Prince Andrew BBC

[hk blues]

6 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Jury trial and a civil law standard of proof though. Giving the impression of being shifty and not having consistent evidence is probably almost as bad as being proved to be lying. 

I always sympathised with Jiuffre in this case, but my mind was made up when I saw his BS about not sweating. Technically it doesn’t prove anything but it convinced me. 

I'd imagine the jury will think in a similar way. 

Aye, of course but aren't all jury trials about throwing as much mud as possible and hoping some sticks as well as deflecting as much as possible.  It's certainly not helpful to Andy but I don't see it as being so damning.  I'm sure there will be plenty of stuff that comes out that is though.

I'm pretty certain we will never know as he'll settle before it reaches court.  We're just seeing posturing for now, on both sides. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by hk blues

[resk]

"Prince Andrew lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation that there exists photographic evidence of his alleged meeting with Giuffre," says his legal response.

I mean, you'd think he'd have seen the photograph by now.  

[Michael W]

10 hours ago, btb said:

According to The Grauniad article the Prince met Epstein in 1999

Wonder if they partied like it was 1999? 

[hk blues]

8 minutes ago, Michael W said:

Wonder if they partied like it was 1999? 

Think that was a different Prince.

[badgerthewitness]

57 minutes ago, Michael W said:

Wonder if they partied like it was 1999? 

Andy preferred to party like it was the 1970s, backstage at Top of the Pops.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

1 hour ago, hk blues said:

Aye, of course but aren't all jury trials about throwing as much mud as possible and hoping some sticks as well as deflecting as much as possible.  It's certainly not helpful to Andy but I don't see it as being so damning.  I'm sure there will be plenty of stuff that comes out that is though.

I'm pretty certain we will never know as he'll settle before it reaches court.  We're just seeing posturing for now, on both sides. 

Not necessarily. If one side or the other throws unfounded mud then it can hurt both their moral and factual credibility in the jury's eyes, which can be crucial if the evidence is finely balanced. At this point, Andrew's lawyers appear to have raised every procedural issue available, but they are only before a judge at this point. When a jury comes into play, his lawyers would be wise only to throw mud they know is going to stick - unless, of course, they think their cause is utterly hopeless, in which case chuck everything in.

Andrew faces a significant difficulty going before a jury due to his position as a royal. The philosophy of any jury trial is that you have three parties, "the offender", "the victim" and "the rescuer". The jury is always the rescuer, and they will begin the case wanting to rescue the person making the accusations, i.e. Giuffre.  A defence lawyer's job is to persuade the jury that the defendant is in fact the real victim, who needs to be rescued from unjust legal proceedings, i.e. rescued from the threat of prison, or here the threat of paying unfair damages. Andrew being a Prince with seemingly bottomless pockets, and generally appearing to be a bit of a p***k, will make it harder than normal to cast him as the victim.

In fact, just writing that now, it may (but may not) explain why the royal family have been so willing to strip him of all of his titles. It would help build a picture of an innocent man suffering greatly due to what they say are unfounded allegations. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Priti priti priti Patel

[Detournement]

He's only talking about a potential jury to deflect from the fact that'll he never set foot in America again. 

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, hk blues said:

Aye, of course but aren't all jury trials about throwing as much mud as possible and hoping some sticks as well as deflecting as much as possible.  It's certainly not helpful to Andy but I don't see it as being so damning.  I'm sure there will be plenty of stuff that comes out that is though.

I'm pretty certain we will never know as he'll settle before it reaches court.  We're just seeing posturing for now, on both sides. 

I would have thought Prince Andrew's appointment diary would be fairly comprehensive - even his private social life will be recorded somewhere, if only by the security services.

[hk blues]

8 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I would have thought Prince Andrew's appointment diary would be fairly comprehensive - even his private social life will be recorded somewhere, if only by the security services.

You mean that diary that was lost in one of his house flittings? 

The problem with this case, and one which may work in Andy's favour, is the time that has elapsed between the incidents and the "trial." That said, IF (he won't) he goes in front of a jury he will only be able to use that excuse so many times before he appears to be being evasive.  

[hk blues]

28 minutes ago, Priti priti priti Patel said:

Not necessarily. If one side or the other throws unfounded mud then it can hurt both their moral and factual credibility in the jury's eyes, which can be crucial if the evidence is finely balanced. At this point, Andrew's lawyers appear to have raised every procedural issue available, but they are only before a judge at this point. When a jury comes into play, his lawyers would be wise only to throw mud they know is going to stick - unless, of course, they think their cause is utterly hopeless, in which case chuck everything in.

