said because he was at a Pizza Express in Woking, something anyone there would clearly remember.

Unfortunately, the deal that has now been unsealed could very well end up saving him. I remember hearing at the time it was something Dershowitz really pushed for, likely to help cover himself given the accusations against him too. But it's unreal that such a blanket clause would be allowed to absolve pricks of any liability against her.

Zebra3

If this clause to protect Epstein’s paedo mates gets him off legally, it’ll surely finish him off in every other way.

British military heads want nothing to do with him any more, which says a lot given the crimes their army has committed. Whether his ma or brother is running the show now doesn’t really matter, he’s too big an embarrassment. Even for them. Stories circulating he’ll be stripped of royal and military titles and ostracised from the royal family/mafia.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118413298#Comment_118413298

He’s finished anyway. A pompous oaf who has no inkling of how to behave in civilised society.

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118413329#Comment_118413329

Things can still get a lot worse for him.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118413329#Comment_118413329

Agreed. The damage has been done, and escaping liability due to a clause in his peadophile buddy's settlement agreement won't change that. Such is his sense of entitlement and privilege that I'm sure if he gets out of this he'll be petitioning to get himself back into public life as a working royal. However I'd say regardless how much longer the Queen's reign is, neither Charles nor William will go for it.

He's done.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118413298#Comment_118413298

He may be persona non grata but he barely makes the top ten in succession to the throne. It would be far easier to let him fade into obscurity and irrelevance rather than bring the spotlight back on him (and the royal family as an institution) by publicly stripping him of royal and military titles.

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118413574#Comment_118413574

More than likely there will be a lot of pressure to though.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118413407#Comment_118413407

Done as living in the lap of luxury at others expensive, that's some sentence compared to Maxwells

I don’t think it would be in Andrews best interest to be “let off” on a technicality, especially one designed mainly for Epstein and likely Maxwell. Whatever about a negative verdict for him in this trial, the case getting thrown out now due to that legal agreement 10 years ago would forever and for more cast doubt over his innocence in this affair- it’s short term gain for long term pain. He’d be much better to fight the case in the courts.

His big problem of course, is that his diaries all match the dates claimed - ie he wasn’t in London when Roberts claimed he was in New York etc So either Roberts didn’t meet him but got hold of a diary as to when he visited Epsteins homes (possible) or she was actually there on those dates with Andrew (far more likely) - whether they had sex or not, is up to the evidence and the courts as there’s no other real way of determining this, but as Andy is doing all he can to avoid a trial, that doesn’t really bode well for him in my view - either he has little or no evidence to refute these allegations or he knows well what happened and wants to avoid a legal battle.

You would like to think that if Andy was innocent that a court would find in his favour.

So it’s obvious that Roberts and he met on these 3 occasions - the photograph being the most significant piece of evidence to show that they did actually meet (I wonder if the original negative will be produced in court assuming it’s not a digital photo or to what degree could experts claim it’s fake)

The “puppet” incident in New York, while not anyways definitive towards abuse allegation does build on a case against him, in that it puts him at the location with Roberts.

The 3rd location is confusing though- is it the Island or the ranch in New Mexico? That’s not at all clear and we may have to wait for a trial to hear more about that.

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118413161#Comment_118413161

Her settlement completely undermines her accusations. Why give up your right to take legal action? I’m guessing the payout at the time was the best she was going to get but that changed.

The second issue is the question of her recruiting other girls when she was over eighteen.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118414840#Comment_118414840

The last thing randy Andy needs is a court case. You have no control of the outcome. If Epstein's legal agreement gets him off he will take it. He will never again take part in Royal duties or be part of the Royal entourage.

The unable to sweat and the pizza alibi will be very hard to prove at best. He will take any outcome that prevents this case going to court and he be stupid not to. If the case fails the Royals can allow him to fade into obscurity

marieholmfan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118414944#Comment_118414944

Her settlement was obviously made because she perceived herself as powerless and having no chance of getting justice.

Here’s the inside of Maxwells mews where the first encounter with Roberts and Andrew allegedly took place.

