Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: normal rules on December 30, 2021, 09:12:48 am
-
With Ghislaine Maxwell now being found guilty, I wonder how Prince Andrews sweat glands are performing?
-
I wonder if she'll spill the beans on him before sentencing to try and get lower jailtime.
-
Well his legal team is working overtime to get his case thrown out on technicalities.
Not really the very best look, that, is it? You're accused of child abuse and instead of clearing your name, you try to have the claims shut down.
Meanwhile, what in the name of holy f**k were the BBC thinking last night, having Alan Dershowitz on the news as an impartial legal commentator on the Maxwell and Prince Andrew cases? He's up to his neck in the same allegations.
-
The private flight logs between uk and us with ghislaine, Andrew, Epstein plus various girls will make for interesting evidence should it come to it.
What they dubbed “The Lolita Express. “
What amazes me is Andrews point blank refusal to accept his knowledge of the girl who he is clearly seen with his arm around her naked mid riff. Virginia Giuffre.
Not heard the end of this.
Maxwell is staring down the barrel of the rest of her life in a US lockup. As a paedophile facilitator. Which won’t go down well with fellow inmates at all.
She may be tempted to give evidence herself if she thinks she might benefit.
-
She will be Omicronned off
-
Normal I seem to remember Andrew claiming that the picture had been doctored and something about the hand around her waist not being his ????
-
Think there will be a coincidental suicide
-
Big problem for Prince Andrew is that he's previously said he only got to know Epstein because he was good friends with Maxwell. So he was introduced to a convicted child abuser by a good friend who is now convicted of facilitating child abuse. And there's photographic evidence of him at Epstein's home with his arm round a girl who says she was forced by Epstein and Maxwell to have sex with him. And his legal team's response to that is to try to have the case thrown out on a technicality.
It's all starting to look a bit awkward.
-
Meanwhile, what in the name of holy f**k were the BBC thinking last night, having Alan Dershowitz on the news as an impartial legal commentator on the Maxwell and Prince Andrew cases? He's up to his neck in the same allegations.
BBC now admits it failed to meet their editorial standards
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59828961
Well that's all right then :facepalm:
-
It really is beyond belief DU. Anyone who knows anything at all about the Epstein case knows that Dershowitz is implicated up to the eyeballs in it. For the BBC to give him a platform to rant "This proves Prince Andrew and I are innocent" is beyond appalling. There is no way on earth that could have gone through the normal editorial channels. It feels very much like someone very high up indeed pulling strings to get their line out.
-
Interesting that a pic has also been revealed of ghislaine and Epstein together at a lodge at Balmoral.
This scandal strikes at the very heart of our royal family.
-
BTS's covid hero Bill Gates were also very good buddies with him.
-
Feel free to point out where I've eulogised Gates WR. Take your time. You'll need it.
-
BTS's covid hero Bill Gates were also very good buddies with him.
Bill Gates is a suprise hero of the Korean girly boy band sensation. As a result of this stunning information all my niece's have Bill G posters on their walls now. ;)
-
And the BBC has done it again.
R4 Today programme this morning had Ian Maxwell on for 5 minutes in which he repeatedly claimed that the prosecution was wrong and his sister was innocent.
Is it now BBC policy to invite family of all convicted sex abusers onto national news to explain why their siblings are innocent?
-
I’m sure that she is guilty as sin and deserves everything that is coming to her. I am not in any way advocating her innocence
I do think that at some stage the way these trials are played out in the media that an innocent person will be convicted.
The media especially in the USA and we are starting to follow in the UK very cleverly produce their reports in a very biased manner.
The pressure on the juries to convict must be awful. It is impossible for them to enter the court room without any kind of pre conception of the trial
Unless they watch no TV or read any newspapers or anything on social media they like everyone else are bombarded with it
The idea of a court is to prove guilt. I think we are nearly in a situation with these high profile cases where it’s about proving innocence.
-
I doubt there is much pressure on them, most of the general population don't have a clue who she is, or that there was a trial taking place.
-
I’m sure that she is guilty as sin and deserves everything that is coming to her. I am not in any way advocating her innocence
I do think that at some stage the way these trials are played out in the media that an innocent person will be convicted.
The media especially in the USA and we are starting to follow in the UK very cleverly produce their reports in a very biased manner.
The pressure on the juries to convict must be awful. It is impossible for them to enter the court room without any kind of pre conception of the trial
Unless they watch no TV or read any newspapers or anything on social media they like everyone else are bombarded with it
The idea of a court is to prove guilt. I think we are nearly in a situation with these high profile cases where it’s about proving innocence.
I am fairly sure I remember cases of Judges forbidding jurors in some high profile cases to watch TV, read newspapers, social media etc during a trial, and some jurors even being dismissed and possibly facing punishment when not complying (can't remember if that was US or UK or both). However obviously that does not cover the period before a trial begins where the damage may already have been done.
In this case though I am very disappointed with the BBC. Once might be a mistake but twice in 2 days smacks of influence somewhere high.
-
Dershowitz is also accused by Guiffre of sex offences against a minor.
Now giving a platform to an accused person in advance of any prospective court action is prejudicial to a fair trial in future.
Lawyers at the BBC should have been on this from the word go.
No information on who authorised these interviews, and how they passed the protocols for acceptance on a news channel.
There is nothing newsworthy about these interviews.
They are simply special pleading on behalf of a convicted offender, and those also accused of similar offences via the actions of that offender.
Shameful from the BBC, and the Head of News and the DG should resign.
They won't, so they should be sacked....but it will not happen because standards have reached rock bottom.
