Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Prince Andrew in jep?

1151618202137

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,919 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Similar to denying he was able to sweat, and saying he was at a Pizza Express the night of, his claim that he's not a close friend of Maxwell is just pure utter nonsense and so easily dismissed. She and Epstein were at his daughter's wedding. They were pictured at the Queen's cabin in Balmoral (or one of their other estates). He's already said he repeatedly stayed with Maxwell and Epstein in New York, including staying with him after Epstein was accused of trafficking girls, in order to tell him he could no longer be friends with him.

    When you deny the things that are obviously true, how can anyone take you seriously when you deny the things you're accused of?



  • Posts: 9,106 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    That’s why any benefit of doubt I’ve given him throughout this thread- and in fairness I haven’t ever stated I totally believe the accusations- but after seeing this, I can totally understand if someone believes he’s totally liable - I won’t be arguing against them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    Roberts has said that it was Maxwell who encouraged her to initiate maybe a massage/sexual contact with Andrew while in their company in the various locations ....Roberts allegations seem to be that Andrew would have the same arrangement with Maxwell in procuring a girl/ girls for him...same as her arrangement with Epstein on which she was convicted....no evidence at all that he would have known what she was up to in the US as part of her partnership/relationship/friendship with Epstein.... he may have thought Roberts had a infatuation with him leading to sexual contact solely led on by the both of them only...I think Andrew is pointing at the different close relationship/friendship he had with Maxwell V Maxwells close relationship/friendship/in business with Epstein.

    Post edited by cap.in.hand. on


  • Posts: 9,106 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yeah I get what you’re saying and it might be that point he’s trying to make- but it’s like when he corrected the interviewer on the dinner party/ just a standard shooting party weekend issue, it’s all very much ado about minor points and he avoids the substantial issue at hand. It’s being picked up by the media that he’s saying he didn’t have a close friendship with Maxwell so this is going to stick with people.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    Your right and he knew the waters were muddied at that stage ...guilt by association..



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 361 ✭✭backwards_man


    There is no legal definition of a 'close friend', so he can claim that to him, they weren't close. It essentially a meaningless statement. I am sure alot of business connections were invited to those events and photographed with him. It doesnt in itself prove anything. However he was a friend of Epstein and he gave their friendship as a reason for why he visited him to 'break off' their friendship because it was honourable, or somemsuch nonesense. Not sure how Guiffres' team will prove he and Maxwell were anything other than acquaintances via Epistein. Not that it matters to the overall case.



  • Posts: 4,238 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think he’s embarked on a kamikaze mission. Surely the Queen doesn’t want Andrew to be slugging it out in salacious, technicolor detail in court - in the year of her Platinum Jubilee - and potentially irretrievably damaging the position of the monarchy in the public mind.

    He’s had his various military titles and royal patronages removed already. If he’s not careful, his teddy bears and much more will be removed as part of a damage containment exercise.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,768 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    There is no legal definition of a 'close friend', so he can claim that to him, they weren't close. It essentially a meaningless statement. I am sure alot of business connections were invited to those events and photographed with him. It doesnt in itself prove anything. However he was a friend of Epstein and he gave their friendship as a reason for why he visited him to 'break off' their friendship because it was honourable, or somemsuch nonesense. Not sure how Guiffres' team will prove he and Maxwell were anything other than acquaintances via Epistein. Not that it matters to the overall case.

    I think you are mixing this up, Andrew knew Epstein via Maxwell, not the other way around. Andrew and Maxwell go way back to their university days in Oxford and a friend of both has claimed they were dating at that time. The same claim was also recently made by a former royal protection officer at Buckingham Palace who said Maxwelll was visiting Andrew there so often that he thought they were dating. And around 1999-2002 him and Maxwell are photographed together at a long list of New York social events. They also took a holiday together in Thailand around that time.

    So if he is going with the defence that Maxwell was only an acquaintance and they were not close friends then it is not going to end well for him, it just isnt credible at all given what is in the public domain.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    But it's Roberts that bringing Maxwells involvement in to this case against prince Andrew ....she would never have had the opportunity otherwise even to have a personal photo taken with him not to mind alleged sexual contact with him ...I don't think Andrew can be blamed and has no need to apologise for having a lifetime friendship with maxwell from his college days.. lots of people do the same



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,957 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    there is certainly no need to apologise for being friends you went to college with but when you deny being friends despite all the evidence to the contrary it harms your credibility a tad. It is just another stupid lie on top of his previous stupid lies.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 9,106 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    At this stage I’m waiting on the “In light of the Queens jubilee, not distracting from the great work of the royal family…blah blah blah…I’ve decided to end this unjust personal situation I find myself in by paying up but I still protest my innocence..blah blah blah”

    Guarantee you it will never come to trial and something similar to the above will be issued by the princes spokesperson and Fergie will complain about what a victim poor Andrew is in all of this.

