Prince Andrew

[Hymie]

According to this story, Prince Andrew is denying that Ghislaine Maxwell was his 'close friend' – but watching some TV program (very recently), there was a ex-palace official stating that she visited him regularly at Buck House, on one occasion coming and going four times in a day. And stating that he believed at one time they were ‘an item’.

Are Andrew & his lawyers not monitoring the media for relevant stories – that might contradict his claims?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10445007/Prince-Andrew-files-legal-papers-DENYING-Virginia-Robertss-sex-abuse-allegations.html

[douglas9401]

Oh pshaw, don't be coy, your potentially libellous removed answer, your defence of which remains at 20:26.

[andy-hughes]

JJ109 - // Andy - speak for yourself, not for others! //

OK!!

[tomus42]

I think Andrew is a fool. He hasn't learnt from his disastrous TV interview. He still thinks he can turn up, tell his version of events (whether he believes it himself or not) and it will all be believed, sorted out, and blow over because he's a royal.

There's no way any jury will find in his favour, let alone an American one.

[andy-hughes]

tomus - // I think Andrew is a fool. He hasn't learnt from his disastrous TV interview. He still thinks he can turn up, tell his version of events (whether he believes it himself or not) and it will all be believed, sorted out, and blow over because he's a royal.

There's no way any jury will find in his favour, let alone an American one. //

I agree.

I think he genuinely believes that he has done nothing wrong, either in his choice of friends, or his choice of social activities.

I would reiterate my point, that because he wants to see events in a certain way, that is the way they are, and therefore everyone else will see them the same as he does.

I think he may be seriously dispossessed of that perception if his case goes to a jury trial.

[tomus42]

As both he and Giuffre? Have asked for a jury trial I suppose that's what will happen.

To be fair, having seen the way the judge had made up his mind before hearing anything in the last court case, he might as well go with a jury.

[Peter Pedant]

// the reality, is the reality, regardless of what simple facts may offer as contrary evidence.//

can equally and or validly apply to the plaintiff one V Jiuuffre

[Peter Pedant]

// the judge had made up his mind//

wiv gazza and his privacy case ( before TTT's beloved human rights act) the judge ( aka judgie-baby) walked in and said - - "dont we know the law on this case?"

injunction not granted ( no right to privacy in those good olde days)

and secondly - NJ is expecting this - with one of the many unsuccessful appeals of the irish non bombes
judgie baby ( Lane I think ) said - the longer this case goes on the more convinced....
another wise wise soul regretted that hanging was not available to the old dear - to hang THEM not realising he was hanging himself

[andy-hughes]

Even though it appears that both sides want their day in court, there is a chance of a settlement right up to the day the case commences.

Ninety per cent of civil cases like this are settled before reaching court, and I am sure both sets of lawyers are ready to negotiate if the two parties agree to that as a solution.

My point remains - I think that regardless of what outcome this situation has, Andrew's reputation, and potential future as a working royal, are both destroyed already.

[Peter Pedant]

// He only needs to be 'alleged' in a court of law, where a burden of proof is required.// wiffle but never mind

is any one struck by the irony ( yes ! irony) of NOT discussing Boris and partygate on spurious grounds. OO it may be a police investigation and so we are not allowed to discuss....

we are: it is only after charges we cant.
the wise people who rule us are trading on our ignorance and the mods and the spare ed's

civil cases here are decided by a judge and so discussion on the internet is VERY unlikely to sway a judge - they so wise you see, like NJ -

and we hear whilst we are at it - that the Gray report is gonna be redacted big time on account of interfering with police investigatons

Prince Andrew's case ( the rand's) is being heard in New York and so it is extremely unlikely that discussion here can sway anything
(including statement that the judge hearing the case is clearly biassed)

Finally.... Judge Judy - a case cannot beget a case - and since Andy' s comment was about a case, it is unlikely the lover-Prince or lovely Prince would have a case for libel. British rule is - "interest rei publicae finis ad litem" - but Judge judy's is better.

so basically le it all hang out !
you have nothing to fear xc fear ( oh and the crazy mods on AB, random dleeters all of them)

[andy-hughes]

Peter - // you have nothing to fear xc fear ( oh and the crazy mods on AB, random dleeters all of them) //

Clearly that's not true - your asinine ramblings day after day remain largely untouched.

[William51]

In this case there is no smoke without fire. He has always had a larger than life character but he will not be able to argue against the palace official. He may be heading for a bumpy fall.