Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

[nokidsmom]

13 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I don't think he gave one single thought to those young girls even as his daughters hit the same ages as those he's abused. 

You make a good point.   Even being the father of daughters didn't wake him up to what he was doing / had done.   Probably an extension of his "royal" thinking..   As his daughters they are different from those commoners even though the daughters themselves don't seem to emulate his "royal" attitude.   

ETA:  And IIRC they are part of some anti-trafficking organization or something like that.  Interesting given the allegations against their father. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by nokidsmom

[MomJeans]

It's very normal to request a trial by jury at this stage, because otherwise he waives his right to it.

He can always withdraw his request for a jury trial.  Most lawyers will advise requesting a jury during initial pleadings for this very reason.  

I'm not an Andrew supporter, but the media is blowing up the jury request to be something it's not- very routine, and can be waived later. 

[EmCatlyn]

12 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Right, is his legal team not strongly advising against this?  Either they are failing in not doing so or he's ignoring them.  Sadly there are people in the US who will bend to the will of a royal, but is willing to roll the dice that they can sit 12 of them on the jury?

Maybe the assumption is that with 12 jurors there is a better chance that at least one will not think the case is proven whereas with a judge the odds are less.  I read somewhere that there is some difference in how evidence is presented for a jury trial than when the arguments jus go before a judge.  Possibly that difference in presentation may be thought to benefit the defendant. 

Just guessing.

3 hours ago, MomJeans said:

It's very normal to request a trial by jury at this stage, because otherwise he waives his right to it.

He can always withdraw his request for a jury trial.  Most lawyers will advise requesting a jury during initial pleadings for this very reason.  

I'm not an Andrew supporter, but the media is blowing up the jury request to be something it's not- very routine, and can be waived later. 

That makes sense, thanks!  I was wondering what the strategy could be.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

13 hours ago, MomJeans said:

It's very normal to request a trial by jury at this stage, because otherwise he waives his right to it.

He can always withdraw his request for a jury trial.  Most lawyers will advise requesting a jury during initial pleadings for this very reason.  

I'm not an Andrew supporter, but the media is blowing up the jury request to be something it's not- very routine, and can be waived later. 

Thanks, knowing it's standard makes it a non-issue.

[viii]

22 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I don't think he gave one single thought to those young girls even as his daughters hit the same ages as those he's abused.  The humanity in common people seems irrelevant to him.  

Considering he had Jeffery Epstein at Beatrice's 18th birthday party... he doesn't think. Period. 

[Melbelle]

Any legal folks know if this trial will be 12 jurors or will it be 6?  I know some civil cases only have 6, but not sure what circumstances that's the case for?  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

21 minutes ago, viii said:

Considering he had Jeffery Epstein at Beatrice's 18th birthday party... he doesn't think. Period. 

That's what makes me so convinced he has a disconnect where common people are less human to him.

We all know if either of his girls were offered to travel with Jeffrey and Ghislaine he would have been furious that they even had the audacity to ask and forbidden it.  But other people's daughters have no such inherent value.  

Not to tie in to the H and M debacle of the moment, but did Andrew lose his taxpayer/BRF funded security when he was stripped of his military ranks and agreed to no longer use HRH?  

3 minutes ago, Melbelle said:

Any legal folks know if this trial will be 12 jurors or will it be 6?  I know some civil cases only have 6, but not sure what circumstances that's the case for?  

A quick google confirms what I thought from following cases and knowing people who served jury duty....criminal trials seat 12 jurors and civil trials are usually 6, but sometimes 12.  

[EmCatlyn]

14 minutes ago, viii said:

Considering he had Jeffery Epstein at Beatrice's 18th birthday party... he doesn't think. Period. 

I agree that Andrew doesn’t think, and I am going to stick my neck out here and say that part of his “not thinking” is that he may never have thought of the young girls surrounding Epstein as unwilling.  Because he did not see them as “unwilling,” he may not have even considered their ages or put them in the same category as his own daughters.  To him they may just have been attractive young women ready to party—as opposed to his daughters whom he would not have viewed as “ready to party” with anyone. 

