Oops! The Prince formerly known as Duke drops another clanger!

Yes Smileless thank you, I am unsure about “ She was too frightened to go to court”, she walked publicly surrounded by journalists ,, gave. Tv interviews

Anniebach, that argument could apply to many, many court cases. As I explained in another post, especially when it comes to offences of a sexual nature, especially historic cases, then there is often a lack of physical evidence and yes, it can doe down to 'he said/she said' and which witness is the more credible. I've sat on a jury, but also reported on court cases for more than 40 years, so I've seen it from various angles. There are very few cases which are totally black and white.

I would have accepted that there could well be a case for him to answer had VG gone ahead with the civil case and been awarded damages Doodledog.

Quote Doodledog Sat 01-Nov-25 15:21:39
Anniebach
Doodledog Sat 01-Nov-25 14:26:49
Annie what would you accept as proof?

Certainly not ‘he was/is for ‘probably was/is’, Doodledog ,
That is not even trying to answer the question.

You keep saying what you won't accept, but I am genuinely interested to know what you (or anyone else who complains about lack of proof) would accept, given that the alleged offences took place in private. How is it possible for VG and the other trafficked girls to get justice?

I have never been in a jury, not permitted because I receive pension from a police force. Would have found it difficult possibly but just on ‘he said / she said’ , very difficult , I have known the family of a man hanged for murder but given a pardon some years later,

Aveline

Actually I don't think Andrew should go to America to appear. It's far too dangerous for him. He knows too much. He knows who was at these 'parties' and what went on. He can name names who wouldn't want to be known about. He'd end up like Epstein in a mysterious 'suicide'.

I don't think he'd have to travel to America to be in danger, Aveline.

Maxwell already has 2 counts of perjury so she has shown herself to lie under oath. No plea bargaining has ever been offered by the prosecution or requested by her defence lawyers.

There's some speculation that she would just say what the Trump administration want to hear in exchange for some kind of leniency.

Maxwell's case is overseen by an Obama appointed judge - thus seen as the enemy by Trump - one of the disadvantages of having a politically driven judiciary.

Maxwell argued in court papers ahead of her trial that the allegations against her were so old that there is little in reliable evidence left to disclose. She cited witnesses who have since died or whose memories could not now be replied upon or that corroborating documentary evidence she may be able to rely upon was destroyed long ago.

Maxwell's latest appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court last month.

I daresay that every can of worms opened in this case merely presents an even larger can of worms to be opened. Like a set of Russian dolls.

When you look at the "Get Out of Jail Free" card Epstein was handed following his first conviction, it's seems very likely that there's a lot of people ready to sweep a lot of the truth under a very heavy carpet.

Labradora I have no doubt that the worms you mention will try to wriggle away, but in what other legal cases has there been an 'all or nothing' approach? If a gang of crooks can't all be prosecuted, do we let the others go? I can't think of a time when that has ever been suggested.

Also, knowing that Andrew's life is likely to be in danger would mean that precautions could be taken to protect him in the (unlikely) event that he went to the US to give evidence. Or maybe he could do it over Zoom or something? These days people don't have to be physically present, so unless he was sentenced to jail (again, unlikely, IMO) he could stay here.

Anniebach

Doodledog Sat 01-Nov-25 14:26:49
Annie what would you accept as proof?

Certainly not ‘he was/is for ‘probably was/is’, Doodledog ,

That is not even trying to answer the question.

You keep saying what you won't accept, but I am genuinely interested to know what you (or anyone else who complains about lack of proof) would accept, given that the alleged offences took place in private. How is it possible for VG and the other trafficked girls to get justice?

Doodledog

Aveline

Actually I don't think Andrew should go to America to appear. It's far too dangerous for him. He knows too much. He knows who was at these 'parties' and what went on. He can name names who wouldn't want to be known about. He'd end up like Epstein in a mysterious 'suicide'.

I think you could be right.

I think that danger suggests that there is all the more reason for the parties to be investigated further, though. The idea that there are people with enough power to bump off anyone who might expose them, including an ex-Royal as well as possibly Epstein and Virginia Guiffre is terrifying. It really does give them carte blanche to do whatever they want, with no consequences.

I have no idea if there is any UK or American legal process to compel Andrew to comment on these matters further or not.
An attempt is,however, clearly being made to use him to prise open a can of American worms.
I might be OK with that (although Andrew doesn't seem to have been charged with a crime yet) if I thought all the worms were going to get the same punishment.
On the contrary I think some of the worms are so powerful and so dangerous that they will wriggle away leaving one man to carry the can.
I agree that it is possible that Andrew's life would be in danger.
As an aside , what on earth are they going to do with Ghislaine Maxwell next ? She really, really knows everything.

Doodledog Sat 01-Nov-25 14:26:49
Annie what would you accept as proof?

