• 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

LondonJohn said:
I (don't) hate to say ITYS, but.....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13704774#post13704774

In that post, which I wrote on January 16th, I even predicted that settlement would come "within a month or so". And everything else was on point as well.

(Mixture of decent sources and a decent understanding of civil law)
Click to expand...
Before you get too smug

"Within a month" means under a month, "or so" then takes it right up to the date he would have been in court.

Timing gone effectively you predicted a settlement. As did others once he sold his £18m+ chalet to settle £6m debt giving him a £12m+ fund.

You said the queen would be paying it all, I am not sure that is established and whether Andrew can pocket his chalet earnings.

You also said the settlement would be high double figures. High double figures suggests north of £50m. The press suggests it was just into double figure.

The other stuff you said had already happened.

Have you thought about becoming a psychic? You seem have their techniques, vague predictions, ignoring misses, false claiming of accuracy, predicting things that are known off pat.

Sorry but what do you expect on a skeptics forum when fantastic predictions are claimed :)
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
I accept your determination is carefully reasoned, but I remain unmoved by the hang em high declarations against Windsor. He was both miscreant and wealthy beyond imagination.
A great result for one opportunist.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I accept your determination is carefully reasoned, but I remain unmoved by the hang em high declarations against Windsor...
A great result for one opportunist.
Click to expand...

You are right I am sure that as a young child she thought there is a fantastic opportunity for me to be sexually abused by older men, trafficked round the world and in 30 years I can be rich. Those poor men suckered into abusing her, we should set up a fund and support group for them.
 
Last edited:
I think Windsor and his team of lawyers were terrified of what might happen if he had to testify under oath. After all, he is so totally lacking in self-awareness that after he finished the Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis he was actually under the impression that he had handled it pretty well, not realising that it was in reality a complete and utter disaster. Maitlis ran rings around him, and if she could do that, a couple of master questioners like Giuffre's lawyers would have ripped him a new one - he'd end up not knowing whether his arse had been counter-bored or centre-punched.

Another thing that went against him was the rather stupid and ridiculous claims he made, such as his alleged inability to sweat, his claim that he was covered by Epstein's Florida NDA, his claim that he had never met her despite a photograph that clearly shows him with his arm around her, and the further claim the photo was doctored.

Ann Olivarius, the senior partner of the McAllister Olivarius law firm who has acted in cases on both sides of the Atlantic, said “She said she wanted an apology, she wanted an amount of money and she wanted him to acknowledge what he’s done. It seems to me that she has gotten those things."

“She got an apology because he has now praised her for being courageous. She’s gotten money for a charity in trafficking, and she got him to settle which is an admission, clearly, that he is frightened to go forward, he has got too much exposure, he cannot afford on a risk management basis to go forward."

“She had leverage, she used it and she triumphed. I say this is good news all round, and it’s good news for him because we know he couldn’t have handled this deposition, it was going to be a disaster,”
 
Don't forget that it couldn't have been a nightclub in London because he always wears a suit, shirt and tie when he is in London.
 
smartcooky said:
I think Windsor and his team of lawyers were terrified of what might happen if he had to testify under oath. After all, he is so totally lacking in self-awareness that after he finished the Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis he was actually under the impression that he had handled it pretty well, not realising that it was in reality a complete and utter disaster. Maitlis ran rings around him, and if she could do that, a couple of master questioners like Giuffre's lawyers would have ripped him a new one - he'd end up not knowing whether his arse had been counter-bored or centre-punched.

Another thing that went against him was the rather stupid and ridiculous claims he made, such as his alleged inability to sweat, his claim that he was covered by Epstein's Florida NDA, his claim that he had never met her despite a photograph that clearly shows him with his arm around her, and the further claim the photo was doctored.

Ann Olivarius, the senior partner of the McAllister Olivarius law firm who has acted in cases on both sides of the Atlantic, said “She said she wanted an apology, she wanted an amount of money and she wanted him to acknowledge what he’s done. It seems to me that she has gotten those things."

“She got an apology because he has now praised her for being courageous. She’s gotten money for a charity in trafficking, and she got him to settle which is an admission, clearly, that he is frightened to go forward, he has got too much exposure, he cannot afford on a risk management basis to go forward."

“She had leverage, she used it and she triumphed. I say this is good news all round, and it’s good news for him because we know he couldn’t have handled this deposition, it was going to be a disaster,”
Click to expand...

Yup.

It's not a draw, when the one who claimed that he wanted his day in court to clear his name decides to fold. When there is a lot of seemingly0incriminating evidence that presumably he wanted examined in court so he could explain how it wasn't.

The financial cost of settling is set against the reputational damage that also would have affected his income.
 
GB News is going with "Meghan Markle will not return to UK because she feels winning the British public over is a lost cause"
 
Meanwhile

Police to investigate Prince Charles' charity
The Metropolitan Police is to investigate claims Prince Charles' charity offered honours help to a Saudi citizen.

The force said it is investigating alleged offences under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60404077
 
smartcooky said:
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?
Click to expand...