If it did take place, what were Epstein and Maxwell doing- listening outside the bathroom door? 😀

It’s a small 2 bed mews house with small bathrooms- it was the bathroom where the first sexual encounter allegedly took place- I’m sorry but I’m finding it difficult to believe Andy had sex with Roberts in this mews house in the manner described whilst Maxwell and Epstein were present there.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8494121/amp/Inside-1-7million-London-penthouse-Ghislaine-Maxwell-groomed-underage-British-model.html

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118414944#Comment_118414944

I had assumed that she got millions. Seems some of the other girls did. She’s probably sick at the thought of selling herself short and is hoping for a bigger payout.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415029#Comment_118415029

given that we have seen evidence that Maxwell took part in assaulting girls with Epstein why do you find that so hard to believe?

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415019#Comment_118415019

So forget justice, in fact sign away your rights to get any justice in the future just grab the big bag of money.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415059#Comment_118415059

That seems to be what she did.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415059#Comment_118415059

pretty much. if you have no expectation of receiving justice in a criminal case you take it in a civil one. what would you have done in her shoes?

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415059#Comment_118415059

It doesn't sign away one's right to justice in a criminal court.

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415092#Comment_118415092

Not sign away my rights to sue others involved.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415103#Comment_118415103

she took the deal because she probably didn't think she could get any better. she wasn't exactly in a position of strength.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415109#Comment_118415109

She had considerable bargaining power. She was living in Australia for a number of years when she signed the agreement and could have named very wealthy names or turned witness in a criminal or multiple criminal cases had she wanted to.

The courts have already set the precedent that the agreement protects third parties in the case of Harvand lawyer Alan Dershowitz who Guiffre already sued for abusing her with it being reported that her case failed becasue her settlement agreement with Epstein covered not just him but other parties too

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415212#Comment_118415212

what criminal cases? there was no appetite from law enforcement to bring criminal cases against epstein. that had already been done and got a slap on the wrist.

The courts have already set the precedent that the agreement protects third parties in the case of Harvand lawyer Alan Dershowitz who Guiffre already sued for abusing her with it being reported that her case failed becasue her settlement agreement with Epstein covered not just him but other parties too

somebody else mentioned that but didn't provide a link. the only case that Giuffre took against dershowitz was for defamation. that case was still ongoing at the end of last november.

Furze99

Going to be a very interesting narrative coming along, if it turns out that all the men availing sexually of Epstein's generosity, get off because of this clause. Whilst a woman gets nailed for her association with same. What times we live in.

Jequ0n

It doesn’t really matter why she took the deal. She did, and if she thus blew her chances to claim more money she can only blame herself.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415047#Comment_118415047

The short answer is I’ve no idea- indeed truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. But if it did happen in the way described, then you must think that Andy had a lot more encounters with a lot more girls/women than just Roberts as it’s the sort of thing a serial abuser/user would do - it’s just too casual, in the way it was described, to be a one off behaviour- you would expect to see many more women coming forward.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415263#Comment_118415263

It wouldn't protect them from a criminal case. I'd say there's s number of wealthy people in high places sweating now.

cap.in.hand.

I thought that this was the first time that details of Roberts settlement details were unsealed meaning no challenges until now were put forward and no precedents for the judge to help make a ruling...so it could go either way

osarusan

Haven't followed the thread in detail, but his dual defence of 'I did absolutely nothing wrong' and 'I'm covered by the deal made with Epstein which referred to other unnamed individuals' seems contradictory.

Trying to use the Epstein deal seems to contain an implicit admission that he was involved - as he needs to be have been involved to be protected by the deal.

I don't see how he can coherently make both arguments. If he's not involved in any way, he's no more of a 'potential defendant' than his mother.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415384#Comment_118415384

Even if he did nothing wrong and didn't have any sexual contact with Roberts, it makes far more sense for him to try and get the case thrown out at this stage because:

1. No guarantee of winning a court case no matter how strong Andrew thinks his case is. And even if he wins, he's still going to be thought of as guilty by many.
2. Money probably isn't a problem for him but it's far cheaper to get it thrown out now rather than go through an expensive court case.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415384#Comment_118415384

A number of us have made similar points alight- it’s called having your cake and eating it 😀

While his reputation is shot, he still would have been able to spin a better story had he settled out of court without admission of liability- doesn’t look like the legal experts in the main, think this will succeed and probably not a bad thing for Andy if he is indeed innocent of what’s alleged happened.

