theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Every good skeptic knows the hits don't matter if you don't also count the misses.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York
- Thread starter Vixen
- Start date
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 22,307
The time in New York would qualify as statutory rape even if she had given consent.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,454
Well yes that's true of course. But my post in January was based on more than the "stopped clock tells the right time twice a day" run of things.
As I said, it was based on a little bit of info a journalist friend gave me (regarding one of the Queen's private bankers);
plus my partial understanding of how the Royal Family works regarding these sorts of things (another friend used to do PR for Charles);
plus a deduction that the Queen was highly likely to want this concluded well before spring (when her Diamond Jubilee ra-ra kicks off in earnest);
plus a deduction that the plan had already been worked out prior to the ruling on dismissal (since Andrew's patronages were revoked within hours, and that doesn't just happen that fast, so that contingency must have been drawn up well in advance and signed off by HMQ, Charles and William and agreed by Andrew);
plus a deduction that therefore it was very likely that the contingency plan (contingent on the case proceeding towards trial) had itself already been worked out in advance, and the plan was that the Queen would supply whatever funds were required to settle the case, and as quickly as possible;
plus a reasoning that negotiation of an out-of-court settlement in these sorts of cases takes a hell of a lot of effort on both sides, with drafts passing backwards and forwards, being marked up by each side in turn (and I have a very close familiarity with the mechanics of contract law, albeit in a different arena, but the basic tenets remain the same);
leading to a deduction that it was likely to take around a month of negotiations before an OOC settlement that was agreeable to both parties could be signed off and put before the court.
And aside from this case, I only tend to take positions or make predictions when I feel I have sufficient supporting evidence and requisite knowledge & experience to "stake my flag in the ground". I'm not active in all that many threads (partially because many/most of them don't interest me, plus I simply don't have enough time these days as a FTE in a very demanding industry to read and post in the way I might otherwise choose to do).
But whenever the occasional OP interests me... and I feel I can devote sufficient amounts of my (sparse) free time to it.... and I think I have the skill-set & knowledge to make credible & defensible arguments... and I think I could positively & constructively contribute to the debate......
.....then I get involved as an active participant in that thread, And, without blowing my own trumpet, I have a reasonably good hit rate so far. Because I "choose my battles" carefully.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,454
And of course it's a notable piece of pure happenstance that the settlement was announced almost exactly one month after I made the post in which I'd opined that a settlement was very likely to be agreed & made public "within a month or so" 
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
...not to mention an element luck playing the odds, since 98% of all lawsuits in the US end in a settlement
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,454
Haha well yes, but after he paid off the debt attached to the property, that would very probably have been too little to fund the settlement in its entirety, plus costs for both sides. And the limited info I got from my journalist friend was the the Queen would - as indeed she had done wrt Andrew's substantial legal fees up to yesterday - almost certainly be liquidating some of her own vast wealth of assets in order to fund the settlement plus costs.
As I said, for the Queen and her advisers (and very probably Charles and William too) the all-important thing was to make the problem disappear (by way of an OOC settlement) as quickly as possible, so that the upcoming 6 months or so of her Platinum Jubilee celebrations would take place without the media running parallel stories about Andrew and the Giuffre case.
Which is why what happened today happened. As I also said in that January post, Giuffre's lawyer's posturing about Giuffre wanting to take this all the way to trial and not to avert that court case with an OOC settlement.... was just that: posturing. It would most certainly have played a significant part in the negotiations for the settlement, since Giuffre's lawyers would repeatedly have stated to Andrew's lawyers that it was going to take an extremely generous settlement to persuade Giuffre to abandon her intention of taking this all the way to trial.
Incidentally, the media are presently digging round the edges to try to determine the monetary sums involved here - a key piece of nebulous language in the settlement precis (the settlement contract itself will be substantially more detailed of course) makes it hard to determine whether there are two separate payments coming from Andrew (one for the charity mentioned in the precis, and a second sum to Guiffre herself). But they (apparently) haven't yet figured out that Andrew will of course be paying both sides' legal fees. And given the apparent size and eminence of those legal teams, that figure could well get well up into seven figures on its own. I wouldn't be surprised Andrew (or, more accurately, the Queen) will be out of pocket to the tune of several tens of millions.
And Incidentally #2, this really does signify the end of the road for Andrew within the Royal Family. The only outcome that might have led to his (eventual) rehabilitation into the RF would have been if he'd gone to court and won. Instead, he'll be forever tainted by the "no smoke without fire" problem, even though in my opinion the question of his factual and legal malfeasance was of secondary importance to the Queen and Charles/William - their goal was to avoid the court case at all costs and to settle with Giuffre as soon as possible, in order to leave the way clear for the Diamond Jubilee celebrations. It would have been simply unacceptable - even if the Queen et al genuinely believed in Andrew's innocence and thought that he would be vindicated if the case made it to court - to have the Andrew legal process cutting right across (and probably into) the Diamond Jubilee shindigs.
