Split Thread Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

[smartcooky]

I don't agree. I'm sure you could find many photos of me at group events clearly interacting with people I don't remember at all.

"Who is that? Brian's girlfriend? Did he even have a girlfriend at the time? I guess he must have, because there she is shaking my hand... What? She says I took her to bed? Dude, I don't even remember getting introduced to her. You'd think I'd remember the other thing, if it really happened. Which it didn't. Sorry, but she's wrong."

Failure to remember is not evidence.
Failure to remember is not a defence.
Failure to remember lends no weight to his denials.
Failure to remember does not address the claims made against him.

Meanwhile the plaintiff and her lawyer have evidence that Mr Windsor has been telling lies about his relationship with Maxwell and about his behaviour in public.

 

[theprestige]

Failure to remember is not evidence.
Failure to remember is not a defence.
Failure to remember lends no weight to his denials.
Failure to remember does not address the claims made against him.

Agreed. It's all gratuitous, and he should stick to either material rebuttals to material claims, or no comment at all if none is necessary.

Meanwhile the plaintiff and her lawyer have evidence that Mr Windsor has been telling lies about his relationship with Maxwell and about his behaviour in public.

You're begging the question that he's lying about not remembering her. You know as well as I do that human memory is not that reliable.

 

[smartcooky]

Agreed. It's all gratuitous, and he should stick to either material rebuttals to material claims, or no comment at all if none is necessary.

Thank you

You're begging the question that he's lying about not remembering her. You know as well as I do that human memory is not that reliable.

Even in the unlikely event that he is not lying, and that he really cannot remember, that is not a defence for what he is accused of.

 

[Samson]

Thank you



Even in the unlikely event that he is not lying, and that he really cannot remember, that is not a defence for what he is accused of.

I consider it a sure thing he remembers and had sex with her.
But the reason he is toughing it out is he does not consider he has offended.

 

[Craig4]

I consider it a sure thing he remembers and had sex with her.
But the reason he is toughing it out is he does not consider he has offended.

It's a good thing we have courts to disabuse him of that notion.

 

[Samson]

It's a good thing we have courts to disabuse him of that notion.

I am thinking he had consensual sex as a prince with a pauper. This is merely imagining she was not agin the experience at that moment.
Thus he is genuinely surprised at the unexpected denouement, and would rather fight than flee.

 

[Bob001]

.....
You're begging the question that he's lying about not remembering her. You know as well as I do that human memory is not that reliable.

He may well not remember her. One might interpret that as a measure of the number of pretty young girls he has bedded, and that he considers them nameless, faceless and interchangeable.

 

[theprestige]

Even in the unlikely event that he is not lying, and that he really cannot remember, that is not a defence for what he is accused of.

Sure it is. "She's alleging I made a memorable connection with her. The truth is I don't remember meeting her at all."

It's a weak defense, and totally inadequate in court, and he really should have stuck to no comment this entire time. But I think you're really over-dramatizing the significance of its inadequacy.

He may well not remember her. One might interpret that as a measure of the number of pretty young girls he has bedded, and that he considers them nameless, faceless and interchangeable.

Yeah, definitely overdramatizing this. Being convinced of his perfidy doesn't mean you have to go full amateur Kremlinology on every single thing he has to say about the allegations.

 

[smartcooky]

Sure it is.

Nope

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/amnesia-a-defense-criminal-charges.html

"No Defense

Amnesia is loss of memory caused by psychological or physical trauma. It's not the same as not having the mental status required for a crime.

The inability to remember committing a crime doesn't necessarily mean the defendant didn't intend to and actually commit it. A defendant's mental state at the time of the crime is what's important—amnesia occurring after the crime has no effect on conduct at the time of the offense. Accordingly, amnesia typically isn't a viable defense. (It might be, however, if, at the time of the alleged offense, it created the conditions for an insanity defense.)"​

 

[theprestige]

Nope

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/amnesia-a-defense-criminal-charges.html

"No Defense

Amnesia is loss of memory caused by psychological or physical trauma. It's not the same as not having the mental status required for a crime.

The inability to remember committing a crime doesn't necessarily mean the defendant didn't intend to and actually commit it. A defendant's mental state at the time of the crime is what's important—amnesia occurring after the crime has no effect on conduct at the time of the offense. Accordingly, amnesia typically isn't a viable defense. (It might be, however, if, at the time of the alleged offense, it created the conditions for an insanity defense.)"​

His claim of not remembering her is addressing public opinion. I'm sure he'll have an appropriate legal defense lined up for when he has to address the court.