    And the public will be none the wiser on what exactly happened or didn’t happen as the case may be.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    I suppose they could request the trial be pushed out to 2023 citing they need more preparation time leaving the jubilee celebration having no distractions this year if possible



  • Posts: 9,106 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    And also, this trial isn’t about “justice” it’s about money - lots of it- even if found liable Andrew won’t apologise as there’s no reason for him to do so - I think I’m this case a civil trial will prove nothing - witnesses on both sides are thin on the ground and suspect in the main, looking for their 15 minutes of fame- there’s absolutely no detail around the USA encounters only the UK one, presumably because of the “trafficking” and international element - based on “evidence” right now available in the public domain, it shouldn’t really go to trial - but I wonder if it did, would Andrew’s defence be as muted as Maxwells was? I think it would- relying on the statement of “not proven beyond the balance of probability”



  • Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No, no, no. Ms Roberts wants her day in court and a public apology. And a few dollars wouldn’t go amiss. Whatever happens, he’s fcuked.



  • Posts: 9,106 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There’s no obligation on him to apologise- it will never happen- this is a civil suit and it’s all about money-



  • Posts: 9,106 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The judge has taken a massive “no nonsense” approach to date- he’s slammed most of the defence requests- I don’t think he’d give a damn about the jubilee year- he’s issued instructions to prepare for trial- I don’t see him diverting from that path



  • Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    But, but, but……..She said that she wants an apology!

    Wouldn’t it be fun if he was found guilty and she was only awarded a few grand!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    He'll have to keep going on that nothing happened....he has nothing to apologise for at the moment...is there anymore she can say that she has already said in public that would accuse him of sexual assault...unless a tattoo he secretly has and she has seen it



  • Posts: 9,106 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    😛- now that would be “bombshell” alright LOL- yeah there’s speculation around the type of questions both sides will have to answer such as “shape of manhood” etc - I mean really, can you see Andy going through all of that but in fairness that’s probably what’s involved in other sexual assault trials so should be no different for this one - he’ll definitely settle without apology .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    She has already accused him of part of a 7+girls including her in a orgy on the island.... could he not counter sue her if she loses the case....she has great freedom in saying slanderous stuff bout him in TV interviews in public which is amazing



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 9,106 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    That seems to be how American justice works-all in public and long in advance of any trial- one needs to move away from the Irish justice system thinking which I think is much fairer and confined to an in-court hearing.

    About that particular instance you mention, there were reports a few years ago that when Guiffre was writing her life story about this, a different man was placed in that scene but a subsequent draft of the book had Andrew- that’s one of the reasons I’m not giving this case much credence.

    I wonder also, might Andrews legal team withdraw from the legal process citing lack of a chance of justice or a biased judge or some other excuse- even if found liable he can still argue it was not a fair trial - I think face-saving will be an important element to the end game negotiations but better believe it , all we’re doing here is observing the US legal playbook in action- that’s all .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    Having already engaged with trying to stop the case claiming indemnity using the US legal system would put his argument that his case could be biased against him would be a non runner



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,768 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Im not sure what point you are making here but Im just saying if it is a part of Andrews defence that he wasnt a friend of Maxwells but instead an acquaintance then there is plenty of evidence that his claim is not true. They were at a minimum close friends and more likely much more than friends and actually dating. I mean who goes on holiday to Thailand with an acquaintance?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,522 ✭✭✭zv2


    What I don't understand is how, if she was abused 3 times, she did not do a runner the first time. Instead she seems to have been in his company in 3 different places around the globe? Wouldn't she avoid him after the first time?

    It looks like history is starting up again.



  • Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    She was with Epstein and Maxwell for around 4 years. Getting paid for services rendered. It doesn’t make it right, but her father knew what she was doing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,522 ✭✭✭zv2


    Well if she was getting paid for doing the thing all Andrew has to say is that is what happened in his case although he doesn't remember. That would do the job nicely yes?

    It looks like history is starting up again.



  • Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No. Andrew wasn’t the one paying her. Epstein and/or Maxwell were.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    Since she moved to the US from the UK on a permanent basis after her father's death in the early 90s...the close relationship certainly couldn't be as close then in reality, but doesn't stop them being lifelong friends



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,522 ✭✭✭zv2


    He can still make the case that she was a willing prostitute regardless of who paid, no?

    It looks like history is starting up again.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    I'd imagine there's a difference if the girl was a willing prostitute or if she was trafficked which I think she is claiming.



Advertisement