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,454
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
It appears the Grauniad takes an entirely different view
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/15/prince-andrew-settlement-monarchy
Someone must finally have seen sense. Prince Andrew – for all his denials, and with no admission of liability – was nevertheless bunkered. He was never going to win. And now his stupidity and arrogance have cost him almost everything he values.
His much-prized royal position on palace balconies... gone
His perks
- all those helicopter flights to golf matches at public expense.. gone
- all those private flights across the world to shake hands with sheikhs... gone
- all his military ranks, titles and honorifics... gone
colonel of the Grenadier Guards
commodore-in-chief of the Fleet Air Arm
colonelcy of the New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment
colonelcy if the Princess Louise Fusiliers of Canada.
All gone
He remains a vice-admiral, but the full admiral title will now for ever elude him.
He may be a duke, but he is no longer an HRH.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Much as it pains me to link to and quote The Sun...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17661526/prince-andrew-settlement-admission-guilt/
"Prince Andrew's settlement is an "admission of guilt" and the duke had "no option" but to avoid a humiliating court battle, royal experts have blasted."
"Andrew claimed innocence, but he has settled and many would regard this as an admission of guilt. If he was innocent then why did he pay?"
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,454
...not to mention an element luck playing the odds, since 98% of all lawsuits in the US end in a settlement
Well there obviously was some luck involved, but really there wasn't much of it. And there was a prevailing sentiment (including within the UK media at least), after Andrew's motion to dismiss was denied in mid January, that the whole grisly court case and its various preambles (in the form of pre-trial depositions etc) was going to run its course. Especially as many (again including within the UK media) were taking at face value Giuffre's team's statements about her being very determined to have her day in court.
And so while I agree with you to an extent regarding the odds on this case ending in an OOC settlement, I also correctly predicted timescales, plus I also stated that I believe the Queen is the one who's actually supplying the settlement money. Plus I correctly predicted that there would be a "no fault" clause in the settlement; plus I made a correct deduction about Giuffre's sabre-rattling about wanting to get to the courtroom. Plus I believe I correctly predicted the quantum of money involved.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, in poker terms, she bluffed him.
She raised the bet with her "sabre rattling", he saw her by saying he wanted a jury trial, she called him when it was deposition under oath time... and when it came time to lay the cards on the table... he folded.
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,454
Re this: there's actually (IMO) a credible way in which either 1) a factually-innocent Andrew or 2) Andrew's legal team being highly confident that Giuffre wouldn't be able to prove her case in court...
....could still have resulted in today's settlement announcement.
And that's because the primary aim of the Queen (plus, almost certainly, Charles & William) would have been to avoid the Andrew case - and all of the intense media reporting, scrutiny & speculation that would surely happen on a near-continuous basis - disrupting the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations and bringing the Royal Family into (further) disrepute in the process.
Having said that, I personally believe a court case would probably have ended in a calamitous defeat for Andrew. Another factor here is that (IMO) the Queen is funding this settlement (along with all of Andrew's legal fees). And (s)he who pays the piper calls the tune. Andrew himself, plus his legal team, may actually have been confident that their case would hold up in court. But that would have been moot, because the paymaster-matriarch was determined to make this problem disappear (by way of OOC settlement) as quickly as possible.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The only thing I have to say abut this is, if mummy was pulling all the strings, why did she not put an end to it sooner by having sonny boy make an offer Giuffre couldn't refuse?
Why? She was over the age of consent in NY (17).
Clearly Giuffre's lawyers ran this, a masterclass in hypocrisy and greed.
If it were 2m to her and 10m to the charity there would be some vestige of ethical behaviour.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Its not quite as straightforward as that.
You still don't seem to understand that one of the sex acts being sued over took place in London, and that means, regardless of the fact that the lawsuit was filed in New York.. the US Federal laws regarding age of consent apply, not the New York State Laws. The US Federal the age of consent is 18. Additionally, another of the places where Giuffre claims she was trafficked to Windsor for sex was St James' Island in the US Virgin Islands. The age of consent there is 18.
Now, if age of consent was not an issue here, don't you think at least one of Windsor's team of high priced lawyers would have noticed?
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Utter bollocks.... your sympathies are misplaced. They were making the bastard pay for what he did... and good on them for doing so. Windsor is a thoroughly obnoxious and odious creep... I have no sympathy for him.
Last edited: