Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Fode N The Hole said:
Not a paltry sum for normal people, but this represents less than half a percent of Epstein's estate at the time of his death.
Click to expand...
Not really important in the scheme of things, but surely Epstein’s estate was worth a lot more than $100m when he died?
 
Courtneyneild said:
Why is it OK to talk about this case, calling Prince Andrew a nonce, with no intervention from the mods but we can't talk about the Benjamin mendy case. It doesn't make sense @Ric
Click to expand...

One is a civil claim for damages and the other is criminal trial.

I haven't bothered to look up the relevant laws for the USA but in the UK civil contempt of court isn't a crime. As far as I know there aren't any reporting restrictions on the Prince Andrew case whereas the are for REDACTED.

Only thing to keep in mind is that It’s possible that Prince Andrew could sue for libel, but highly unlikely considering the circumstances.
 
Courtneyneild said:
Why is it OK to talk about this case, calling Prince Andrew a nonce, with no intervention from the mods but we can't talk about the Benjamin mendy case. It doesn't make sense @Ric
Click to expand...
I can't see why any discussion on here about this would impact the outcome of a civil case in America whereas discussing an extremely serious criminal case before trial in the UK clearly could and certainly @Ric would be the one on the hook if action was taken.

On a similar theme, I thought there was no way whatsoever that Maxwell could ever get a fair hearing as both before and during the trial multiple people claiming to be victims were giving high profile interviews stating she was guilty of loads of things she wasn't even charged with (Roberts/Giuffre in particular).

I can't imagine a situation in the UK where a person on trial for multiple rapes for example had women not involved in the trial saying he raped them before and during it.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Is any "potential defendant" a relevant class of person to describe Prince Andrew when she hadn't made any public allegations about him at that point.
Click to expand...
I would say yes, absolutely. How could he not be, if the alleged act(s) had taken place by the point the contract was formed. ‘Potential defendant’ surely connotes anyone who could be subject to a claim at that point, which is what Guiffre’s case against Andrew is founded upon.it doesn’t require guilt, simply that in the minds of the contracting parties, he was a potential defendant to a claim, which must have been the case, based on Guiffre’s pleadings.

If he wasn’t a potential defendant at that point, then she has no claim, surely.
 
Thing is, if he ‘wins’ this legal argument it isn’t necessarily the best outcome for him. It’s better than losing, obviously, but far, far worse than a finding in his favour on the balance of probability, following the hearing of evidence.

He’ll be absolutely ruined if he gets this kicked out based on a third party contract where an abused girl was paid off by a convicted paedophile. The stain will never leave him.

His life as he knew it will be over and he’ll most likely never be seen in public again.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Thing is, if he ‘wins’ this legal argument it isn’t necessarily the best outcome for him. It’s better than losing, obviously, but far, far worse than a finding in his favour on the balance of probability, following the hearing of evidence.


He’ll be absolutely ruined if he gets this kicked out based on a third party contract where an abused girl was paid off by a convicted paedophile. The stain will never leave him.

His life as he knew it will be over and he’ll most likely never be seen in public again.
Click to expand...
He's gone from doing nothing wrong & happy to help to hiding behind some dodgy document.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Thing is, if he ‘wins’ this legal argument it isn’t necessarily the best outcome for him. It’s better than losing, obviously, but far, far worse than a finding in his favour on the balance of probability, following the hearing of evidence.

He’ll be absolutely ruined if he gets this kicked out based on a third party contract where an abused girl was paid off by a convicted paedophile. The stain will never leave him.

His life as he knew it will be over and he’ll most likely never be seen in public again.
Click to expand...
His hugely expensive legal team appear to be doing him no favours with their strategy.

It could be that as he is notoriously thick and arrogant then he is directing them to follow this particular strategy but if not they appear to on a great earner without adding any value.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
His hugely expensive legal team appear to be doing him no favours with their strategy.

It could be that as he is notoriously thick and arrogant then he is directing them to follow this particular strategy but if not they appear to on a great earner without adding any value.
Click to expand...
It may be that they’ve told him they think he’ll lose if it goes to trial and so he’s got to run this argument in order to avoid that. They’ll be acting on instructions of course, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t been manipulated into giving those instructions. Happens all the time.

You’ll get no argument from me about significant numbers in the legal profession who don’t put their client’s interests first, and in many instances, those that rip them off. Any plenty who do both. Utter fucking lowlife cunts.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
His hugely expensive legal team appear to be doing him no favours with their strategy.

It could be that as he is notoriously thick and arrogant then he is directing them to follow this particular strategy but if not they appear to on a great earner without adding any value.
Click to expand...


I know someone who was in the navy with him. They served on the same ship (both as officers) for some time.

He was well knows as a "do you know who I am" kind guy. He wanted his title even with fellow officers. Definitely not one of the lads even in the officers mess.
 
r.soleofsalford said:
I know someone who was in the navy with him. They served on the same ship (both as officers) for some time.

He was well knows as a "do you know who I am" kind guy. He wanted his title even with fellow officers. Definitely not one of the lads even in the officers mess.
Click to expand...
Unlike Harry before he went woke :)
 
Courtneyneild said:
Why is it OK to talk about this case, calling Prince Andrew a nonce, with no intervention from the mods but we can't talk about the Benjamin mendy case. It doesn't make sense @Ric
Click to expand...
Mendy? Still out injured is he the lazy twat. I’m gonna take him out of my fantasy team if he doesn’t get fit soon. Him and Sigurdsson are leaving me bottom of my mini league.
 
PinkFinal said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Prince Andrew: Emily Maitlis says duke's interview answers are critical to sex assault case

The BBC Newsnight presenter says details of the 2019 interview are being pored over by both sides.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Anyone else find this article really disturbing. The BBC helping him prep and her actual first paragraph in which she dismisses the issue as a few memes at the time and only now realises the importance... FFS.
The fact he was prepped and still fcked it up.
Found the whole BBC handling of this and the Epstein/Maxwell issues very sick. Maxwell's relatives interviewed after the verdict to plead her innocence, interviewing one of Maxwell's legal team and not disclosing and last night interviewing a former Army colleague to give him a character reference. Not sure the same clemancy would be granted your everyday pedo?
 
^^^^^^^ Exactly.

She says she didn't do the interview to catch him out.
Why not ? If he's lying who gives a shit??

Fcuking sickening.
 
Hart of the Matter said:
Anyone else find this article really disturbing. The BBC helping him prep and her actual first paragraph in which she dismisses the issue as a few memes at the time and only now realises the importance... FFS.
The fact he was prepped and still fcked it up.
Found the whole BBC handling of this and the Epstein/Maxwell issues very sick. Maxwell's relatives interviewed after the verdict to plead her innocence, interviewing one of Maxwell's legal team and not disclosing and last night interviewing a former Army colleague to give him a character reference. Not sure the same clemancy would be granted your everyday pedo?
Click to expand...
She hardly gave him an easy ride, did she? Thought she dealt with the interview brilliantly, and maybe the relaxed pre-interview period made him drop his guard. Its difficult to imagine a more devastating outcome for him than what transpired and I think she needs to take credit for that.
 
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