Epstein / Prince Andrew / Maxwell

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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?

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.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

She says she didn't do the interview to catch him out.

Do you actually believe that, mate? Of course she did, she’s a journalist.

 

[M18CTID]

He's gone from doing nothing wrong & happy to help to hiding behind some dodgy document.

Sounds like he's trying to get off on a technicality?

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

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.

It was reported that the Queen and the rest of his family knew nothing about the interview until after it had been recorded. Seemingly Andrew told the Queen that ‘it went very well’ and so here’s further proof (if any was needed) that he really is a thick ****.

 

[hampshireblue]

At least he's not sweating on the outcome!

 

[kaz7]

Please judge do the right thing and let the trial go ahead , obviously he was more than well in with the evil pair , if he didnt know why young girls were at his parties then he is thicker than mince , he has been thrashing about through his legal team from the start , time to reel him in

 

[meltonblue]

A legal look at the Giuffre settlement agreement on which Prince Andrew is seeking to rely

5th January 2022 A happy new year to all the readers of this law and policy blog, and welcome back. Today’s post is about civil law – that is the law which (broadly) deals with the lega…

davidallengreen.com

 

[Gabriel]

If the Judge does rule in her favour, does that not open the door for other cases against the politicians and journalists she believes may be included in the agreement? And, how many other such agreements did Epstein make? And, if he does rule in her favour, it seems mighty ironic that Epstein alive might have been more useful than Epstein dead.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

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.

Yes logically speaking he could but the document specifically names classes of people as second parties. Andrew isn't in any of those classes.

The document also excludes any legal action. I have read that Prince Andrew's lawyers previously claimed in court filings he was immune from action because he was within the class of royalty, no such reference in the document.

If he was named specifically (even if this was in a supplementary agreement) or fell within a clearly defined class of person then he would have a much stronger case.

Can the Virginia Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein deal protect Prince Andrew? | Prince Andrew | The Guardian

Lawyers make case for why the 2009 settlement might cover the royal and why it might not

amp.theguardian.com

Jeanne Christensen of Wigdor, a law firm with clients including a woman who alleges rape and harassment by the Wall Street financier and Epstein associate Leon Black and claimants in civil suits against the disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein, said Andrew was almost certainly not covered by the 2009 agreement.
Imprecise wording suggests the existence of a second agreement with named parties that has never come to light, Christensen said.
“Aside from the fact that it’s horribly worded with over-broad, vague language, it really should not be sustained because it could cover anybody Epstein knows,” she said.
“It doesn’t matter who [Andrew’s] lawyers think falls within that definition. It’s not going to be of help.”

But Christensen said: “I don’t see how any person could fit within that definition without there being a second agreement that specifically names individuals.”

 

[Stoned Rose]

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.

In a right and proper world mate.

I think it’ll be pushed further under the carpet than a Mane elbow and he’ll snide some way round it and still crack on having the life of Riley.