Andrew faces a significant difficulty going before a jury due to his position as a royal. The philosophy of any jury trial is that you have three parties, "the offender", "the victim" and "the rescuer". The jury is always the rescuer, and they will begin the case wanting to rescue the person making the accusations, i.e. Giuffre.  A defence lawyer's job is to persuade the jury that the defendant is in fact the real victim, who needs to be rescued from unjust legal proceedings, i.e. rescued from the threat of prison, or here the threat of paying unfair damages. Andrew being a Prince with seemingly bottomless pockets, and generally appearing to be a bit of a p***k, will make it harder than normal to cast him as the victim.

In fact, just writing that now, it may (but may not) explain why the royal family have been so willing to strip him of all of his titles. It would help build a picture of an innocent man suffering greatly due to what they say are unfounded allegations. 

Who decides it's unfounded?  Isn't that the whole point of the jury i.e. to separate the mud from the shite?  I'm not suggesting outlandish claims, just enough to be possible/believable. 

Regardless, it's all immaterial as it won't go to trial as neither party would want it to unless Giuffre really is focused on outing Andy as the old perv rather than money.  It's possible but is it likely?  

As for stripping him of his titles, it's a risky strategy as it could be viewed as an acknowledgement of guilt by Buck House - probably a more likely bet than a ploy to build sympathy.  

[GordonD]

25 minutes ago, hk blues said:

You mean that diary that was lost in one of his house flittings? 

Not to mention all the photo albums that were destroyed when Windsor Castle went up in smoke.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

37 minutes ago, hk blues said:

Who decides it's unfounded?  Isn't that the whole point of the jury i.e. to separate the mud from the shite?

That is the point of the jury, exactly, and each juror will form opinions on the evidence both as they hear it during the proceedings and then later in the jury room during deliberations.

However, the lawyers will have already assessed the evidence before the trial, and will decide (a) whether to put it before the jury, and (b) if they do put it before the jury, which assertions they are able to say the evidence supports. 

What I am saying is, if one side or another puts on record insubstantial evidence, or claims evidence shows things which it does not in fact show, that will hurt their credibility in the jury's eyes. 

In other words, the lawyers already know what's mud and what's shite, and if they chuck too much shite and the jury smells it, their case may be sunk.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Priti priti priti Patel

[btb]

4 hours ago, hk blues said:

It wouldn't take much of a lawyer to dissect that and make a difference between "meeting" and being "introduced to" though.  Or explain that the Secretary was "misremembering". 

I wouldn't be sure a letter to a national newspaper can be explained away as "misremembering" but I suppose that's the business of lawyers.

******************

On the decision to make it a jury trial I don't see how it can be anything but bad news for the Prince, a judge would have limited himself what can be proven factual in what essentially boils down to a he said/she said argument whereas IMO a jury is more likely to plump for who they consider to be the more sympathetic character which makes the Prince toast.

Edited January 27, 2022 by btb

[Caledonian1]

1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

I would have thought Prince Andrew's appointment diary would be fairly comprehensive - even his private social life will be recorded somewhere, if only by the security services.

Aye, his diary would be very detailed with exact timings of comings and goings, who he met etc....a bit like the one the security forces and Met would keep for 10 Downing Street.....oh hud on........

[Lofarl]

I wasn’t friends with Epstein or Maxwell.  I’d let anyone and everyone stay at the Royal Lodge.  I’d even let people whom I’d only met or stayed with briefly to my daughters birthday party.

[Florentine_Pogen]

Epstein's medals awarded by Brenda in a private ceremony at Balmoral.
'For Services to Predatory Sexual Behaviour & General Noncery. "

[welshbairn]

On a side note, what could Melania be swooning and Epstein smiling about here?

[Florentine_Pogen]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/27/lawyers-question-strength-of-prince-andrews-response-to-lawsuit

"British lawyers have cast doubt on the strength of Prince Andrew’s defence to Virginia’s Giuffre’s lawsuit and whether it can help him settle the case, thereby avoiding a “disastrous” court trial."

"There has to be a way out of this for Andrew that will avoid a jury trial because a jury trial is a complete disaster.”

Edited January 27, 2022 by Florentine_Pogen

[hk blues]

16 hours ago, btb said:

I wouldn't be sure a letter to a national newspaper can be explained away as "misremembering" but I suppose that's the business of lawyers.

I was being sarcastic - that was the term Andy's team used to explain Virginia Giuffre's recollection of events.  

[supermik]

If it does go to trial, will the jury notice that the main witness had little dents on the side of their nose? x12.