Religion & Spirituality4 mins ago
Prince Andrew
According to this story, Prince Andrew is denying that Ghislaine Maxwell was his 'close friend' – but watching some TV program (very recently), there was a ex-palace official stating that she visited him regularly at Buck House, on one occasion coming and going four times in a day. And stating that he believed at one time they were ‘an item’.
Are Andrew & his lawyers not monitoring the media for relevant stories – that might contradict his claims?
https:/
Are Andrew & his lawyers not monitoring the media for relevant stories – that might contradict his claims?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
o god hasnt there been a load of foo about this - and not only from the usual suspects ( ter daah)
it is called a general traverse - you get the statements of the plaintiff and stick 'nart' in.
frr'instance: the plaintiff avers the prince of the realm of the united kingdom was a boyfriend of the proven tart maxwell
goes to
the defendant denies the glorious and worshipful prince of the realm of the united kingdom had anything to do, wiffle even wiv maxwell tart or not
denies seriatim is a useful stuffer
"Under the former Rules of the Supreme Court it had been possible to put a claimant to proof of everything in the particulars of claim by means of a general “traverse”. ... This states that in a defence the defendant “must state… which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the claimant to prove”."
yeah OK the above says you cant do that now BUT
1. those arent american rules
2. and if they are - then not in NY
3. and if they are then not fed NY
4. the great reforms of the common law 1835 ( scrapping grans juries for a start) never reached across the atlantic
5. and or the reforms of 1854 and 1877
and so it makes sense
no one is gonna get down to here anyway
it is called a general traverse - you get the statements of the plaintiff and stick 'nart' in.
frr'instance: the plaintiff avers the prince of the realm of the united kingdom was a boyfriend of the proven tart maxwell
goes to
the defendant denies the glorious and worshipful prince of the realm of the united kingdom had anything to do, wiffle even wiv maxwell tart or not
denies seriatim is a useful stuffer
"Under the former Rules of the Supreme Court it had been possible to put a claimant to proof of everything in the particulars of claim by means of a general “traverse”. ... This states that in a defence the defendant “must state… which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the claimant to prove”."
yeah OK the above says you cant do that now BUT
1. those arent american rules
2. and if they are - then not in NY
3. and if they are then not fed NY
4. the great reforms of the common law 1835 ( scrapping grans juries for a start) never reached across the atlantic
5. and or the reforms of 1854 and 1877
and so it makes sense
no one is gonna get down to here anyway
Prince Andrew could have more to explain in a NY court than how his arm came to be around the bare waist of the plaintiff, and his name logged as a passenger on Epstein’s Lolita Express, visiting his private island.
A subpoena of the visitor records to Buck House and testament from place officials confirming Ghislaine’s regular visits might bring into question his sworn answers.
Jurors are unlikely to believe his version of events if it is shown he has been telling porkies.
A subpoena of the visitor records to Buck House and testament from place officials confirming Ghislaine’s regular visits might bring into question his sworn answers.
Jurors are unlikely to believe his version of events if it is shown he has been telling porkies.
-- answer removed --
douglas - // Alleged sex offender, the rest can stand. //
Thanks for the seal of approval, much needed, even more appreciated.
He only needs to be 'alleged' in a court of law, where a burden of proof is required.
In the world of public opinion, which I clearly referred to, people can think about him as they wish, and they do.
Thanks for the seal of approval, much needed, even more appreciated.
He only needs to be 'alleged' in a court of law, where a burden of proof is required.
In the world of public opinion, which I clearly referred to, people can think about him as they wish, and they do.
It is my perception, based on the way Prince Andrew came over in his interview on Newsnight, that he genuinely believes that if he remembers, or not, an instance, or a meeting, or a friendship, then what he perceives as the reality, is the reality, regardless of what simple facts may offer as contrary evidence.
I think that because it suits his situation to deny having met Ms Giuffre, and to deny his friendship with Ms Maxwell, then that is what he is offering as the truth, because he genuinely thinks that it is the truth.
I believe that were he to take a lie detector, he would pass, because the detector measures not what is true, but what the subject believes to be true - and he does.
The difficulty with that position, is that it involves ignoring factual evidence to the contrary, which is going to be brought out in court, should matters get that far.
My perception is that Prince Andrew genuinely does not think he has behaved either badly, or illegally, and that is why he is opting for a jury trial.
I think from his point of view, he believes he is absolutely right, beyond all reason, and that he will be proven as such, vindicated, and able to resume his life as a working royal.
I think that the reality may be somewhat different.
If the judgement is that he is not guilty of any crime under the law, the court of public opinion has already judged him, and he will carry the stigma of the accusations for the rest of his life.
We shall see where this goes, but I think the palace, and the Queen, must be worried at Andrew's obvious intention to fight to clear his name, which may be possible legally, but is looking increasingly unlikely from a public perception point of view.
I think that because it suits his situation to deny having met Ms Giuffre, and to deny his friendship with Ms Maxwell, then that is what he is offering as the truth, because he genuinely thinks that it is the truth.
I believe that were he to take a lie detector, he would pass, because the detector measures not what is true, but what the subject believes to be true - and he does.
The difficulty with that position, is that it involves ignoring factual evidence to the contrary, which is going to be brought out in court, should matters get that far.
My perception is that Prince Andrew genuinely does not think he has behaved either badly, or illegally, and that is why he is opting for a jury trial.
I think from his point of view, he believes he is absolutely right, beyond all reason, and that he will be proven as such, vindicated, and able to resume his life as a working royal.
I think that the reality may be somewhat different.
If the judgement is that he is not guilty of any crime under the law, the court of public opinion has already judged him, and he will carry the stigma of the accusations for the rest of his life.
We shall see where this goes, but I think the palace, and the Queen, must be worried at Andrew's obvious intention to fight to clear his name, which may be possible legally, but is looking increasingly unlikely from a public perception point of view.
douglas - // Good heavens! Seems I was closer to right than wrong.
I really need to be more confident when dealing with over-reaching pomposity. //
I have no idea what you are talking about, and care even less, so I would ask that you don't tax yourself with an explanation in which no one is interested, since your endless pointless sniping merely takes the thread off course.
I really need to be more confident when dealing with over-reaching pomposity. //
I have no idea what you are talking about, and care even less, so I would ask that you don't tax yourself with an explanation in which no one is interested, since your endless pointless sniping merely takes the thread off course.