Certainly not ‘he was/is for ‘probably was/is’, Doodledog ,

As the saying goes “ no smoke without fire”
I can’t believe the late Queen would pay a very, very large sum of money and the King go to the lengths he has gone to this week if they hadn’t seen the flames never mind the smoke.
They knew what happened and have acted .
Perhaps if the Queen hadn’t acted this would all have been outed much sooner.

I agree OldFrill we are looking in the wrong direction. I expect there is a lot more to come out over time and the stripping him of his titles is a temporary smoke screen for perhaps worse. I don't think it will be case closed. Although personally I would rather not see his face on the front pages anymore.

Annie what would you accept as proof?

We read Probably ,! Now ‘may ! and I suspect’ , I will add “toss a coin, heads or tails”

Aveline

Actually I don't think Andrew should go to America to appear. It's far too dangerous for him. He knows too much. He knows who was at these 'parties' and what went on. He can name names who wouldn't want to be known about. He'd end up like Epstein in a mysterious 'suicide'.

I think you could be right.

I think that danger suggests that there is all the more reason for the parties to be investigated further, though. The idea that there are people with enough power to bump off anyone who might expose them, including an ex-Royal as well as possibly Epstein and Virginia Guiffre is terrifying. It really does give them carte blanche to do whatever they want, with no consequences.

The entire Virginia Guiffre saga may be providing Charles with a smokescreen to cover up something quite different. The disappearing hundreds and thousands of pounds from Pitch@thePalace accounts. The box of photographs dumped in China. Andrews connection to dubious/criminal business associates. I suspect there is much more to Charles' drastic actions than just the sex abuse scandal.

American Law is different from ours, so don't know.
They would be better advised to investigate :
Bill Richardson
Glenn Dubin
Marvin Marsky
Alan Dershowitz
George J Mitchell
Jean-Luc Brunel
All named in Guiffre's deposition, sealed and she swore not to open, but somehow it was.

Can somebody be prosecuted if the evidence is substantially the word of somebody who has died, unless there is more that we don’t yet know of which incriminates Andrew? Genuine question, as I’m struggling to envisage how it would work at this stage.

Aveline
I think you make a very good point. Reading SM over here, it seems that for some, no punishment is sufficient for an unproven “crime.”
Certainly there are those in the US who would much rather remain anonymous. That’s one reason for keeping the focus on Andrew.

Actually I don't think Andrew should go to America to appear. It's far too dangerous for him. He knows too much. He knows who was at these 'parties' and what went on. He can name names who wouldn't want to be known about. He'd end up like Epstein in a mysterious 'suicide'.

gentleshores an interesting perspective and, on thinking about it, I agree.

gentleshores

He has no protection now and could easily be hauled through courts. From the Spectator:

"Of course, Andrew has always insisted on his innocence and that must still be presumed. He denies the allegations made against him and always has, and no criminal charges have ever been brought. But it may be that the American authorities now invite him to prove that – and the reality is that there are few practical, let alone legal, obstacles left to such a request. The Home Secretary would no longer be weighing constitutional symbolism or diplomatic embarrassment. She would be dealing with a man. Not a prince." archive.ph/jWYlS#selection-1771.0-1771.517

We didn't succeed in getting the woman who killed a young man on his motorbike. She killed someone and the Americans snuggled her out of England. Not sure why we need to play ball with a judicial system that won't play ball with our system. Send her back to face justice for killing a teenager.

He has no protection now and could easily be hauled through courts. From the Spectator:

"Of course, Andrew has always insisted on his innocence and that must still be presumed. He denies the allegations made against him and always has, and no criminal charges have ever been brought. But it may be that the American authorities now invite him to prove that – and the reality is that there are few practical, let alone legal, obstacles left to such a request. The Home Secretary would no longer be weighing constitutional symbolism or diplomatic embarrassment. She would be dealing with a man. Not a prince." archive.ph/jWYlS#selection-1771.0-1771.517

That should say "doesn't" detract from

Maybe I'm still being devil's advocate again but - Andrew wanted to have a court case and clear his name. He was apparently persuaded not to go that route to save the Queen and go for an out of court settlement instead. That should have been the end of it, but it wasn't. I am not saying he's guilty or innocent and not defending him but suddenly now it seems forgotten this was all settled out of court and compensation for domestic abuse charities etc and Ms Giuffre was supposed to go away and had $12 million dollars. Clearly that didn't help her. But from what I understand, her eventual demise was due to a divorce from her husband and losing her children. While that detract from the fact she had a life of abuse before she married and had children, it's all getting hystrionic now IMO. As if she killed herself because of Andrew - rather than a much wider picture. As the most high profile person it is now a big problem for the Monarchy and I don't believe Charles does believe it's true - it is the way the "firm" deals with things and PR. It has probably been an amicable agreement in the Royal Family for damage limitation. With Andrew agreeing to put the Crown first. I don't think it's the vendetta the press are making it out to be. I don't know what Andrew's reputation was before but his ex girlfriends seem to think he's great.