You are wildly overdramatizing the legal significance of this.

 

[smartcooky]

His claim of not remembering her is addressing public opinion. I'm sure he'll have an appropriate legal defense lined up for when he has to address the court.

You are wildly overdramatizing the legal significance of this.

I'm not overdramatizing anything, I am simply stating verifiable facts -

• a defendant's public statements are admissible in court
• "I can't remember" does not address the claims, and is not a valid legal defence

If Mr Windsor doesn't try to use it as a defence, but then claims he never had sex with Giuffre/Roberts, I am sure that Giuffre/Roberts' attorney will bring up his prior public claims that he does not remember ever meeting her. The obvious question will be something like "If you can't remember ever meeting Miss Roberts, how do you know her claims are false?" This is a fair question.

 

[Matthew Best]

"I don't remember ever meeting her, and I would definitely remember if I'd had sex with someone. I've only had sex with [insert number here] and I remember all of them."

 

[theprestige]

I'm not overdramatizing anything, I am simply stating verifiable facts -

• a defendant's public statements are admissible in court
• "I can't remember" does not address the claims, and is not a valid legal defence

Nobody is trying to make it a valid legal defense.

If Mr Windsor doesn't try to use it as a defence, but then claims he never had sex with Giuffre/Roberts, I am sure that Giuffre/Roberts' attorney will bring up his prior public claims that he does not remember ever meeting her. The obvious question will be something like "If you can't remember ever meeting Miss Roberts, how do you know her claims are false?" This is a fair question.

That rhetorical trap is easily dodged with "because I would remember something like that".

Or even better, "I know she has not proven her claims to be true, as she must, or I must be acquitted."

Or even better, just not take the stand at all. Let Giuffre present her evidence, let his own counsel rebut it (perhaps with other witnesses who can testify to material facts), and pursue acquittal on that basis.

 

[smartcooky]

Nobody is trying to make it a valid legal defense.

I think he will try

That rhetorical trap is easily dodged with "because I would remember something like that".

"Then explain the photo of you with your arm around the plaintiff's waist"

Or even better, "I know she has not proven her claims to be true, as she must, or I must be acquitted."

And we're back to balance of probabilities.

Or even better, just not take the stand at all.

Silly plan. If you don't defend your position, you will very likely lose.

 

[Craig4]

I am thinking he had consensual sex as a prince with a pauper. This is merely imagining she was not agin the experience at that moment.
Thus he is genuinely surprised at the unexpected denouement, and would rather fight than flee.

She was under age and that's all that matters.

 

[zooterkin]

She was under age and that's all that matters.

Not where and when she had sex with Prince Andrew the first two times in London and New York; she was 17, IIRC. The age of consent in the UK is 16, in New York 17. Doesn't mean that what happened was right, but it wasn't a matter of being under age. The third time was in Little Saint James in the US Virgin Islands; not sure if that is covered by the current case.

 

[Samson]

There should be other women coming forward to say he sexually assaulted them.

 

[smartcooky]

There should be other women coming forward to say he sexually assaulted them.

Why?

 

[Samson]

Why?

Usually a pattern such as Rolf Harris, Weinstein etc.

 

[smartcooky]

Usually a pattern such as Rolf Harris, Weinstein etc.

Is there some law that states that if other woman don't come forward, then he must be innocent?

These are entirely different circumstances. In the cases of those two you quoted, we are talking about men who used their position of power and authority in the workplace to sexually harass, and abuse women, and who extorted them for sex under threat of ending their careers if they did not go along with it. While there are over 100 women who came forward, there are almost certainly a hundred or more who stayed silent. But the most import difference here is that NONE of the women involved were trafficked to their abusers.

In the case of Mr Windsor and Miss Roberts, it simply may be the case that there are no other women who have been trafficked to him, or that none of them were under-aged, or that he didn't think Giuffre/Roberts was under-aged because he didn't understand the law regarding trafficking of girls/women. There may be no others to come forward.

And this brings up another rather unpleasant "elephant in the room", one that never seems to arise when talking about trafficked women. Many of those who have been "involved victims" in the white slave trade may not have survived - they might not even still be alive. Once they reach an age where they are no longer a "saleable" commodity, if they do not have anything else of value to offer, or there isn't anything that the trafficker can hold over them, such as their families, then they become a liability for the trafficker. One does not simply "retire" from the white slave trade - or at least, not very easily.