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

Smileless2012

Whatever we may think, VG accepted the out of court settlement of 12 million £'s so she was just as complicit by accepting the offer as Andrew with Queen Elizabeth's backing, were for offering it.

So in this particular case, the only reason that Andrew was able to buy a presumption of innocence is because VG accepted the deal.

It appears that her family which includes the 'tearful' brother and sister in law who have given interviews, are seeking to be beneficiaries of VG's estate which includes a £1.2 million beach side property in Perth Australia, because she died intestate; without a will.

It's interesting that you quote to suit your agenda, manipulating words to make your views seem credible.
It takes little time to read why the inheritance is being contested, Virginia was estranged from her husband who she had accused of domestic abuse (indeed there was a guilty court verdict issued in Colorado). Virginia didn't want her estranged, abusive husband to inherit and her family are trying to uphold these wishes
Why she didn't leave a will is questionable, no doubt you'll have a view on that to discredit the victim further.

Smileless2012

I don't suppose we'll ever know Mollygo. It could have been for the reason Galaxy has given.

This was a civil case Doodledog. There would never have been a conviction because it isn't a criminal case. Had the case gone to court and she'd won VG would have received a financial award for damages, Andrew would not have been convicted of a crime.

The case was settled out of court due to her accepting an out of court settlement.

It was a civil court case which in the US cost squillions Guiffre didn’t get 20 million the lawyers probably took the case on “no win no fee, that could easily have been 50%.”

They knew Andrew could get the money, they knew that a jury would find for the alledged victim - they always do. The Royal family didn’t want the adverse publicity so it was settled.

There is no evidence that the couple slept together or even met, other than the one photo we keep seeing and that could have been a “wannabe” having a snap with a celeb, or a fake manipulation.

Andrew is a fool by association for sure but there is no evidence that he abused anyone

Where do you get the idea that juries ‘always find for the alleged victim’?

In answer to the OP question, can Andrew fall any further, then yes, he can.
King Charles has handled the situation very well and must hope that Andrew will quietly move to Sandringham and keep a low profile.
However, across the Atlantic, there are calls for all the Epstein files to be out in the open and anyone committing an offence being charged to appear in court. According to the BBC news last night it is unlikely that President Trump will support this but future criminal proceedings will have Andrew looking over his shoulder for quite some time.

ronib

I don’t understand why the other celebrities and politicians involved with Virginia Giuffre have not been pursued and outed in the same way as Mr Mountbatten Windsor.
I don’t understand why the family of Virginia Giuffre is not in pursuit of the unnamed prime minister. Presumably he is known to someone?
Some news outlets are reporting that the Giuffre family want Andrew in jail. Will it ever stop?

Are they pursuing their grandfather who she claims abused her at a very young age or is that not profitable? Much as I find Andrew loathsome I think he's been made the patsy and many are glad to let him take the heat, this goes to the very highest levels in the US yet none have been pursued.

I wonder where Andrew will live on the Sandringham estate?

If it’s only him and possibly the dogs, he won’t need a huge place.

York Cottage looks suitable, but the name rules it out probably.

As Merlotgran observed before the events of the last few days, perhaps if he had agreed to move to Frogmore Cottage months ago, much of this would have quietly died down.

But he didn’t seem to want to keep a low profile.

Doodledog

Where do you get the idea that juries ‘always find for the alleged victim’?

I sat on a jury in a historical abuse trial and from the minute we discovered the nature of the case he was guilty in the eyes of most of the jury.

I am left wondering why the Australian healthcare system hadn’t intervened to stop Virginia Giuffre from committing suicide. I also ask where was her extended family when Virginia was so obviously in crisis?
There seems to be very little point in setting up a physical monument to Virginia Giuffre through a Go Find Me page. Funds to help the suicidal would be more practical.
There’s a lot of deflection going on when there’s room for improvement in suicide prevention and support in Australia it would seem.

LadyBridgerton

Doodledog

Where do you get the idea that juries ‘always find for the alleged victim’?

I sat on a jury in a historical abuse trial and from the minute we discovered the nature of the case he was guilty in the eyes of most of the jury.

I also sat on a jury in a historical abuse trial, and that certainly wasn't the case with us. Historical abuse cases are very difficult to prove, given the nature of the evidence and I can assure you that everything was weighed up very carefully before we came to a decision. There was definitely no presumption of guilt.

The proportion of rape prosecutions is very low, as low as 1% in recent years.
The cps always took the view unless conviction was at least 80% expected, it wouldn’t prosecute.

