The man formerly known as Prince can fall no further....

Smileless2012

The one's I see as baying Doodledog are the ones insisting that Andrew is guilty, appearing to delight in what has already befallen him and wanting more.

Exactly.
He might be guilty, I’m not disputing that, but the media, including GN having already made up their mind and adding daily evidence
is like watching Fury the cur at the mouse’s trial
I'll be judge, I'll be jury," Said cunning old Fury: "I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death.”

What is the rate of success in rape trials? From memory, it is very low.
Burden of proof can be such a burden for the victim.

I can only speak for myself Smileless2012, and say I’m not anti the royals at all, or baying for his blood, I simply believe that on the balance of all the information that is available through all the sources, there is no smoke without fire. You do not have to search and find stories which are dodgy to discredit him, when there are credible stories from people who know him, emails and photographs, which are not made up, surely.

Smileless2012

The one's I see as baying Doodledog are the ones insisting that Andrew is guilty, appearing to delight in what has already befallen him and wanting more.

Yes, but what I am asking is which derogatory term you would use for those insisting that VG was lying.

The one's I see as baying Doodledog are the ones insisting that Andrew is guilty, appearing to delight in what has already befallen him and wanting more.

I just wish they would get everything out and deal with it,prison sentences where necessary, whoever it is Amen to that Casdon.

Smileless2012

It's not just the press that's baying Charleygirl.

If those questioning Andrew's innocence are 'baying', what is the word you would use for those assuming, on the same evidence (or lack of it, if you prefer) that VG is lying and has obtained £12m by deception? Are they 'baying' for her disgrace? Or are they 'clamouring, 'yowling', 'exhorting'?

Autocarrot . I'm with you all the way when it comes to proof Doodledog but so far haven't seen any and in the absence of proof, is it really fair to condemn and sentence anyone, when there isn't any?

There have been successful convictions of historical sex abusers, I agree that it in't easy but it isn't impossible either.

Mollygo

Casdon

The evidence for his dealings regarding the Epstein set up is in the USA Mollygo, not by any means all released. This is not a typical scenario by any stretch of the imagination. You can only try somebody fairly with the evidence available. We must bide our time.

Even when it is all released do you actually have any faith that that release will have happened, especially if it doesn’t incriminate some of the “alleged” visitors?

I think it will incriminate a lot more people than we currently know about Mollygo, and that it will be at least partially suppressed until after Trump’s death. There probably will be some people who are currently incriminated about who there is no more evidence than we already know about, but I suspect that Epstein kept meticulous records, and there is a lot more to come. To be honest, the whole sorry saga makes me feel ill, I just wish they would get everything out and deal with it, prison sentences where necessary, whoever it is.

You must have missed my post a few days ago Doodledog when I did respond to acceptable evidence. Citing forensic evidence at the 'scene of the crime', from the victim and the accused.
Apologies. I did miss it, but as you suggest, as soon as the cleaners have been in, and the sheets have been changed that evidence is going to be difficult to collect.

Where the length of time between the crime taking place and being reported makes this unlikely, checking the suspects alibi at the time of the crime and any corroborative evidence.
I wonder whether Pizza Express keeps booking information for years on end? Or does Tramp nightclub have a guest list? Medical records would show whether someone had a condition that prevented sweating. That sort of thing? The trouble with private jets and private islands is that (I assume - I don't know anyone who owns either) records will be kept rather less assiduously than when more public facilities are used.

In normal circumstances staff working at the scene of an alleged crime would be called to give evidence, but at least one person on this or the other thread has said that they should be punished for 'betraying confidences', even when the 'confidential' information was that he was asked to break the law by 'digging up dirt' on VG. All of these things - the demands for impossible 'proof', the gagging of material witnesses, the massive power imbalance between the alleged perpetrators and their (alleged) victims combine to make the idea of justice all but impossible.

Yes, not 'use'. Bloody Autocarrot!

Smileless2012

There are plenty of examples on this thread and others about Andrew that there's a cover up and the only reason he hasn't been charged with anything is because of his royal birth Doodledog, which to me is saying 'one law for one and another law for others.

