Split Thread Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

[jimbob]

To stay on topic, I do have a propensity to look for mitigation where human frailty is apparent.
I think the Wallace question is interesting, but not germaine here.

(As an aside, lets get the Sounds thread running as we await the appeal.)

"Human frailty"

Preying on underage girls.

 

[smartcooky]

To stay on topic, I do have a propensity to look for mitigation where human frailty is apparent.
I think the Wallace question is interesting, but not germaine here.

The point I was making is that the type of "force" we are talking about here can have many different faces.

Trafficked girls are groomed and coerced into doing what the traffickers want them to do. They will use methods that can range from confiscating their passports and other identity documents, through keeping them short of cash and financially dependent, using emotional control, extortion/blackmail, to making threats against their families.

...and just to respond, in the case of Guy Wallace, the cops threatened him that if he didn't change his statement, then they would be looking at him for the murders. No physical force was used, but the cops got the result they wanted.

 

[Planigale]

"Human frailty"

Preying on underage girls.

This is the difficulty. People are often both abused and abusers. Giuffre recruited young (14 yr) teen age girls for sex when she was an adult. I suspect it is her somewhat ambiguous role that meant she was never a witness in the trial of Maxwell, nor one of the victims.

Smartcooky may be right in general about the ways people can be groomed and coerced, but the question for this thread is in what ways did Windsor coerce Giuffre.

 

[GlennB]

This is the difficulty. People are often both abused and abusers. Giuffre recruited young (14 yr) teen age girls for sex when she was an adult. I suspect it is her somewhat ambiguous role that meant she was never a witness in the trial of Maxwell, nor one of the victims.

Smartcooky may be right in general about the ways people can be groomed and coerced, but the question for this thread is in what ways did Windsor coerce Giuffre.

Is it? He willingly participated in a 'system' that abused young women and doesn't get a pardon just because he didn't personally coerce anybody.

 

[smartcooky]

This is the difficulty. People are often both abused and abusers. Giuffre recruited young (14 yr) teen age girls for sex when she was an adult.

.... and why do you think she ended up doing that?

Smartcooky may be right in general about the ways people can be groomed and coerced, but the question for this thread is in what ways did Windsor coerce Giuffre.

There is no "might" about it. That coersion and grooming of under aged girls for sex takes place is a known fact.

You really do not understand the concept of trafficking do you?

If you take advantage of a girl who has been trafficked to you by someone else, that is a criminal offence. You are party to the crime committed by the trafficker!

If she was under-aged, as it appears Giuffre was, well that is a crime in and of itself.

 

[Craig4]

After reading about this I get the impression that Andrew could've avoided this whole situation if he had simply payed her off long ago. If some of the statements Giuffre made to a friend after she was "sexually exploited" are genuine it seems unlikely she suffered any significant emotional damage from this episode and quite possibly enjoyed her stay in the UK. If so she might have even been amenable to visit the UK again.

Have you considered the possibility that Giuffre might want revenge more than money? It's hard to think of a better revenge than publicly humiliating, in court the person who exploited her. Were I in her shoes, I can't imagine anything more satisfying than being the architect of his public humiliation and ruin. Because of this case, he's been humiliated by his mother, lost his royal titles and patronages, forced out of St. Andrew's Golf Club. I heard on BBC News that the reason none of the princes wore military attire at his father's funeral was because Andrew's beloved Royal Navy objected to him being seen in their uniform.

 

[smartcooky]

Have you considered the possibility that Giuffre might want revenge more than money? It's hard to think of a better revenge than publicly humiliating, in court the person who exploited her. Were I in her shoes, I can't imagine anything more satisfying than being the architect of his public humiliation and ruin. Because of this case, he's been humiliated by his mother, lost his royal titles and patronages, forced out of St. Andrew's Golf Club. I heard on BBC News that the reason none of the princes wore military attire at his father's funeral was because Andrew's beloved Royal Navy objected to him being seen in their uniform.

It is also likely that she wants him to be accountable for what he has done...

... in fact (and this link is The Flail, so keep that caveat in mind)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tlement-Andrew-holds-account-says-lawyer.html

Virginia Roberts will only accept a settlement from Prince Andrew if it 'holds him to account....

"David Boies, Ms Roberts' New York attorney, said Ms Roberts does not want a settlement that would allow Andrew to 'escape' responsibility due to his 'position' and 'wealth', according to reports.
The lawyer also said that Ms Roberts would also be unlikely to settle the lawsuit outside of court if the Duke of York continued to deny meeting her, as he did in his famous BBC Newsnight interview."​

IMO, Andrew is a spoiled brat.. a privileged little arse hole and I am enjoying watching his life being made unbearable and seeing him taken down a peg or two. As they say in some parts of the world "It couldn't happen to a nicer guy"

ETA: On a lighter note, I quite like Jeremy Clarkson's take on all this...

https://www.the-sun.com/news/4564700/prince-andrew-pr-skills-wasp-dont-make-fool-queen/

Prince Andrew, you have the PR skills of a wasp and intelligence of a dishwasher – don’t make a fool of our Queen

AFTER Prince Andrew was interviewed by Emily Maitlis on Newsnight, it’s said he walked out of the room thinking it had gone pretty well. Soon, of course, every single person in the country told him that, actually, it hadn’t gone well at all. He’d come across as shifty and completely out of touch. And guess what? I’m told he STILL thinks he did pretty well. Even after the Queen turned him back into normal old Mr Windsor, he believes that he’s right and absolutely everyone else is wrong.

