Jump to content

Prince Andrew settles out of court !


Sexpistol50
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote from the article - "He is innocent, because he has not been found guilty of anything"

 

Phew, that's settled it then. From now on i'm going to use the Prince Andrew defence...

Sex is good. Good things are remembered. I don't remember it, therefore it didn't happen.

 

Better settle with this woman who i don't remember just in case i remember it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this a bit surprising to be honest. In another thread here, I think I commented along the lines of that any out-of-court settlement could/would be seen as some 'admission of guilt', especially as Prince Andrew vehemently denied ever knowing this girl or doing anything illicit with her.

 

Quote

Prince Andrew makes no admission of liability. His lawyers had previously said he was ready to go before a jury to fight Ms Giuffre's claims, with a trial expected later this year.

 

He does not make any direct admission, yes that is true. But settling out-of-court in order to avoid a trial by jury, insinuates a level of admission by guilt in my opinion. If he was confident of going before a jury and winning this case, then why not?

 

Quote

He avoids having to give a sworn statement, which was scheduled for early next month; he makes no admission of guilt; there will be no civil trial, no further airing of accusations and evidence.

He is innocent, because he has not been found guilty of anything. So he is disentangled from any legal threat.

 

And I'm sure there are other parties in this who would be quite happy for Prince Andrew to keep his mouth shut and not have to answer to questions at a trial.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

And I'm sure there are other parties in this who would be quite happy for Prince Andrew to keep his mouth shut and not have to answer to questions at a trial.

They would skewer him during deposition testimony. That TV interview would provide rich pickings for any competent lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, well, well, so Randy Andy has taken the easy way out hey. Guilty as charged. Why can't he be criminally prosecuted now? Settling means he was guilty, so why can't the law now be involved again? 

 

Also, who's picking up the tab? Him or mummy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

He'd be stupid not to settle. No admission on liability, a nice watertight non-disclosure agreement, and it's all swept under the rug. Hope she got a good amount. Chances are though that other plaintiffs will appear and accuse him now this has happened.

 

Will be a lot of plaintiffs.

This story makes me wonder about all the children they rape torture and murder in buckingham palace, they murder a lot at halloween. Iwonder what they do with all the dead bodies, who mops up the blood, who carts the dead kids away in piles and heaps, who contacts the childrens' homes and prepares the next lot of children to be brought over. Massive compliance. That's why they have so many children in homes, and a refusing to let them get adopted out, a fresh supply of babies to murder.

Randy andy is definetly one sick fuck, but what he had his family do, only the tip of the iceberg has been revealed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The settlement is £12 million, and his mum is going to help pay. Ofcourse since mumsie sends all her bills to the taxpayer, guess we will be lumbered with it.

 

Mummy says now that all this is settled she can get back to work now, although what this work is has not been announced, flying off to the bahamas or some other sun kissed resort, maybe? Another royal tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

I found this a bit surprising to be honest. In another thread here, I think I commented along the lines of that any out-of-court settlement could/would be seen as some 'admission of guilt', especially as Prince Andrew vehemently denied ever knowing this girl or doing anything illicit with her.

 

He does not make any direct admission, yes that is true. But settling out-of-court in order to avoid a trial by jury, insinuates a level of admission by guilt in my opinion. If he was confident of going before a jury and winning this case, then why not?

 

And I'm sure there are other parties in this who would be quite happy for Prince Andrew to keep his mouth shut and not have to answer to questions at a trial.

 

 

I am not siding with PA but does out of court settlement always mean guilty?

You have to weight the cost....you might say, PA can afford millions in legal cost....that may be true.

Then there is the time it will take for the whole trial.

Furthermore, the US legal system is probably even more corrupt than ones in the UK that if a murderer had a good lawyer they can get away with it so if Virginia has a good lawyer and she and others might have already snatched up those good ones by putting them on retention, then he might not have a chance. Not saying she has done this but someone has done in the past with a divorce case. She put every family lawyer on retention. lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DaleP said:

I am not siding with PA but does out of court settlement always mean guilty?

 

Legally, no it doesn't. The BBC article likes to stress this point.

23 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

He avoids having to give a sworn statement, which was scheduled for early next month; he makes no admission of guilt; there will be no civil trial, no further airing of accusations and evidence.

He is innocent, because he has not been found guilty of anything. So he is disentangled from any legal threat.

