Gransnet forums

News & politics

Prince Andrew served with legal papers over sexual assault lawsuit (Telegraph)

(204 Posts)
GagaJo Fri 10-Sept-21 21:51:30

He was served on August 27 at his home in Windsor and has until September 17 to respond, the affidavit states.

Staff had “already been primed not to allow anyone access on to the property to serve court process and instructed anyone not to accept the service”, according to the document.

uk.yahoo.com/news/prince-andrew-served-legal-papers-173537789.html

Ramblingrose22 Sat 11-Sept-21 23:09:44

I think the way PA and his legal team are trying to dodge out of being served with these papers is just making PA look more devious and more determined to avoid answering for himself.

Surely if he is innocent he has no need to try and avoid defending himself in court?

lemsip Sat 11-Sept-21 22:28:43

ExDancer

OK, he's a sleazeball and a coward, but when introduced to an attractive, ready and willing young woman who surely knew she was there to have sex, what man like him would think of asking her name or age beforehand? She didn't look underage in that photo. And why should he remember her out of all the prostitutes he obviously mixed with?
Not defending him, just thinking outside the box.

exactly!

Casdon Sat 11-Sept-21 22:06:47

As you’ve regularly posted about the wealth of the members of the Royal Family *trisher, it was gratuitously mean spirited to say ‘I suppose mummy will pay’. Why did you say that?

nadateturbe Sat 11-Sept-21 21:36:49

Agree Grany

trisher Sat 11-Sept-21 20:56:31

Apparently though if he refuses to engage he can be judged in absentia and damages awarded accordingly. I suppose mummy will pay.

Callistemon Sat 11-Sept-21 20:50:46

But how will he prove innocence? He can't.
He doesn't have to.

He is presumed innocent until proven guilty under the 6th Amendment.
The prosecutors have to prove him guilty and a judge has to agree.

Alegrias1 Sat 11-Sept-21 20:50:18

Thanks 25Avalon

MissAdventure Sat 11-Sept-21 20:47:28

The truth will set you free.

25Avalon Sat 11-Sept-21 20:45:33

Alegrias I think the difference is one is on the balance of probabilities whilst the other is beyond reasonable doubt.

Alegrias1 Sat 11-Sept-21 20:41:11

Nobody ever has to prove their innocence do they? Innocent till proven guilty. Although I believe the burden of proof is less in civil cases. I'm sure somebody on here knows more about this than me.

Zoejory Sat 11-Sept-21 20:12:36

But how will he prove innocence? He can't.

I've no time for the man and believe he should have spoken with authorities at the time but it's still an impossible situation.

He said, she said.

MissAdventure Sat 11-Sept-21 20:09:53

This is his chance to show that he is innocent then.
That is all that is being asked of him.
At the moment he is proven neither guilty nor innocent.
I would be rushing to make sure I was ruled out.

Alegrias1 Sat 11-Sept-21 20:09:09

Grandma70s

I still believe in the principle of innocent until proved guilty. I’m beginning to wonder if anyone else does.

Absolutely. And as soon as Andrew speaks to the proper authorities and no guilt is proven, I'll believe him. While he's hiding away, trying to dodge the lawyers? Well, we'll have to wait and see, won't we.

Grandma70s Sat 11-Sept-21 20:06:41

I still believe in the principle of innocent until proved guilty. I’m beginning to wonder if anyone else does.

Grany Sat 11-Sept-21 19:49:35

Thank you LauraNorder maddyone Lucca

I agree with all your posts too. smile

And timely the day Andy was served with legal papers Republic has a Billboard with him it says No one is above the law

Lincslass Sat 11-Sept-21 19:27:13

Yes Grandma70s, it is so distasteful, maligning the Queen, when no one , certainly the commenters on here, know what is going on. Let me say, I could imagine the Queen would be horrified by these allegations, would be reading him the riot act. What more should she do, lock him in the Tower.

Lucca Sat 11-Sept-21 19:18:59

Me too.

maddyone Sat 11-Sept-21 19:08:35

I also agree with Grany.

MissAdventure Sat 11-Sept-21 18:57:54

There, there.
You'd better fo and lie in a darkened room.. grin

LauraNorder Sat 11-Sept-21 18:56:39

This one and only time, probably never to be repeated…
I agree with Grany
Shock horror

MissAdventure Sat 11-Sept-21 18:56:38

If he has nothing to fear, then why put his family through this sooner than answer some questions?

Grany Sat 11-Sept-21 18:48:52

“On Monday, a US judge must determine whether the papers have in fact been "served" before any case can get under way.”

Monday will be interesting.

This is shameful. Absolute contempt for a legitimate process. He should be accepting the papers and defending himself in court, not hiding behind his police detail in the hope it’ll go away.

Anniebach Sat 11-Sept-21 18:40:31

Considering the lies about her family over many years perhaps the Queen does believe him.

I doubt many would overrule legal advice

25Avalon Sat 11-Sept-21 18:31:40

Maybe the Queen doesn’t believe he is guilty. Maybe she is trying to persuade him to break his silence although last time he did he dropped himself right in it. At the moment it is a civil case rather than a criminal one so maybe she doesn’t see him as a criminal. We really don’t know. I expect his lawyers have told him to keep quiet.

MrsPickle Sat 11-Sept-21 18:27:54

Reminds me of the Tin Drum, where he hides under his mother's wide skirts...
only this isn't fiction.