Prince Andrew BBC

[Thorongil]

Definitely justifies a retrial IMO.

[GordonD]

6 hours ago, BillyAnchor said:

To get to work I drive past a row of them where apparently ladies of the night rent them by the hour. Unusual to find them now in US and A as big corporations have turned most into chains.

 

 

 

[Priti priti priti Patel]

2 hours ago, hk blues said:

Does beggar belief that the defence didn't strike the juror from the list unless they knew all along they would have that ace up their sleeve for future use.

Reading between the lines, he has told them on the jury questionnaire that he had no personal history of sexual abuse, and has then come out after the trial as saying he did and he used that to persuade the other jurors. I've basically no knowledge of criminal justice but the prosecution themselves have said this warrants scrutiny by the judge, so it doesn't look good. 

[hk blues]

29 minutes ago, Priti priti priti Patel said:

Reading between the lines, he has told them on the jury questionnaire that he had no personal history of sexual abuse, and has then come out after the trial as saying he did and he used that to persuade the other jurors. I've basically no knowledge of criminal justice but the prosecution themselves have said this warrants scrutiny by the judge, so it doesn't look good. 

From the report I read, he said he whizzed through the questionnaire and didn't recall seeing any question about sex abuse, but If there was one he would have answered honestly.  He certainly used his knowledge of such a situation during the jury deliberations - he was very clear on that (hmmm...) so as a layman it looks iffy.  

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

2 hours ago, hk blues said:

But what offence would Andrew be charged with, not trafficking surely?  If so, that joining of dots would be enough to protect him under Epstein's deal wouldn't it?  

Apparently Epstein’s deal requires the consent of Epstein for someone to count as a protected party. That according to one of the BBC legal commentators? 
Anyway, Andrew in theory should be done with rape if her claim remains that she was forced to have sex against her will.

[hk blues]

1 minute ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Apparently Epstein’s deal requires the consent of Epstein for someone to count as a protected party. That according to one of the BBC legal commentators? 
Anyway, Andrew in theory should be done with rape if her claim remains that she was forced to have sex against her will.

They'll struggle with that then!  Strange that hasn't been made clear, at least not in anything I've read, as it's so fundamental and conclusive.  

Whilst not set in stone, isn't a claim of sexual abuse required to be made within 3 years of the incident, or of the 18th birthday? Sure, there are ways around this but the time lag will play a part in any decision to prosecute or not.

Let's be honest here, unlikely the authorities would push forward with a prosecution against any Joe Bloggs under the circumstances - how much less so when a member of the Royal Family is involved?  If the US case goes against him, the situation might be revisited on the basis the pressure from the public would be intense.

 

 

 

[ICTJohnboy]

27 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Apparently Epstein’s deal requires the consent of Epstein for someone to count as a protected party. That according to one of the BBC legal commentators? 
Anyway, Andrew in theory should be done with rape if her claim remains that she was forced to have sex against her will.

 

Good point, don't think that's been mentioned anywhere.

If it was some commoner facing similar charges that could be worth a couple more years in the Big House.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Apparently Epstein’s deal requires the consent of Epstein for someone to count as a protected party. That according to one of the BBC legal commentators? 
Anyway, Andrew in theory should be done with rape if her claim remains that she was forced to have sex against her will.

Andrew's deluded enough to think she was doing it willingly because he's such a catch. 

[RawB93]

I keep reading the title as Prince Andrew finally shoots someone on set!

[Caledonian1]

34 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Andrew's deluded enough to think she was doing it willingly because he's such a catch. 

That only works if he gives up on the "who, no idea, never ever met her in my life" tactic

[Alert Mongoose]

Is ‘have you suffered any sexual abuse’ really a suitable question for a questionnaire?

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Good point, don't think that's been mentioned anywhere.

If it was some commoner facing similar charges that could be worth a couple more years in the Big House.

I suspect the Windsors still have a Victorian, Downton Abbey-esque attitude to this whole matter: “Oh, dash it all - a bit of social embarrassment this season - really it is too bad. But the girl was no better than she ought to be. Have one of the staff give her a fiver and a good character, and pack her back off to Whitechapel, what.” I doubt the idea of rape, consent, or crime has seriously occurred to any of them. That’s for the lower orders. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

2 hours ago, hk blues said:

They'll struggle with that then!  Strange that hasn't been made clear, at least not in anything I've read, as it's so fundamental and conclusive.  

