Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Andrew.

hands tied.

had no chance in court with a deposition that apparently would have lasted over 5 hours in the witness box had he not caved in.
 
kaz7 said:
He cant prove he was at the pizza place or that he cant sweat , also the car crash newsnight interview , he has caved , what you are talking about is not relevant in a civil case
Click to expand...
So why didn't she take it to court?
 
domalino said:
Sarcasm doesn't really work if you just express a commonly voiced opinion on the forum.
Click to expand...
Um, yes it can. See the Rags thread, the Scousers thread, all after match threads etc

Have you offered your services to the BBC? You could suggest the title of Omni-correspondent and all other correspondents could be fired as you have not only the knowledge of everything, you also have the judgment.
 
mackenzie said:
So why didn't she take it to court?
Click to expand...


kaz7 said:
You will have to ask her but settling is what they do in the states , this is not unusual at all
Click to expand...


People generally settle when the amount of money you give them, or other terms of the settlement - ie admissions, apologies etc. - outweigh the likely benefit of winning in court.

If they went to court, the damage to Andrew would probably have been much greater, but the benefit to Giuffre and other victims isn't going to change that much.

Quoting David Allen Green, law contributing editor for the FT - "Almost all civil claims in England and America end in settlement".
 
kaz7 said:
You will have to ask her but settling is what they do in the states , this is not unusual at all
Click to expand...
I know they settle a lot. I'm aware of that. It happened with Michael Jackson too (at some point with one of the cases, if I remember correctly).
What I don't understand is that she could have gone to court and got an OFFICIAL recognition that she was telling the truth.
His statement admits absolutely nothing.

The only other thing that I can see why she went for this settlement is not having to go through a gruelling hearing. Yet she seems a fighter, so I'm surprised at that.
 
domalino said:
This is not true. Forcing abuse victims to get other people involved is a very common technique in grooming rings and Epstein had been using it for decades. None of the girls who did it have gotten in trouble because everyone recognises it's part of the abuse.
Click to expand...
I know it is common, I have worked in the area for years. Perhaps, I could have said it better, most people would not have held it against her but a vocal minority would have. That coupled with the fact she is going up against one of the most powerful families in the world with a sycophantic press at their beck and call and legal bills that will ruin her if she loses, it would take someone very strong to stay the course. Her reality is she has kids and a family, she would have been made out to be Maxwells co-conspirator and had all the shit from her time with Epstein brought up again.

The worry I would have for her is what comes next, the presses take on this story has been bizarre to say the least. The platform the Maxwells have gotten, letting that legal prick Alan Derovchitz comment on the case an slander her on BBC, the total acceptance of the silence from all of the Royal family including the Queen has been risible.

I have no doubt in the coming years she will be targeted with some of the most vicious abuse an press coverage the Royal institute can do. If she gains weight, has a divorce, appears drunk or spends money all of that will be weaponised against her.
 
domalino said:
People generally settle when the amount of money you give them, or other terms of the settlement - ie admissions, apologies etc. - outweigh the likely benefit of winning in court.

If they went to court, the damage to Andrew would probably have been much greater, but the benefit to Giuffre and other victims isn't going to change that much.

Quoting David Allen Green, law contributing editor for the FT - "Almost all civil claims in England and America end in settlement".
Click to expand...
The other side of the coin is that these settlements are also sometimes perceived as worth it to get rid of the "nuisance" element. By history anyway.
I'm not saying the plaintiff was wrong (far from it), but there was a reason she didn't go to court and I don't actually believe it was the amount of settlement alone.
I'm just surprised she didn't rip it up and have her day to be heard.
 
kaz7 said:
Just turned on the news , not sure what it means , i am disappointed she has settled
Click to expand...

It does seem to be against her previous stance. I doubt we'll find out.
Maybe there's been a change in what has been accepted - that trafficking happened, that she was a victim of it - from an original position.
 
He couldnt even with stand the matlis interview, he would have had no chance of hours under oath by a cut throat barrister, he caved imo, also by doing this he lets the queen have her jubilee celebrations in peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top