 I am not trying to justify or excuse Andrew. I am addressing the point about how he apparently did not make the connection between the age of his daughters and the age of the young women at Epstein’s parties.

Andrew is not only entitled—he seems  as dense as a rock.  Therefore it is easy to confuse his stupidity with his entitlement.  They overlap (entitlement is pretty stupid) but they may affect his behavior differently.

With all his faults, Andrew does seem to care about his daughters, so it is interesting that he did not worry about Epstein having contact with them. While it could be, as some have suggested, a class thing— he doesn’t see his daughters as vulnerable because only “common people”  get preyed upon—I think it is more likely to be that he was too dense to recognize Epstein as a sexual predator/potential seducer.  To put it another way, if you take the view that Epstein’s “girls” were all willing participants, a father like Andrew might never be able to put his own daughters in the same category as those supposedly “willing” party girls.

I am suggesting that this less a class thing than a father thing because I have known fathers from different social classes take the attitude that while other men’s daughters were sexual beings, their own daughters were not.  This is nutty, but not an entirely unknown phenomenon.  Some men will warn friends off their daughters but others just don’t see their daughters as in any way similar to the young women of a similar age that men like himself might party with.   Definitely odd, but they are stupid.

 

[Coconut Flan]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Not to tie in to the H and M debacle of the moment, but did Andrew lose his taxpayer/BRF funded security when he was stripped of his military ranks and agreed to no longer use HRH?  

Considering his security, like Anne's, was for official duties only and he no longer performs any official functions, he must need to provide his own security now.  

Edited January 28, 2022 by Coconut Flan

[MomJeans]

On 1/28/2022 at 2:59 PM, Melbelle said:

Any legal folks know if this trial will be 12 jurors or will it be 6?  I know some civil cases only have 6, but not sure what circumstances that's the case for?  

Federal Civil requires at least 6 jurors to reach a verdict, but no more than 12 jurors total. There are no alternates like in criminal, so it's rare to see only 6 jurors because if one is excused or becomes ill, it's an automatic mistrial.  

I can't remember SDNY target civil jury number, but typically, for a short civil trial the goal is 7or 8 jurors, and if it's a long-cause trial, they try to seat at least 10 jurors (because if they lose 4, they can still have a verdict).  Usually the local Federal District Court has its own target numbers, and the Judge may as well.  12 member juries are not unheard of.  It's just not legally required. 

By the way, the parties that request a civil jury trial pay for daily fees for the juror members (not directly of course- the parties pay the court, and the court distributes the fees).  

[MomJeans]

On 1/28/2022 at 3:00 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Not to tie in to the H and M debacle of the moment, but did Andrew lose his taxpayer/BRF funded security when he was stripped of his military ranks and agreed to no longer use HRH?  

I would assume he has lost state-funded security.  (Not a fact, I'm merely drawing a conclusion).  There appears to be a very clear rule these days on who qualifies for it, and now that he is not a working royal, he doesn't qualify anymore. 

I don't think the Palace is going to announce it unless they are pushed harder to do so. I don't think the police force itself wants to ever publicly proclaim "This person is unprotected as of this date!!!" no matter their personal feelings on the matter. 

With Harry & Megan, they made the funding of their security a world-wide news issue on their Sussex Royal website.  And they made it an international issue by setting up camp in Canada and publicly claiming to be IPPs.  So, I think we were given an official ending to their security because of how they brought so much attention to it.  JMHO.  I did cringe on how much we all knew about when their security ended, but at the same time, H&M were the first to bring it to the world's attention. 

[SoSoNosy]

wrong thread, sorry

Edited January 31, 2022 by SoSoNosy

[EmCatlyn]

10 hours ago, MomJeans said:

I would assume he has lost state-funded security.  (Not a fact, I'm merely drawing a conclusion).  There appears to be a very clear rule these days on who qualifies for it, and now that he is not a working royal, he doesn't qualify anymore. 

I don't think the Palace is going to announce it unless they are pushed harder to do so. I don't think the police force itself wants to ever publicly proclaim "This person is unprotected as of this date!!!" no matter their personal feelings on the matter. 