Why is Annie's post Photographs? unbelievable. I'm only aware of one of Andrew and VG, are there others with her or other young women/girls?

Use, I realise that's what you are saying, but you brought Mandelson into it as a comparator, which confuses things.

The idea that photos of people having sex against the will of one of them are necessary as 'proof' is unbelievable to me. For one thing, the chances of their being taken are virtually nil, and for another there would be accusations that they are fake, which is what happened when VG publicised her own photo. I have no idea whether there are others, but if not, I don't see that as proof of innocence.

I fully understand that the innocent don't have to prove it, but as I keep asking, if an act happens in private, what proof do people think can possibly exist? Nobody has answered.

For avoidance of doubt (and for the umpteenth time) I am not saying that people on this thread are suggesting that it is ok for people to do what they like in private. I have never said anything of the kind, as I would have thought was blindingly obvious. What I am saying is that if proof is not possible because of the private nature of the offence, and if the only way someone can be found guilty is if proof is produced, then ipso facto there is no chance that a perpetrator (of any status) can be called to account, so by definition they can do as they like. There is a huge difference.

It's not just the press that's baying Charleygirl.

I think Andrew will be winging his way to Abu Dhabi soon, where neither the USA nor the UK will put him on trial. I also think the baying press should go home because I feel Andrew has gone through enough. It would appear that some will not be happy until he commits suicide.

I must have missed the announcement that the King and the rest of the RF have convicted Andrew and found him guilty ronib.

Of course it couldn't be that they want him 'out of the way' so they can get on with their work without this particular cloud hanging over their heads, and being mentioned whenever possible like it was this morning with the piece on William's Earth Shot initiative.

You must have missed my post a few days ago Doodledog when I did respond to acceptable evidence. Citing forensic evidence at the 'scene of the crime', from the victim and the accused.

Where the length of time between the crime taking place and being reported makes this unlikely, checking the suspects alibi at the time of the crime and any corroborative evidence.

Excellent post @ 13.13 Mollygo.

How do you know what if anything this evidence 'proves' against Andrew Casdon if it hasn't even been released?

ronib

Didn’t all this sexual activity happen about 20 or more years ago? Something just doesn’t smell right. Does it take 20 years for an underage girl to come forward?

It can take many years for a victim of sexual abuse to come forward, yes. How else do you think historic sex abuse cases come to light? My friend's daughter was groomed by an older man when she was just 13. It took years before she finally realised that what he had convinced her was a 'real relationship' was actually abuse, and after having children of her own, she finally found the courage to report him to the police. That happened almost 20 years ago, and the court case only took place last year.

Casdon

The evidence for his dealings regarding the Epstein set up is in the USA Mollygo, not by any means all released. This is not a typical scenario by any stretch of the imagination. You can only try somebody fairly with the evidence available. We must bide our time.

Even when it is all released do you actually have any faith that that release will have happened, especially if it doesn’t incriminate some of the “alleged” visitors?

The evidence for his dealings regarding the Epstein set up is in the USA Mollygo, not by any means all released. This is not a typical scenario by any stretch of the imagination. You can only try somebody fairly with the evidence available. We must bide our time.

I read an interesting article yesterday in The Sunday Times regarding VG. It was about another Epstein victim who actually sued VG for defamation as she said that the book VG had written was at best exaggerated and at worst bare faced lies. That particular victim said she had never seen Andrew present when she was around. Once again, I don't know the truth of what happened but it appears that it is not the black and white case that the press are insinuating.
Somebody asked if I'd like my daughter having sex at 17 with such an old man and, of course, the answer is definitely a no but I would like to think that in the circumstances I would be looking out for my daughter far more than VG's parents did. The moment she came home saying somebody was recruiting her for massage, I'd have been suspicious and demanding to see that person before she went near the place. If she had continued down that path, she would have been under no doubt that I was there to support her when she realised where she was heading. VG just didn't have that support by the looks of things.

