Prince Andrew in jep?

In fairness he is a auld lad now and in that interview.. in his day he'd catch their eye alright....

I’m thinking if he said “yes I did once , I was younger she was pretty I assumed she was 18 “ he’d be in the same royal situation (stripped of titles and duties) but it would be over

In his interview he said he was friends with Epstein on a Maxwell +1 basis but Maxwell was the real friend ....that US visit and walk in park without Maxwell being there put their friendship on a higher level than he wants to let on...if anything he should be saying to Maxwell he can't keep the friendship with her because of her friendship/+1 with Epstein

He also spent 4 days there 😂😂

Must have been a long and painful breakup to stay that long!!

Would that confuse it more as he said on the date Roberts alledges the sex happened he was definitely at home that night minding the kids....no fergie there...at Woking earlier

This isn't a prosecution - this is a civil legal matter; one individual suing another. Andrew (or anyone else) being convicted or sentenced in these proceedings is not an option.

(Whether he might be convicted or sentenced as a result of what emerges in these proceedings is a different matter. Depending on how the proceedings unfold, it will be up to the prosecution authorities to decide whether there is evidence on the basis of which it would be appropriate to prosecute. In theory, at any rate. In practice, don't hold your breath waiting for the UK DPP to bring charges against HRH the Duke of York.)

What Giuffre has consistently said is that this isn't, for her, about the money; first and foremost, she wants an acknowledgment of what happened to her, either in the form of a court finding, assuming the matter doesn't settle, or in the form of a settlement which includes an admission of liability. Either way, she will also get money - an award of damages, or payment of agreed compensation - but she is signalling pretty clearly that if Andrew wants to settle this matter he must admit liability; she does not want a settlement that does not include such an admission. The implication is that, if he does admit liability, she will settle on relatively modest terms, financially speaking. But of course a settlement that includes an admission of liability would be ruinous for Andrew's status and reputation.

Giuffre's lawyers are now suggesting that she might forego an admission of liablity if the settlement is so large, in financial terms, as to "amount to a vindication" - i.e. such a large amount of money that the only reason Andrew would have agreed to it would be to avoid the certainty of a finding against him, should the case go to trial.

The issue here is that Giuffre's lawyers are paid with a percentage of the damages awarded/settlement agreed. The larger the damages/settlement, the more they get. If the case doesn't settle and they lose at the trial, Giuffre's lawyers get basically nothing. So they are all about the damages and not at all about the admission of liability, which doesn't net them a shilling. There will have been uncomfortable conversations between Giuffre and her lawyers about the terms on which they represent her; it is very possible that they have said to her that, if she is going to refuse any settlement, however large, that does not include an admission of liabiilty, they will not act for her, since that strategy has a high risk of resulting in them not getting paid.

So, there are likely two figures that have been agreed between Giuffre and her lawyers - if Andrew will settle for $X, plus an admission of liability, we will accept that; if he will settle for $Y, a larger figure, with no admission of liability, we will accept that too, and we will point out that he would never have offered so great a sum as $Y if, in fact, he expected to win at the trial. Andrew, of course, does not know what either the $X or $Y figures might be, but the lawyers are talking about this now to indicate to him that this would be good time for him to open some discussions on this. The longer the proceedings go on, the more damage is done to Andrew's reputation and, ironically, the less reason he has to settle. There is no point in paying out a large sum to avoid damage to your reputation after your reputation has been trashed.