|
rattman
Or a bank card statement, cant imagine he would be the kind of person to carry cash around |
Or a bank card statement, cant imagine he would be the kind of person to carry cash around |
Originally Posted by 4468
(Post 11169911)
There will be many information streams available that will enable those currently with access and an interest, to check Andrew’s version of events. Her Majesty will be one such party. Travel and medical records, plus the records of Andrew’s close protection officers being just a few examples. It seems possible to presume the Queen has acted on the basis of such information.
I believe the next stage in the legal process will be disclosure? In which each party must respond to requests for information from the other. At that point it should be relatively straightforward to determine whether the case is vexatious, or whether it might justify closer scrutiny? I think the Queen’s actions, and those of Andrew’s legal team thus far, might suggest that, on the basis of what can already be determined, the allegations are not easily dismissed? I rather suspect Andrew is in a situation that makes it difficult to disprove/discredit what is being alleged. I imagine there’s a chance he might not even try? Jack |
'[QUOTE=Just This Once...;11169555] Innocent, to a lower burden of proof in a civil court, whilst actively evading the courts, disclosure process, actually being 'served', using the Met Police as a shield and actually played 'the card' written by a convicted and deceased co-conspirator and claimed that it was effectively a get-out-of-jail for such an obvious defendant such as he, until proven liable for his acts.'
In an criminal court the conviction must be that the evidence points towards 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. In a civil court, which I understand this trial will be, the evidence only has to go so far as 'On the balance of probabilities' Make your own mind up when you hear the evidence. |
No sweat
I am not defending what he may or may not have done, but I will defend his statement about an inability to sweat - I have an inability to do so owing to a condition called Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris (other illnesses are available). It's bloody awful, you can't keep warm enough or cool enough. People who laughed that off are understandably ignorant as it affects only about one in half a million, but it's a little known medical condition that the Doc's are still trying to make sense of, with that in mind, that element of his argument may well be true. I agree that he has handled himself very poorly considering his position though.
|
Originally Posted by Planet Basher
(Post 11169590)
The Andrew formerly known as Prince.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b3f9340357.jpg I do wonder if Her Majesty's recent decision is based on content of a Mummy/Son private chat? I cannot see her taking action if she was convinced of his innocence in all this. Having watched the Emily Maitlis interview again, in light of the Epstein and Maxwell events, and the pending release of the list of sealed names... things really are not looking good for him. |
I am entirely ambivalent about his plight, but I am confused about what he's in trouble for - is bedding a girl who was 17 at the time and therefore old enough to make her own mind up, who subsequently boasted to her friends about bedding a prince, some sort of offence? I'm not talking about the moral aspect here, but it strikes me that it wasn't against her will and it wasn't in way illegal - What's the problem?
|
Darkmouse the problem, as you put it, is that a 17 year old in the US is a minor.....
|
Originally Posted by BlackIsle
(Post 11170023)
Darkmouse the problem, as you put it, is that a 17 year old in the US is a minor.....
|
Originally Posted by Darkmouse
(Post 11170004)
I am entirely ambivalent about his plight, but I am confused about what he's in trouble for - is bedding a girl who was 17 at the time and therefore old enough to make her own mind up, who subsequently boasted to her friends about bedding a prince, some sort of offence? I'm not talking about the moral aspect here, but it strikes me that it wasn't against her will and it wasn't in way illegal - What's the problem?
|
Originally Posted by ehwatezedoing
(Post 11170027)
Case closed then :rolleyes:
From what I gather, the liaison in question occured in the UK, to which the alleged victim travelled voluntarily. Whilst the whole thing is morally extremely grubby, I really don't see what 'offence' has been committed. If Andrew turns round and say, "Yes alright, I did s**g her, I knew she was 17, but she was keen," what does that mean as far as the law is concerned? Nothing as far as I know. |
Originally Posted by Darkmouse
(Post 11170035)
I aught to be a lawyer ;-).
From what I gather, the liaison in question occured in the UK, to which the alleged victim travelled voluntarily. Whilst the whole thing is morally extremely grubby, I really don't see what 'offence' has been committed. If Andrew turns round and say, "Yes alright, I did s**g her, I knew she was 17, but she was keen," what does that mean as far as the law is concerned? Nothing as far as I know. |
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
(Post 11170039)
apart from the fact that she was transported from somewhere where she wasn’t legally above the age of consent, to somewhere where she was. It’s a US based case, so their rules apply.
|
I’m surprised he hasn’t tried the diplomatic immunity route, he has tried everything else, I’m also surprised he hasn’t brought up the mowing down of the lad on a bike and the US’s complicity in evading justice as a distraction.
I do wonder who else is in the wings awaiting for their turn, and who else may end up in the dock. |
His continued friendship with Epstein and Maxwell doesn't do him a lot of good either.
|
Originally Posted by Darkmouse
(Post 11170035)
From what I gather, the liaison in question occured in the UK, to which the alleged victim travelled voluntarily. Whilst the whole thing is morally extremely grubby, I really don't see what 'offence' has been committed. If Andrew turns round and say, "Yes alright, I did s**g her, I knew she was 17, but she was keen," what does that mean as far as the law is concerned? Nothing as far as I know.
|
I can't help feeling his dad will be up there saying 'That's my boy'. Probably part of the problem.
|
I don't think it is an "age of consent" issue but one of "she didn't willingly consent" issue. Trafficked by Maxwell and Epstein for the pleasure of their rich and influential friends.
|
And by all accounts not long after said incident she met and married an Aussie, and has been living in Perth area ever since...?
Have to feel for HMQ. |
They’re after his Dukedom now as well, I do hope it’s catching and they strip the bearded wonder of his as well.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-59987648 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.