Anyone with experience in this area of law knows how difficult it is to get to Court, never mind convict.

lady Bridgestone, if we are doing anecdotes rather than research government stats, my sister had the misfortune to be in two rape trial juries, in both, the juries started from a position of sympathy for the accused. In both, no independent evidence hence NG finding. This is consistent with my work experience

Most civil compensation cases which this was, is the poor downtrodden victim v the rich evil person or company, juries are automatically sympathetic.

Because of reputational damage lawyers aim for a settlement out of court if the money is there, that’s the aim, of course if there is no money to chase, they won’t take the case.

Juries are always biased in these cases

IMO if the US authorities wish to question Andrew over Epstein, the files should be released and anyone regardless of their status should also be questioned.

The singling out of Andrew is wrong. Andrew is a fool by association for sure but there is no evidence that he abused anyone I agree David.

That's how juries are supposed to function ViceVersa.

Making a presumption of guilt before all the evidence has been presented and considered is not what they're supposed to do.

Perhaps you would like to quote from any of my posts where I am discrediting VG OldFrill.

Mollygo

So what would GNs like to happen re Andrew?
The media are doing the “digging up the dirt” bit, so there’s something else to look forward to, but what outcome would satisfy GNs ?
Imprisonment?
Suicide?
Attacks on SF? (I’m sure there’s a thread running about it being unreasonable to expect a wife to check everything her husband does.)
Exposés on his children?

I'd be satisfied with the status quo as from now.

Let Mr Mountbatten Windsor carry on with his seedy life on the Sandringham Estate - there in disgrace, fully humiliated, without his titles and disliked by all.

I find the calls for him to undergo further investigation by the American press slightly tacky - after all, none of Virginia's other abusers have been called to account, have they?

I wouldn't say he's been punished enough but he's been punished a lot more than most.

Smileless2012

IMO if the US authorities wish to question Andrew over Epstein, the files should be released and anyone regardless of their status should also be questioned.

The singling out of Andrew is wrong. Andrew is a fool by association for sure but there is no evidence that he abused anyone I agree David.

That's how juries are supposed to function ViceVersa.

Making a presumption of guilt before all the evidence has been presented and considered is not what they're supposed to do.

Perhaps you would like to quote from any of my posts where I am discrediting VG OldFrill.

In the post l quoted - your reference to her being "complicit".

Conviction of rape cases found guilty 2023/4 - 53%.

Google

But Andrew would not be brought to court for rape though.

It would be for sex trafficking.

All so bloody seedy.

Photo of Epstein, Maxwell and Weinstein together at a party given by WM for his daughter.

Who on earth exposes their children to known sex predators?

That’s true for sure Cabowich Andrew seems to have taken the heat off everyone else involved by virtue of his position in the world.
I agree with Smileless2012 and David49’s comments.
As for the tearful brother and SIS …!

Seems wealth and power are main reasons given for wanted him gone.

She was complicit in the civil case not going to court by accepting an out of court settlement OldFrill.

It's become a witch hunt Annie.

Further to the human trafficking charge.

JPMorgan warned the US government of $1bn!! of transactions that they considered were related to human trafficking by Epstein.

How much misery does that (and still) represent?

It is also clear from the palace statement that the RF side with the survivors and victims.

Good public relations exercise do we think? Wwm2

I disagree that it is a witch hunt. I would see it as the force of law being used to convict and try those guilty of heinous crimes against vulnerable young women and children.

WM has chosen to settle out of court, but this is probably the least satisfactory way of dealing with the charge as the stink of guilt hangs over his head. His choice though, so don’t be surprised at the continuous speculation - he has brought it entirely on his own head.

My sympathies lay entirely with the children and vulnerable young women who have suffered and continue to suffer.

LadyBridgerton

Doodledog

Where do you get the idea that juries ‘always find for the alleged victim’?

I sat on a jury in a historical abuse trial and from the minute we discovered the nature of the case he was guilty in the eyes of most of the jury.

Ok, but how does that mean that juries 'always' find for the victims?

David, you have gone from 'always' to 'most' and back again in your last post, but there is still no indication of what you are basing it on.

ronib

Good public relations exercise do we think? Wwm2

Absolutely that.

Quote Smileless2012 Sat 01-Nov-25 09:17:55
She was complicit in the civil case not going to court by accepting an out of court settlement OldFrill.

It's become a witch hunt Annie.

With you Smileless seems one man going to court will a abolish the Monarchy and dismiss any Americans