I don’t really mind that he’s on course to make a massive fool of himself. But when he does this, he will also make a fool of the Royal Family, which is annoying. Because then there will be calls to replace them with a presidency. And look how well that idea worked out for the Americans. Last time around, were given the choice of a narcissist with nylon hair and a man who, in every way that mattered, was dead.​

 

[Samson]

Have you considered the possibility that Giuffre might want revenge more than money? It's hard to think of a better revenge than publicly humiliating, in court the person who exploited her. Were I in her shoes, I can't imagine anything more satisfying than being the architect of his public humiliation and ruin. Because of this case, he's been humiliated by his mother, lost his royal titles and patronages, forced out of St. Andrew's Golf Club. I heard on BBC News that the reason none of the princes wore military attire at his father's funeral was because Andrew's beloved Royal Navy objected to him being seen in their uniform.

A lot of this smacks of ethically pure villagers circling with pitchforks.

 

[Matthew Best]

If you take advantage of a girl who has been trafficked to you by someone else, that is a criminal offence. You are party to the crime committed by the trafficker!

If she was under-aged, as it appears Giuffre was, well that is a crime in and of itself.

But what if she was a legal adult?

At what point does a trafficked child become responsible for her actions as an adult? It would definitely seem unfair to say that she is not responsible as a 17-year-old, but suddenly responsible the day she turns 18. But the law tends to draw sharp lines about such matters. So when would Giuffre become legally liable for trafficking other minors, if that's what happened?

I only ask because I don't know the answer, not because I want anything other than humiliation and defeat for Prince Andrew, just in case that's not clear.

 

[smartcooky]

But what if she was a legal adult?

Human Trafficking is a crime, whether those humans are adult men and women, or children.

At what point does a trafficked child become responsible for her actions as an adult?

Never as long as they are being trafficked at the time of the accusation.

Be aware that even if Giuffre/Roberts had been an adult at the time of her alleged encounters with Mr Windsor, and even if she had appeared willing at the time, she had been groomed and coerced into having sexual encounters with Epstein and Maxwell, and delivered to their friends for sex from the time she was 14. Mr Windsor committed a criminal act because he was party to the criminal acts of human trafficking

Think of it like receiving stolen property. While you didn't steal it, its still a crime to receive it - you are party to the criminal act of theft.

 

[Samson]

Human Trafficking is a crime, whether those humans are adult men and women, or children.



Never as long as they are being trafficked at the time of the accusation.

Be aware that even if Giuffre/Roberts had been an adult at the time of her alleged encounters with Mr Windsor, and even if she had appeared willing at the time, she had been groomed and coerced into having sexual encounters with Epstein and Maxwell, and delivered to their friends for sex from the time she was 14. Mr Windsor committed a criminal act because he was party to the criminal acts of human trafficking

Think of it like receiving stolen property. While you didn't steal it, its still a crime to receive it - you are party to the criminal act of theft.

Receiving is a minefield.
Interrogating can breach the community fabric.

 

[smartcooky]

Receiving is a minefield.
Interrogating can breach the community fabric.

A lot of this smacks of ethically pure villagers circling with pitchforks.

Would you mind explaining the meaning/significance of these obtuse comments?

 

[Planigale]

Human Trafficking is a crime, whether those humans are adult men and women, or children.



Never as long as they are being trafficked at the time of the accusation.

Be aware that even if Giuffre/Roberts had been an adult at the time of her alleged encounters with Mr Windsor, and even if she had appeared willing at the time, she had been groomed and coerced into having sexual encounters with Epstein and Maxwell, and delivered to their friends for sex from the time she was 14. Mr Windsor committed a criminal act because he was party to the criminal acts of human trafficking
Think of it like receiving stolen property. While you didn't steal it, its still a crime to receive it - you are party to the criminal act of theft.

Surely this depends on the jurisdiction and the relevant law? For instance in England the offence of handling stolen goods is if one is in receipt of items that one knows or believes to have been stolen. So you are incorrect in stating that merely being in possession of stolen goods is universally a crime. For instance in England there is a reasonable belief defence to having sex with someone over 13 but under 16, although the burden is on the defendant if you can demonstrate there was consent* and you had a reasonable belief the person concerned was over 16 then you will not have committed an offence.

You may be correct that in some circumstances and some jurisdictions having sex with someone who was trafficked is automatically an offence, but your asserting it does not make it so.

In any case this is a civil case.

To be clear at age 14 Giuffre was the 'girl friend' of a completely different sex trafficker - one who dealt in the wholesale import of girls for the sex trade. I don't think she met Epstein until she was seventeen, it was the girls who Giuffre recruited for Epstein who were as young as 14.

*In England children can consent but there would be a careful consideration of the issues around the consent including the intellectual and emotional maturity of the child. So a child could consent to sexual contact with another child under 16.