The internet is currently swimming with allegations of various other misdeeds.
The sort of sources that would be dismissed by posters on here if it didn’t support their views. It only wants the DM to add something.

Exactly how much punishment would you like for an unproven verdict? Knitting needles? Tumbrels? Imprisonment? Suicide?

I’d like to see punishment for what Andrew has done-indulging in sex with minors, possibly consorting with sex traffickers -guilt by association.
The constant gleeful adding of other unproven claims makes me feel queasy.

I’d also like to see the naming of others involved by Andrew or anyone else and for them to be brought to trial before the start of his trial. If he’s found guilty then he should be punished (he has already), but not to carry the can for all the others involved.
(That’s presuming they wouldn’t get away with pleading the 5th Amendment).

GN threads have made the difficulty of a fair trial quite clear.

Look at the Mechanisms to Ensure a Fair Trial and ask yourself how useful these measures would be, just based on these threads.

Courts employ several measures to counteract media influence and uphold the right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental human right:

Presumption of innocence: This core principle dictates that any person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Except on GN maybe?

Jury instructions:
Judges specifically and repeatedly instruct jurors to ignore any information they may have seen or heard outside the courtroom and to base their decision solely on the evidence presented during the trial.

Contempt of Court Act:
In jurisdictions like the UK, laws such as the Contempt of Court Act 1981 make it an offence to publish information that could pose a "substantial risk of serious prejudice" to an active legal case. This applies to both traditional media and social media users, and breaches can result in fines or imprisonment.

Postponement of proceedings:
In some cases, a judge may order a delay in the trial (a "postponement" or "stay of proceedings") until the potentially prejudicial effects of media coverage have faded (the "fade factor").

Jury selection and cautioning:
Lawyers can use processes like voir dire (questioning potential jurors) and supplemental questionnaires to identify and challenge potential jurors who may hold strong biases due to media exposure. Jurors are also given strict warnings about using the internet or social media to research the case or the defendant.

Change of venue: In high-profile cases where local prejudice is a major concern, the trial may be moved to a different location.
Local prejudice?

Sequestering the jury:
In extreme cases, a jury may be isolated from the public and media for the duration of the trial to ensure they are not influenced by external information.

Didn’t all this sexual activity happen about 20 or more years ago? Something just doesn’t smell right. Does it take 20 years for an underage girl to come forward?

The evidence is corroborative OldFrill. A significant proportion of Thai prostitutes are aged between 12 and 17. Virginia Guiffre was a minor when she was trafficked. She identifies some girls were 14, they have given statements, but they are not yet in the public arena. You can choose to believe he is innocent until proven guilty, I think that is just a matter of time.

Casdon

eazybee

There is though already significant evidence of Andrew having sex with underage girls.
Is there, or is this more hearsay?
If it appears I stand corrected.

Guiffre has accused him; he has denied it; at present neither can prove it.
On the occasion of the visit to London, she was seventeen a and a half, and therefore of the age of consent in Britain.
And people should remember that the reason she agreed to give evidence against Epstein, after initially refusing, was because she had been accused of recruiting underage girls while working as a paid employee of Epstein.
I think Andrew's financial dealings with Epstein are of much greater concern, as are his dealings with the Chinese, and the mess he has made of his royal business affairs.

There’s this.
nypost.com/2025/10/31/world-news/ex-prince-andrew-allegedly-had-40-prostitutes-brought-to-thailand-hotel-on-taxpayer-funded-trip/

I have seen no credible reports (just repeated misinformation on SM) that Andrew has ever been accused of underaged sex. Guiffre was pursuing him for sexual abuse as she had been trafficked to him and therefore she did not consent to sex, her age was immaterial, though notable (him 41 her 17).
No credible references that I've read to his other reported exploits with prostitutes suggests they were underage.

I read online this morning that Andrew may go to Abu Dhabi where he has been offered fabulous accommodation by the sheik who is an old friend. Good riddance if it’s true.

Regarding his medals, I think that honorary ones should be removed, but any he has earned (assuming that this was by the same standards as other recipients) should be retained.