Whilst not set in stone, isn't a claim of sexual abuse required to be made within 3 years of the incident, or of the 18th birthday? Sure, there are ways around this but the time lag will play a part in any decision to prosecute or not.

Let's be honest here, unlikely the authorities would push forward with a prosecution against any Joe Bloggs under the circumstances - how much less so when a member of the Royal Family is involved?  If the US case goes against him, the situation might be revisited on the basis the pressure from the public would be intense.

 

 

 

No statute of limitations for sexual offences in the UK (as far as im aware) and some American states have no statute for things like rape. I genuinely think theres at least enough to investigate. Rape is a very hard crime to prove, but… its maybe easier to prove it happened because we have witnesses putting them together, complainer saying she was trafficked and had sex against her will, can put the two together at the time in question. The common link between the two was a convicted paedophile who trafficked girls. Theres a clear circumstantial case to investigate.

1 hour ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Good point, don't think that's been mentioned anywhere.

If it was some commoner facing similar charges that could be worth a couple more years in the Big House.

Youre right.

38 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Andrew's deluded enough to think she was doing it willingly because he's such a catch. 

Quite possibly. 

[Jacksgranda]

4 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Is ‘have you suffered any sexual abuse’ really a suitable question for a questionnaire?

Maybe in picking jurors for a sexual abuse case? I don't really know, tbh.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

58 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Andrew's deluded enough to think she was doing it willingly because he's such a catch. 

Has he committed a crime if this is the case? We know Epstein and Maxwell were recruiting and trafficking teenagers for sex with themselves and others but if they've took her to one side and told/forced her to show the Pronce a good time and he's unaware that's the story and thinks this young woman just wants to sleep with him is he liable for prosecution? AFAIK ignorance isn't really a defence in most crimes. 

[SweeperDee]

Surely it would be a broader question asking whether you’ve experienced something relevant to the trial that could prejudice your judgement etc?

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

Has he committed a crime if this is the case? We know Epstein and Maxwell were recruiting and trafficking teenagers for sex with themselves and others but if they've took her to one side and told/forced her to show the Pronce a good time and he's unaware that's the story and thinks this young woman just wants to sleep with him is he liable for prosecution? AFAIK ignorance isn't really a defence in most crimes. 

My guess is he might get off in the UK with her not being underage here but if it happened in America he'd have no excuse.

Edited January 6, 2022 by welshbairn

[Sergeant Wilson]

13 hours ago, Boghead ranter said:

75 pages in, and I'm still reading the thread title as "Prince Andrew - Big Black Cock".

That might be another side effect of long periods sitting in a helicopter.

10 hours ago, BillyAnchor said:

To get to work I drive past a row of them where apparently ladies of the night rent them by the hour. Unusual to find them now in US and A as big corporations have turned most into chains.

 

Where do you take them now before you bury them?

[Priti priti priti Patel]

9 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

Has he committed a crime if this is the case? We know Epstein and Maxwell were recruiting and trafficking teenagers for sex with themselves and others but if they've took her to one side and told/forced her to show the Pronce a good time and he's unaware that's the story and thinks this young woman just wants to sleep with him is he liable for prosecution? AFAIK ignorance isn't really a defence in most crimes. 

Ignorance of the law isn't a defence. So it's no good claiming you didn't know what the speed limit was. 

However, where an offence requires certain knowledge or belief, then ignorance can be a defence. Alec Baldwin being unaware there was a bullet in his gun, for example.

This is the definition of rape in England and Wales. I have put in bold the bit that might get Andrew off the hook:

Quote

Sexual Offences Act 2003

S1 - Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, Priti priti priti Patel said:

Ignorance of the law isn't a defence. So it's no good claiming you didn't know what the speed limit was. 

However, where an offence requires certain knowledge or belief, then ignorance can be a defence. Alec Baldwin being unaware there was a bullet in his gun, for example.

This is the definition of rape in England and Wales. I have put in bold the bit that might get Andrew off the hook:

 

He should've said that at the outset, rather than denying meeting her. Neither is a good look, but one of them keeps him out the jail.