With Harry & Megan, they made the funding of their security a world-wide news issue on their Sussex Royal website.  And they made it an international issue by setting up camp in Canada and publicly claiming to be IPPs.  So, I think we were given an official ending to their security because of how they brought so much attention to it.  JMHO.  I did cringe on how much we all knew about when their security ended, but at the same time, H&M were the first to bring it to the world's attention. 

 My understanding from what came out in response to Harry’s request for security is that the Met will provide security for anyone they think might be in danger.  So if Andrew starts getting death threats, he would be covered, but not just because he is a royal.  

[tabitha2]

It’s done at last. An out of court financial settlement has now been reached been the Duke and Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Best this   matter is settled before the jubilee celebrations 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19926210.prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-reach-out-court-settlement/

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by tabitha2

[IrishCarrie]

So Andrew has paid out major buckeroos to a woman he claimed he'd never met?

Hmmm... 🤔

He's never met me either; wonder would he care to throw a few million my way too? 

[tabitha2]

Was always going to happen. They made him do this. The Royal PTB were never going to allow one of the Royal Windsor’s to go through such unsavory court procedures and answer probing questions very possibly bring more names to light and more scandal to the family. If Andrew had any sense this could have been done a couple of his volition of years ago but instead he gave the dumpster fire interview. 

[viii]

They probably wanted this done and out of the way before the Jubilee. It definitely marks Andrew's guilt. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

59 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

It’s done at last. An out of court financial settlement has now been reached been the Duke and Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Best this   matter is settled before the jubilee celebrations 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19926210.prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-reach-out-court-settlement/

 

I hope she did what she felt was best for her.  I won't judge her, but I can't say I'm not disappointed that he won't be subjected to a public trial.

 

[hoipolloi]

The public settlement statement from Andrew is interesting. No denials of responsibility or involvement.  

Agree that the BRF probably pushed him to settle for a number of reasons. I hope for Virginia's sake that this brings peace and closure.

[tabitha2]

I am sure a book is coming.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 minutes ago, viii said:

They probably wanted this done and out of the way before the Jubilee. It definitely marks Andrew's guilt. 

The settlement?  I don't think a settlement marks his guilt at all.  Plenty of people with money settle to make it go away regardless of guilt.

[tabitha2]

Most civil cases end in settlements like this. It’s cheaper in the long run and saves the mental and emotional trauma of a drawn out trial. 

[viii]

7 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

The settlement?  I don't think a settlement marks his guilt at all.  Plenty of people with money settle to make it go away regardless of guilt.

The wording marks his guilt. No denial of anything. 

I also wish they'd disclose the actual sum of money he's going to pay, rather than say a 'substantial donation'. Substantial can mean different things to different people.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

5 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

I am sure a book is coming.

From the victim?  I have no doubt his lawyers would make sure the settlement limits what she can say afterwards.

4 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Most civil cases end in settlements like this. It’s cheaper in the long run and saves the mental and emotional trauma of a drawn out trial. 

This is very true.  It also allows guilty people to avoid a public judgement of guilt by the courts.  So those who still want to see it in fuzzy terms and downplay what he did can do that.  

[EmCatlyn]

26 minutes ago, viii said:

The wording marks his guilt. No denial of anything. 

I also wish they'd disclose the actual sum of money he's going to pay, rather than say a 'substantial donation'. Substantial can mean different things to different people.  

I am pretty sure that “No denial of anything” doesn’t constitute an admission of guilt. 

It is entirely possible that Guiffre wanted an admission of guilt and an apology while Andrew wanted to assert his innocence and not apologize, so they compromised on this more neutral statement, in which Andrew says that he “never intended to malign Ms. Guiffre’s character” and that she is “an established victim of abuse.”  It very carefully does not say that Andrew apologizes for or admits to any part in the abuse.

(Note that I am not commenting on  Andrew’s “guilt or innocence,” just saying that we shouldn’t assume that not defending himself more strongly is an implied admission of guilt.  He may have been pressured in the compromise just as she was pressured into accepting less than what she wanted.)

40 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

I am sure a book is coming.

Only one book?  I foresee dozens. 😉

Edited February 15, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Punctuation