-
Well we’ll well. It looks like there is now a disclosure that the payoff Guiffre got from Epstein in 2009 had a clause attached meaning she could not sue anyone else who could be deemed another defendant in the case.
It would appear Andrew may be able to put the deodorant down.
For now anyway.
-
Around 14% of BBC staff went to public school. In top management that rises to over 30% and its 45% of its higher earners (over £150k per year).
No doubt some of them would have been at school (Marlborough) or university (Oxford) with Maxwell or her siblings.
A certain type of public school, Oxbridge educated people will always look for reasons to excuse the wrong doing of other public school, Oxford educated people and/or attempt to help them.
It is I am afraid as simple as that.
-
Well we’ll well. It looks like there is now a disclosure that the payoff Guiffre got from Epstein in 2009 had a clause attached meaning she could not sue anyone else who could be deemed another defendant in the case.
It would appear Andrew may be able to put the deodorant down.
For now anyway.
Yes, I am not sure Guiffre was well advised to accept this pay off.
The issue will focus upon whether an agreement is restricted to civil action, after Maxwell has been convicted of criminal offenses in a criminal trial.
There is also the matter of jurisdiction....can an agreement made under Florida regulations be applied to offenses committed elsewhere, including other countries?
-
Not a great look for Prince Andrew is it?
"You can't prosecute me for child sex abuse, because my good friend, the billionaire convicted child abuser paid you hush money."
-
Well we’ll well. It looks like there is now a disclosure that the payoff Guiffre got from Epstein in 2009 had a clause attached meaning she could not sue anyone else who could be deemed another defendant in the case.
It would appear Andrew may be able to put the deodorant down.
For now anyway.
Surely in order to determine whether Andrew is covered by this he has to show that he would has something to defend..?
And does that arrangement covered being sued outside the US?
-
The devil will be in the detail. For sure.
Not the the last of this though.
-
Grounds for a retrial perhaps....
https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/ghislaine-maxwell-may-have-grounds-for-mistrial-experts-say/
-
So they are looking at overlooking the perjury charges if there is no retrial. So the 60 year old defendant can cut up to 10 years off her potential 65 year long sentence
-
Well, I thought we had not heard the end of this, and so it is. Civil case now given green light.
Andrews Sweat glands back to defcon 1.
The only way I can see out of this now is for an out of court cheque book moment.
His worst case scenario is Ghislaine turns against him to feather her own nest with a poss sentence reduction for assisting in any future enquiry. She is highly likely to be a key witness who no doubt holds key evidence of Andrews activity.
-
:lol:
(http://)
-
Ouch
-
This is worth tens of millions to the Media Randy
Wont be able to buy himself out of trouble.
-
His options are now limited. All with risk.
1. Give evidence. Likely to be under deposition. Possibly even in the uk under US oath. Give his account. She would have to do the same . This then gets presented in a court . This could ultimately lead to a court trial though. Which could be very very damaging.
2. Stay silent. He is entitled to do this. But there could be a huge inference taken by this at court who may just find against him due to his silence.
3. Default. Or complete refusal to engage. Again, the court may just find against him.
4. Settle out of court. 95% of all us civil cases are settled out of court. It would not mean accepting liability. It would mean paying her out to shut her up. EXPENSIVE. Multi million dollars no doubt. And would be portrayed by the worlds media as an admittance of his involvement. That said , guiffre has already received extensive compo, and could be in this for justice. Which Andrew should be very very worried about. She may want blood. Literally.
-
Looks like he is trying to sell his £17million Swiss chalet to pay for legal fees already.
-
Prince Andrew loses HRH status.
Queen Set a precedent with Harry.
Her fave son now being ostracised.
A lot more pain to come.
I do feel for the Queen . In her Platinum year, after just losing her life partner. And I’m no royalist.
-
His options are now limited. All with risk.
1. Give evidence. Likely to be under deposition. Possibly even in the uk under US oath. Give his account. She would have to do the same . This then gets presented in a court . This could ultimately lead to a court trial though. Which could be very very damaging.
2. Stay silent. He is entitled to do this. But there could be a huge inference taken by this at court who may just find against him due to his silence.
3. Default. Or complete refusal to engage. Again, the court may just find against him.
4. Settle out of court. 95% of all us civil cases are settled out of court. It would not mean accepting liability. It would mean paying her out to shut her up. EXPENSIVE. Multi million dollars no doubt. And would be portrayed by the worlds media as an admittance of his involvement. That said , guiffre has already received extensive compo, and could be in this for justice. Which Andrew should be very very worried about. She may want blood. Literally.
The extra problem with 4 is that it'll look like he's using money given him from the taxpayer to shut her up.
-
His options are now limited. All with risk.
1. Give evidence. Likely to be under deposition. Possibly even in the uk under US oath. Give his account. She would have to do the same . This then gets presented in a court . This could ultimately lead to a court trial though. Which could be very very damaging.
2. Stay silent. He is entitled to do this. But there could be a huge inference taken by this at court who may just find against him due to his silence.
3. Default. Or complete refusal to engage. Again, the court may just find against him.
4. Settle out of court. 95% of all us civil cases are settled out of court. It would not mean accepting liability. It would mean paying her out to shut her up. EXPENSIVE. Multi million dollars no doubt. And would be portrayed by the worlds media as an admittance of his involvement. That said , guiffre has already received extensive compo, and could be in this for justice. Which Andrew should be very very worried about. She may want blood. Literally.
The extra problem with 4 is that it'll look like he's using money given him from the taxpayer to shut her up.
It is reported that queenie will not be bailing him out, hence why he has his £17m Swiss chalet up for sale.