 

But from a 'moral perspective' or even a human one, in my opinion him settling this case out of court - and agreeing to pay £12m as has now been revealed - especially after he swore blind that he did not know her, and had no recollection of ever meeting her, and denied that the events described ever took place...

 

...does certainly hint at some acknowledgement of 'guilt'.

 

But that will all be forgotten soon - he's "paid the price", had his titles removed and will be (publicly) shunned by his family, and Virginia gets a nice payoff, and no doubt one of the conditions of this payoff is that she keeps her mouth shut.

 

Sweep Sweep Under Rug GIF - Sweep SweepUnderRug Rug ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The image. 😆

 

I take it even in the US, it is encouraged that the Plaintiff and the Defendant go through a mediation first i.e.....to settle out of court but if either party does not agree with the offer, then it can go to trial.

 

At the end of the day, it's not about the money but exposing the truth, is it not?

Now, the question is....should she have accepted this nice payoff? 🤔

From the lawyer's pov, they would have said to her...yeah take it.

They get the percentage which would be in mill...... and they don't have to do further work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't deny he's a degenerate but there's two sides to every story. 

Most likely this girl was a prostitute out to make some money. 

She was 17 at the time and of legal age. She was old enough to know what she was doing. Nobody put a gun to her head. 

Of course the media will always take the side of wamen when they cry victim. God forbid a woman ever takes personal responsibility for their actions any more. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2022 at 8:49 PM, DaleP said:

At the end of the day, it's not about the money but exposing the truth, is it not?

Now, the question is....should she have accepted this nice payoff? 🤔

From the lawyer's pov, they would have said to her...yeah take it.

They get the percentage which would be in mill...... and they don't have to do further work.

 

That's basically it. Money seems to many people to be the answer to your problems.

 

"Principles" and "doing the right thing" is lost to many now.

 

If somebody had made some accusations against myself, and I felt that they were somehow 'baseless', I'd never agree to making a settlement to avoid the case going to trial.

 

But then again, I don't have the financial backing of the Royal Family and the British taxpayer. 🥳

 

8 hours ago, Delidroid said:

I'm surprised Virginia got a payout. I would have put a bet on MI5 leaving a fish on her pillow.

She gets her payout. There will be conditions attached, and no doubt one of those will be "keep your mouth shut now".

 

Any connection between Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew and the British royal family needs to be firmly swept under the carpet and not discussed any further.

 

Maybe this is why the 'announced' invasion of Ukraine by Russia never happened? 'Distraction no longer required'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The itinerant shrubber said:

I don't deny he's a degenerate but there's two sides to every story. 

Most likely this girl was a prostitute out to make some money. 

She was 17 at the time and of legal age. She was old enough to know what she was doing. Nobody put a gun to her head. 

Of course the media will always take the side of wamen when they cry victim. God forbid a woman ever takes personal responsibility for their actions any more. 

 

How do you know? Maybe she was threatened. 'Have sex with Andrew or we'll kill you'.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

That's basically it. Money seems to many people to be the answer to your problems.

 

But don't forget, Virginia is reliant on the lawyers so she'd have to trust in what they say. In this case, weighing up all aspects including cost and risk etc....

If the lawyer puts in certain way, she would have to agree (without having legal knowledgte).

 

4 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

"Principles" and "doing the right thing" is lost to many now.

 

If somebody had made some accusations against myself, and I felt that they were somehow 'baseless', I'd never agree to making a settlement to avoid the case going to trial.

Even if you were innocent and want to clear your name, you could lose the case by simply not having enough evidence to back your claim/circumstance and if you lose, you'll have to pay the Defendant's cost. There is always a risk which you and your legal team has to access.

 

4 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

But then again, I don't have the financial backing of the Royal Family and the British taxpayer. 🥳

 

May be one day, you will. We'll vote for you if you want to become the PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of press saying there is no NDA and she just needs to keep mouth shut until after the jubilee.  Strange if true that there wasn't an NDA attached to the payoff?

 

Also, if he defended himself at civil court and lost, he would pay out millions. But decided not to and still payout millions! Can be only to stop other aspects of private life coming out in a full civil trail.

 

I wonder if PA just fronted up at the start....yes, I slept with her, I didn't know she was trafficked, she told me she was 25...I was a single guy.....

 

I think the cover up is always usually worse. The Pizza Express and the sweating nonsense, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...