IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
I say any speculation about what The Queen is doing or not doing is a figment of the imagination of a tabloid scribbler.
The matter of the ski lodge has been going on long before the Epstein matter.
I guarantee Andrew has $$Millions but it will be so tied up no one could touch it let alone a claimant in a US court case where decisions are meaningless in the UK.
This is a typical US civil claim where the claimant thinks a settlement will be forthcoming. I say it never will be.
## I saw no problem with Andrew's TV interview, rather the media has decided it was a car crash and everyone falls into line.
I had a long time pal who was Prince Charles valet from when he was young but who got fired when he married Diana.
He was the first Royal "insider" to sell his story in the USA..I think he got $1M up front.
When I last saw him in Kings Road he said his life was utterly miserable and the money meant nothing.(now deceased)
"I went up against the British establishment" he said.."you never win and my life is Hell".
You attack a Royal and that's it..you are up against the "Establishment", every British Secret Service whose role is to protect figureheads like the Royals.
They've been doing this for a few 100 years and they never lose.
Some harpie from Australia is living in the dream time if she thinks she'll win against the Royal Family.
## Can you imagine how the floodgates would open if a Royal "settled" with an accuser?
If this goes to court, a prosecuting attorney would surely be able to run rings around him, possibly helped by a judge showing indulgence to the accuser. His no sweat/pizza defence, if unable to be proved, could be like 84-year-old Rolf Harris's Cambridge moment, when the prosecuting barrister extracted an outright denial that he'd ever been to Cambridge, then produced TV footage of him in a park there at a TV event in the 1970s and accused him of being a deliberate liar, apparently successfully given the verdict. The jury seemed to have accepted that the middle-aged accuser for that charge was simply forgetful, changing mid-trial her age from 14 to 17, the venue and the event at which the alleged abuse - supposedly life-changing squeezing of left buttock - had supposedly taken place to fit with the TV footage.
If this goes to court, a prosecuting attorney would surely be able to run rings around him, possibly helped by a judge showing indulgence to the accuser. His no sweat/pizza defence, if unable to be proved, could be like 84-year-old Rolf Harris's Cambridge moment, when the prosecuting barrister extracted an outright denial that he'd ever been to Cambridge, then produced TV footage of him in a park there at a TV event in the 1970s and accused him of being a deliberate liar, apparently successfully given the verdict. The jury seemed to have accepted that the middle-aged accuser for that charge was simply forgetful, changing mid-trial her age from 14 to 17, the venue and the event at which the alleged abuse - supposedly life-changing squeezing of left buttock - had supposedly taken place to fit with the TV footage.
he doesn't really have to give evidence and I'm not sure he would.
Even in a civil case it's up to the accuser to prove their case.
There won't be a prosecutor- civil case- but of course the accuser's lawyer may be just as tough as any prosecutor.
I would think Andrew's lawyers would be top notch..from what I've seen of the accuser's lawyer he's not the best, very vocal though.
Of course anything can happen in a court as the Bill Cosby case demonstrated. He never should have been tried (whatever the truth) ..judge should have dismissed the case early on as another judge finally did.
These matters..sweating, pizzas..again Andrew doesn't have to prove any of these things..the accuser has to justify their story. But who knows what tactics will be used.
What depresses me is the vicious media campaign against Andrew by people who know as much as I do..sod all.
Richard Kay and that buck-toothed buffoon Janet Street Porter..opinionated claptrap because the Mail smells blood. Rubbish that is repeated ad infinitum with an underlying theme that Andrew is guilty and it's just a matter of time before he is convicted of something, anything.
Even today fuckwits in the Australian media parrot the same claptrap.There is no fairness, no sense of "innocent unless proved guilty in a court of law" just because they have decided they no longer like Andrew and push the same bullshit that he's always been disliked which is total rubbish.
The media has become more vicious than it's ever been. The mainstream media is competing with millions of lunatics on social media who believe any old claptrap..as long as it's riddled with sex and secret Satanic cults and especially the one thing they salivate over..abused children. They can't get enough of it. I think they have dreams about it.
Royal courtiers fear that the Duke of York is being failed by the response of his London-based lawyers to the civil claim brought against him in the US by Virginia Giuffre, today’s Telegraph reports.
I think you're spot on about the media and many members of the public. Judging from comments on Facebook under articles on this subject, a lot of people seem to be just loving these allegations, salivating over them as you say, dressing their prurience up as outrage. You get the occasional person saying "what about innocent until proven guilty?" but they're few and far between.
...especially the one thing they salivate over..abused children. They can't get enough of it. I think they have dreams about it...
There seem to be quite a few of these weirdos around, seeming to actually want children to have been abused. Perhaps they share similar tendencies to Carl Beech.
and there we go again..those pesky "royal courtiers".., Sid & Doris Bloggs who were interviewed in the local pub by Phil Space.
There is no "royal courtier" that actually works for the royal family that would say a word to Glenda Slaggs of the media. They just choose an angle and make it up.
I forgot "discovery in US civil cases which works both ways.
Andrew will be grilled by the women's lawyers and that is all that is sensationally reported..not the fact that she too will be grilled mercilessly and by a skilled British barrister who most likely will be the epitome of British politeness as he lays a minefield for his victim to sail through.
Michael Jackson gave evidence for hours. Donald Trump has done similar in a dozen civil cases.
Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen..barely a ripple in the media and especially the US media about this...served papers on Trump yesterday at Mar a Lago as he's suing him over his convictions.
Cohen's podcasts are quite fascinating..he says Trump lies so easily but often contradicts himself within the hour.
This is when "discovery" becomes fascinating as it can expose who is lying. For the person being truthful it's quite easy to answer questions.
For the person lying it's most difficult especially when being questioned by a barrister who can take you down an unexpected path..it's impossible to even think ahead and plan your answers.
The accuser has told so many varied stories, this is when she may come unstuck.
Of course all this then keeps getting referred back to a judge.
Ms Giuffre said she was "pleased" with the ruling the case can continue, after the prince tried to have it dismissed.
She said she is glad to have a "chance to continue to expose the truth". ...
"My goal has always been to show that the rich and powerful are not above the law & must be held accountable. I do not walk this path alone, but alongside countless other survivors of sexual abuse & trafficking."
Oh, what words of worthiness! What honour and grace!
Could this be what it means in reality? "My goal has always been to sting the rich for megabucks. Associating myself with genuine victims gives me credibility."
Here's a recent interview with Alan Dershowitz. He thinks Prince Andrew should not settle with Giuffre but countersue her for perjury. He says he doesn't know what happened between them but does know one can't believe a word she says. The same YouTube channel ("The Maxwell Files") has a separate five-part interview with Alan Dershowitz, an interview with Ian Maxwell and with "Ghislaine Maxwell's Spokesman, Brian Basham", who says she was foolish to settle with Giuffre and who believes Giuffre acted as a "recruiting sergeant" for other Maxwell accusers.
Latest attacks are just so prejudicial and vicious against Andrew.
Dreadful claims that by defending himself and attacking the character of his accuser he is "attacking a victim.
Now an ex-plod with the dramatic tale of Andrew's teddy bears..FFS that was a plod really on the ball.
Falsely implying Andrew had an affair with Maxwell because she visited him at the Palace which rather nips in the bud he "liked them young". But total unproved and and a gormless rather nasty looking ex-detective who couldn't possible know fuck all.
I wondered about him too ("Oy fink…"). According to royal commentator Robert Jobson, he wasn't a palace protection officer, as billed in the ITV documentary, but a policeman who stood outside, and did six years in prison for fraud, jailed in 2009.
There are several articles online about his conviction (which do refer to him as a palace protection officer), e.g.:
So it looks as if ITV must be again using "impeccable sources" as it did with the likes of Fake Letter Fiona and conman Wilfred De'Ath in MWT's famous Savile Exposure programme.
Check out Virginia Giuffre's tears and laughter about Prince Andrew.
Tears when speaking to Darragh MacIntyre on BBC Panorama: "It was a wicked time in my life. It was a really scary time in my life. I had just been abused by a member of the royal family".
At 1 min 37 secs here:
Laughter when speaking to Tara Brown of Australia's 60 Minutes:
Tara Brown: "With Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest, how do you think Prince Andrew is feeling right now?"
Virginia Giuffre: "Oh, ha ha ha ha! Prince Andrew should be panicking at the moment because Ghislaine doesn't really care about anyone else but Ghislaine".
At the start here (and at 4 mins 37 secs in full documentary on YouTube "Inside the wicked saga of Jeffrey Epstein: the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell | 60 Minutes Australia")
David Boies, the US lawyer leading the sexual abuse case against the Duke of York, is adamant the wealthy are not above the law
…
Whatever the outcome of the depositions, and whatever Prince Andrew’s legal team said this week, experts have predicted that he is likely to settle. But Boies is adamant that for Giuffre this isn’t about the money. “What’s important for Virginia is to vindicate herself and the other victims. Not to let someone escape responsibility, just because of their wealth and power. To hold Prince Andrew to account. But how that vindication is accomplished is still open [to discussion],” says Boies, who is now choosing his words carefully.
“I think that we would be unlikely to settle in a situation in which somebody just handed over a cheque. So if Prince Andrew maintains ‘I've never heard of this person’, ‘I don't know who she is’, ‘The photographs are fake’, then I don’t think that we would want to settle on that basis.” He pauses, inclines his head to the left, then to the right. “That said, “if you had a settlement that was large enough to be, in effect, a vindication, then it’s something we would obviously look at.”
…
It’s hard to imagine how the toxicity of his professional dealings can be shrugged off at the end of the working day, but Boies clearly manages it. With those mini-breaks to Vegas, where he loves to play craps, by visiting his 900-acre California winery, taking out his 184-foot sailboat, and escaping to his 17-acre Westchester estate, “where I’ll reconnect with the good things in life,” he says with a smile. “I love playing with my grandchildren, going out for a nice dinner and bottle of wine with my wife.” A Château Mouton Rothschild would be his preferred choice, “although I also like a good Californian Opus One,” he adds. “But I also try and focus on the progress made.”
I think this point has been raised before by Honey. Virginia Giuffre claims that the photo of herself and Prince Andrew was taken when they got back to Ghislaine Maxwell's house from Tramp nightclub. Surely they wouldn't have dressed down like that to go to Tramp. The club's luxurious decor can be glimpsed and is referred to on its website ("Perhaps the most unique and ornate discotheque in the world: 16th century panelling adorns the walls whilst crystal chandeliers watch down from above"), which also says "Tramp does not have a formal dress code, but we expect style and flair from all our Members and guests. Please dress to impress, the club reserves the right to refuse entry on this basis". www.tramp.co.uk/membership And if she was 17, she'd have been under the age to be allowed in. "To enter as either a member or a guest you must also be at least 18-years-old." www.thesun.co.uk/news/10493222/tramp-lon...nce-andrew-virginia/
Jo wrote: I think this point has been raised before by Honey. Virginia Giuffre claims that the photo of herself and Prince Andrew was taken when they got back to Ghislaine Maxwell's house from Tramp nightclub. Surely they wouldn't have dressed down like that to go to Tramp. The club's luxurious decor can be glimpsed and is referred to on its website ("Perhaps the most unique and ornate discotheque in the world: 16th century panelling adorns the walls whilst crystal chandeliers watch down from above"), which also says "Tramp does not have a formal dress code, but we expect style and flair from all our Members and guests. Please dress to impress, the club reserves the right to refuse entry on this basis". www.tramp.co.uk/membership And if she was 17, she'd have been under the age to be allowed in. "To enter as either a member or a guest you must also be at least 18-years-old." www.thesun.co.uk/news/10493222/tramp-lon...nce-andrew-virginia/
Jo your link shows a picture of Tara Palmer-Tomkinson partying at Tramp in the 90s wearing a white bikini!
As much as I dislike the media circus on this case too - we don't know anything about what did or did not happen. From clothes dissections to Hedda's confident assertions that royalty do not screw commoners; we know nothing.
The story of that night could be spun any way. Maybe they were dressed up, Andy tupped Virgina and they got dressed after a shower (just Virginia Andy doesn't sweat...) in casual attire after a post-coital cigarette?
According to what she has said in interviews, the photo was taken just after they got back from Tramp and just before Prince Andrew abused her. No mention of changing clothes or having showers.
"She explained that the picture with Andrew was taken at Ms Maxwell’s home after a visit to Tramp nightclub – a claim the Duke disputes. ‘All of us went upstairs and I asked Jeffrey to snap a picture of me with the Prince. I wanted something to show my mom,’ she said." www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7718689...-house-interior.html
No mention of changes of clothes or showers here either (PDF pages 39/40). Ghislaine's woolly top and trousers are mentioned as what she was wearing before they set off.
What shines through in Virginia Giuffre's description of the supposed interaction with Prince Andrew, is how irresistible and special he supposedly found her. What better thing to boast about to her friend Carolyn Andriano? "Don't tell anyone, but..." Juvenile fantasy taken to the limit.
I with Germaine Greer on this...women who accept settlements (Guiffe) and then shut up while the perp continues as in Weinstein..are the lowest of the low and enablers.
I see that Prince Andrew is to be deposed in March and Virginia Giuffre in April. Surely that will enable her to adjust her story to fit his answers. As far as I know, in a criminal trial the prosecution makes its case first.
Forums 