 

[Planigale]

Have you considered the possibility that Giuffre might want revenge more than money? It's hard to think of a better revenge than publicly humiliating, in court the person who exploited her. Were I in her shoes, I can't imagine anything more satisfying than being the architect of his public humiliation and ruin. Because of this case, he's been humiliated by his mother, lost his royal titles and patronages, forced out of St. Andrew's Golf Club. I heard on BBC News that the reason none of the princes wore military attire at his father's funeral was because Andrew's beloved Royal Navy objected to him being seen in their uniform.

I think this may be true. My guess is that she probably does not need the money she probably just got around $1million from the distribution of Epstein's estate. I also think part of her anger is guilt. She was more complicit in e.g. recruiting young girls than others. Accepting that given she was trafficked and as Smartcoocky would say could not be considered responsible for her actions in this situation, it does not mean she does not feel guilty, and angry for having had to participate in the recruitment of young teens and having taken payment for having done so.

ETA If she settles out of court for an undisclosed sum do we conclude it was the money not the vengeance she wanted?

 

[Samson]

I think this may be true. My guess is that she probably does not need the money she probably just got around $1million from the distribution of Epstein's estate. I also think part of her anger is guilt. She was more complicit in e.g. recruiting young girls than others. Accepting that given she was trafficked and as Smartcoocky would say could not be considered responsible for her actions in this situation, it does not mean she does not feel guilty, and angry for having had to participate in the recruitment of young teens and having taken payment for having done so.

ETA If she settles out of court for an undisclosed sum do we conclude it was the money not the vengeance she wanted?

You are surgical in your post.

 

[GlennB]

Surely this depends on the jurisdiction and the relevant law? For instance in England the offence of handling stolen goods is if one is in receipt of items that one knows or believes to have been stolen.

That depends on whether you had reason to suspect they were of suspicious origin. What's more, if the recipient subsequently finds out the goods were stolen they have a responsibility to return those goods to the rightful owner and report the matter to the police.

What are the chances that Andrew didn't, at the very least, suspect that Epstein and Maxwell were trafficking underage girls? And yet he cheerfully got involved.

Remember Berlusconi and his 'Bunga Bunga' parties? Do you think that the defence of 'But I didn't know they were prostitutes!' would carry much weight?

 

[smartcooky]

Surely this depends on the jurisdiction and the relevant law? For instance in England the offence of handling stolen goods is if one is in receipt of items that one knows or believes to have been stolen. So you are incorrect in stating that merely being in possession of stolen goods is universally a crime. For instance in England there is a reasonable belief defence to having sex with someone over 13 but under 16, although the burden is on the defendant if you can demonstrate there was consent* and you had a reasonable belief the person concerned was over 16 then you will not have committed an offence.

You may be correct that in some circumstances and some jurisdictions having sex with someone who was trafficked is automatically an offence, but your asserting it does not make it so.

In any case this is a civil case.

To be clear at age 14 Giuffre was the 'girl friend' of a completely different sex trafficker - one who dealt in the wholesale import of girls for the sex trade. I don't think she met Epstein until she was seventeen, it was the girls who Giuffre recruited for Epstein who were as young as 14.

*In England children can consent but there would be a careful consideration of the issues around the consent including the intellectual and emotional maturity of the child. So a child could consent to sexual contact with another child under 16.

1. The jurisdiction here is the USA, so all your comments about England are irrelevant.

2. Did Mr Windsor know that Epstein and Maxwell were sex traffickers? You're goddamned right he did. He'd have to be Blind Freddie not to know exactly what these two scumbags were doing.

You are surgical in your post.

...but operating on the wrong body!

 

[Samson]

1. The jurisdiction here is the USA, so all your comments about England are irrelevant.

2. Did Mr Windsor know that Epstein and Maxwell were sex traffickers? You're goddamned right he did. He'd have to be Blind Freddie not to know exactly what these two scumbags were doing.




...but operating on the wrong body!

Clearly not.
Planigale has a cogent body of work on this thread that transcends knee jerk considerations.

 

[smartcooky]

Clearly not.
Planigale has a cogent body of work on this thread that transcends knee jerk considerations.

Nope

She's talking abut ENGLAND. The Trial is in NEW YORK, USA under US Federal "Diversity jurisdiction".... as I said, surgical accuracy but on the wrong body.

What happens in English law, or the law in any other country has absolutely ZERO bearing on this case.

 

[Planigale]

Nope

She's talking abut ENGLAND. The Trial is in NEW YORK, USA under US Federal "Diversity jurisdiction".... as I said, surgical accuracy but on the wrong body.

What happens in English law, or the law in any other country has absolutely ZERO bearing on this case.

All I asked for was clarity of the law in the relevant jurisdiction. As at least one of the alleged sexual events was in England, so English law is applicable.

As said this is a civil case not a criminal case. It is being heard in a NY court under NY law. I am not sure of the relevance of the "Diversity Jurisdiction'? This applies to the right of the defendant (Windsor) to move the case from a state court to a Federal court.

ETA

Misread - case is being held in the federal court, but as I understand it NY laws apply.