Its all down to the evidence (which seems scant enough) and the credibility of the testimonies and witnesses (which are not at all clear at this point) - what is clear, is that Andy and his legal team have done their damndest to stop this trial going ahead from the very beginning- I don’t think that goes in his favour at all and may yet go against him later on.

cap.in.hand.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415384#Comment_118415384

Andrews clever line is "I don't remember" so not dismissing it fully.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415029#Comment_118415029

Seeing as they had set up the whole thing, yes, they probably were listening, probably even getting off on listening. What is hard to believe about that? Do you think any of the four people present thought this was a friendly dating scenario between the 41 year old prince and the 17 year old trafficking victim?

cap.in.hand.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415570#Comment_118415570

But Roberts was Epsteins young mistress first and foremost... Epstein probably had her in London for his own enjoyment

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415570#Comment_118415570

So you believe Andrew partook knowingly and willingly in a trafficked girl scenario? If so, why the need for all the wining and dining beforehand- that seems a bit unnecessary and also he’d be taking quite a risk been seen out with her. I’ve posted above that I’ve my doubts it actually took place at all, so no, I also don’t believe that Andy thought this was a “friendly dating scenario” because Andy doesn’t have a history of openly/ publicly dating teenage girls when in his 30s or 40s- which is what is being alleged happened here, and by none other than his accuser.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415384#Comment_118415384

But then the same applies to Virginia Guiffre. She can't both sign a non disclosure contract and ignore the same contract.

The best argument is the one you don't get into.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415550#Comment_118415550

He must either get around a bit or be suffering from early onset dementia.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415358#Comment_118415358

Is not the burden of proof normally higher in criminal cases though. Doesn't necessarily follow.

Potatoeman

I think the issue is she signed a NDA and is in breach of it which undermines her case. The terms of the payout was that the case was dropped against him and anyone else involved.

Jequ0n

I‘m sure I won’t be the only one who would be laughing my ass off if this backfires on her. But this is probably unlikely to happen because she is deemed a victim and thus cannot be faulted for anything.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118416289#Comment_118416289

She may well have been a victim.........we just don't know..............and will probably never know. She will find it hard to get around the fact that she signed the release but that has nothing to do with whether or not she was/is a victim.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415952#Comment_118415952

Yes, for a criminal case to succeed proof would need to be beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil case it would need to be on the balance if probability.

Her previous agreement might hamper a civil case but not a criminal case.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415678#Comment_118415678

She was 17. She wasn't his mistress. She was a child, trafficked for the purposes of sex, and shared around with his influential mates, most likely with the intention of

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415719#Comment_118415719

Do you think Andrew was monumentally stupid enough to think that the 17 year old girl hanging round with Epstein / Maxwell nudged in his direction by the older, powerful, wealthier pair was attracted to his good looks? Maybe the wining and dining and clubbing was because Andrew liked wining and dining and clubbing? I'm old enough to remember his reputation at that time as being 'anything with a pulse'. I didn't really think it would involve a 17 year old child, not old enough to vote, but there you go.

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415794#Comment_118415794

He was a bit of a dog

I haven’t see “Steve the phone man” been mentioned before - if there’s more witnesses like this one, no wonder Andy is pushing for some sort of immunity.

https://7news.com.au/spotlight/employee-on-jeffrey-epsteins-private-island-delivers-bombshell-evidence-against-prince-andrew--c-4552575

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118416289#Comment_118416289

Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for. If her civil suit goes to hearing I'd say the defence would trawl through her history for anything to discredit her.

Allegations that she helped recruit other younger, underage, girls could yet implicate her in criminal activity and result in criminal charges against her.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118416709#Comment_118416709

I’m giving him a very small benefit of doubt right now, simply because it does sound so unbelievable given he’s been so much in the public eye all these years with every move scrutinised and royal protection officers everywhere but from my “Steve the phone man” post above, even that doubt is dwindling. His royal protection officer is reported to have said that they saw no untoward behaviour on the island - but to what degree he was protecting Andy and how present he was throughout the trip to the island remains unclear.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118416868#Comment_118416868

It would just be very funny, especially since she already stated that she is seeking monetary compensation and nothing else.