The post I was replying to was,
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The time in New York would qualify as statutory rape even if she had given consent.
Click to expand...
Not London, not USVI.

Also this court case was under NY law NOT US federal law. As you correctly pointed out the case was held in a Federal court because neither party are state residents, but the court would apply NY law. The law under which it was brought allowed damages to be sought for sexual abuse by those who were under 18 at the time of the abuse in New York. It does not allow damages to be sought for abuse that occurred in other jurisdictions.

Since the court case did not go forward, it is unclear exactly what case would have been made. It may be like in the Maxwell case where the Federal judge ruled that sex with someone over the age of consent in England was not illicit sex under Federal law, that the sex act itself was not to be regarded as criminal, but evidenced a pattern of behaviour. I think for Federal trafficking laws to apply to a UK resident having consensual sex with a US citizen in the UK when over the age of consent in the UK would be a jurisdictional over reach too far. For federal law to apply Windsor would either have to have travelled from the US to the UK for purposes of having sex, or being a US citizen or resident have trafficked Giuffre for the purposes of an illicit sex act.

I think the alleged sex act in the USVI is the one indisputably criminal act by virtue of being statutory rape, and there is no statute of limitations. The difficulty is that Giuffre describes this as being part of an orgy. So in theory there should be eye witnesses to the act, and potentially other offenders. We will see if Giuffre makes a criminal complaint to the USVI police. Giuffre will be time barred in bringing a civil case in USVI.

Next thing you know is that English publicans will be prosecuted by the ATF for selling drinks to 18 yr old US students!
 
Planigale said:
The post I was replying to was,

Not London, not USVI.

Also this court case was under NY law NOT US federal law. As you correctly pointed out the case was held in a Federal court because neither party are state residents, but the court would apply NY law. The law under which it was brought allowed damages to be sought for sexual abuse by those who were under 18 at the time of the abuse in New York. It does not allow damages to be sought for abuse that occurred in other jurisdictions.

Since the court case did not go forward, it is unclear exactly what case would have been made. It may be like in the Maxwell case where the Federal judge ruled that sex with someone over the age of consent in England was not illicit sex under Federal law, that the sex act itself was not to be regarded as criminal, but evidenced a pattern of behaviour. I think for Federal trafficking laws to apply to a UK resident having consensual sex with a US citizen in the UK when over the age of consent in the UK would be a jurisdictional over reach too far. For federal law to apply Windsor would either have to have travelled from the US to the UK for purposes of having sex, or being a US citizen or resident have trafficked Giuffre for the purposes of an illicit sex act.

I think the alleged sex act in the USVI is the one indisputably criminal act by virtue of being statutory rape, and there is no statute of limitations. The difficulty is that Giuffre describes this as being part of an orgy. So in theory there should be eye witnesses to the act, and potentially other offenders. We will see if Giuffre makes a criminal complaint to the USVI police. Giuffre will be time barred in bringing a civil case in USVI.

Next thing you know is that English publicans will be prosecuted by the ATF for selling drinks to 18 yr old US students!
Click to expand...

Well if age of consent was not at issue, why didn't Windsor's lawyers try to use the fact that Giuffre was 17 as a technicality to get the lawsuit dismissed?

It seems this rather obvious step was overlooked? I wonder why?
 
Planigale said:
The post I was replying to was,

Not London, not USVI.

Also this court case was under NY law NOT US federal law. As you correctly pointed out the case was held in a Federal court because neither party are state residents, but the court would apply NY law. The law under which it was brought allowed damages to be sought for sexual abuse by those who were under 18 at the time of the abuse in New York. It does not allow damages to be sought for abuse that occurred in other jurisdictions.
.....
Click to expand...


Let's note once again that if Giuffre did not or was not able to give consent to sex, then she was raped, and her age didn't matter. And that's what she says:
In her civil case, Ms Giuffre alleges that the prince sexually abused her three times - at Maxwell's London home that night, and later at Epstein's homes in Manhattan and Little St James in the Virgin Islands.
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59974220

The continuing chatter about age of consent is just a distraction. Her age made her vulnerable to a predator's threats and manipulation. It doesn't mean she gave free and knowing consent.
 
jimbob said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60407806


Prince Andrew's statement seems to contradict answers he gave me - Emily Maitlis
Click to expand...

So his total lack of self awareness means that he can't keep his story straight, to the extent that he seems incapable of reading a transcript of his interview to make sure that any subsequent statement he makes in a legal document related to the lawsuit comports with what he said previously.
 
smartcooky said:
So his total lack of self awareness means that he can't keep his story straight, to the extent that he seems incapable of reading a transcript of his interview to make sure that any subsequent statement he makes in a legal document related to the lawsuit comports with what he said previously.
Click to expand...

I suspect that he just isn't used to his word ever 'being questioned'. Officer and a gentleman, and all that :rolleyes:
 
smartcooky said:
Well who the **** does he think he is, a prince or something!!?
Click to expand...

Not HRH, although I do think he embodies the dignity and honour that the institution of monarchy has historically demonstrated and which it deserves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom