July-Oct:The Met has dropped its investigation into Andrew: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...S-investigation-Prince-Andrew-Jeffrey-Epstein
In recognition of her public service of covering up the crimes of the rich, powerful and wealthy? I think that was the official reason.Why was C Dick made a dame?
They'd have to prove that he had sex surely? How would they prove it?Is it illegal to have sex with someone who’s been trafficked? I thought maybe they could get him on that?
And how can they prove that he knew that she was trafficked?They'd have to prove that he had sex surely? How would they prove it?
In some countries it doesn’t matter if you knew. Just like it doesn’t matter if you knew if someone was under the age of consent (the excuse „she looked older“ doesn’t cut it anymore).And how can they prove that he knew that she was trafficked?
Why do you think this, I’ve seen quite a few people say that she’s doing it for publicity and money. Not an attack on you, very curious about this.I think Virginia is trying to prove her story but also to get some money out of it. I am pretty sure she would prefer to get a shit load of money to shut up forever, and having her reputation restored is just her second best option.
It's fairly standard practice for the Met Commanders to be knighted. Dame is the female equivalent.Why was C Dick made a dame?
She is mostly targeting the weakest link, she could sue Maxwells or others but it’s probably even harder to build a case against them. Which I don’t condemn. I would only go after a potential success too. There have been inconsistencies in her stories over the years, but I think that’s often explainable- it has been a long time ago. But she definitely tries to benefit from the fact that the topic has lots of attention now. I don’t think she goes for publicity but I think after all those years she wants to get money (and if she speaks the truth she deserves it) as compensation first and restore her reputation as a second. I just don’t think she does it just for justice. If that would be the case she would provide more names, no matter if anything comes out of it.Why do you think this, I’ve seen quite a few people say that she’s doing it for publicity and money. Not an attack on you, very curious about this.
It's been proven that Epstein trafficked young girls in court and he got away with a slap on the wrist ( Andrew didn't care, but must have known he'd been convicted ) Ghislaine Maxwells trial on grooming charges is being delayed and delayed by her shady family, but people are jumping through hoops ( not you but people saying she's doing it for the money) because they want to minimise Prince Andrew's involvement. Its going to be impossible to prove he had sex with her or that he knew she was groomed ( I'm not sure simply not caring either way counts) but his personality, his previous behaviour and his attitude to people he feels are beneath him lead me to believe that surrounded by his rich mates who were all doing the same thing, he would not have taken the moral high ground and not abused her. His defence to the civil case isn't that he is innocent but that a previous payment to VG covers him too. I suspect now that she is older, she regrets taking the initial money, especially now Epstein is dead and can't face justice, and she thinks Andrew is the only one not covered. There is a French woman who is also claiming Andrew abused her, and Ghislaines trial is coming up eventually as the authorities seem determined to keep her alive and in prison, so we'll see if she sings like a canary to save her own skin.Why do you think this, I’ve seen quite a few people say that she’s doing it for publicity and money. Not an attack on you, very curious about this.
You saidIt's been proven that Epstein trafficked young girls in court and he got away with a slap on the wrist ( Andrew didn't care, but must have known he'd been convicted ) Ghislaine Maxwells trial on grooming charges is being delayed and delayed by her shady family, but people are jumping through hoops ( not you but people saying she's doing it for the money) because they want to minimise Prince Andrew's involvement. Its going to be impossible to prove he had sex with her or that he knew she was groomed ( I'm not sure simply not caring either way counts) but his personality, his previous behaviour and his attitude to people he feels are beneath him lead me to believe that surrounded by his rich mates who were all doing the same thing, he would not have taken the moral high ground and not abused her. His defence to the civil case isn't that he is innocent but that a previous payment to VG covers him too. I suspect now that she is older, she regrets taking the initial money, especially now Epstein is dead and can't face justice, and she thinks Andrew is the only one not covered. There is a French woman who is also claiming Andrew abused her, and Ghislaines trial is coming up eventually as the authorities seem determined to keep her alive and in prison, so we'll see if she sings like a canary to save her own skin.
Yes sorry that's what I meant- he isn't defending himself, he is saying that she doesn't have a claim because compensation has already been paid for what happened to her. I know he will never go to court, even as a witness, and in his defence, its impossible to prove really, but all the reputational damage being done to him by this leads me to believe he is going by the mantra that is better that people think I'm a disgusting man who has sex with trafficked 17 year olds than they know it. Because he has done nothing to defend himself at all and all evidence as to his whereabouts has conveniently been 'lost'.You said
"His defence to the civil case isn't that he is innocent but that a previous payment to VG covers him too."
I am not very familiar with the legal system in the US, but as far as I understand Andrew's legal team wants the case to be thrown out - this is on the basis that there are no real grounds for a claim.
If a matter had already been settled in previous proceedings it cannot be brought to court again, so it would be a reasonable strategy to avoid the claim being progressed.
This is different to a defence, a defence would counter the allegations made in the claim (and then he would probably say he didn't abuse her).
Yes, if the court would disagree with him and allow the claim to progress then he would eventually need to file a defence.Yes sorry that's what I meant- he isn't defending himself, he is saying that she doesn't have a claim because compensation has already been paid for what happened to her. I know he will never go to court, even as a witness, and in his defence, its impossible to prove really, but all the reputational damage being done to him by this leads me to believe he is going by the mantra that is better that people think I'm a disgusting man who has sex with trafficked 17 year olds than they know it. Because he has done nothing to defend himself at all and all evidence as to his whereabouts has conveniently been 'lost'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?