Randy Andy Again

[TwelveAngryMen]

Aha, I've got it.

This isn't about her at all, this is about you wanting Andrew to be guilty, that's why you think he'll settle.

Personally I hope someone can persuade Carolyn (and others) to sue her, then it'll get really interesting.

You can’t accept HRHs culpability for his actions can you
I can hear you now -
‘ How dare this jumped up trailer trash stain the reputation of our illustrious royal family ‘
Just think for one minute - why did HRH travel to NYC to visit a convicted sex offender
It certainly wasn’t for the reasons he said
He was crapping himself then !

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

No I think they might all pay their own costs but it could be different state to state
If I have a mo I’ll check

So surely then it makes no sense to continue (and incur unnecessary additional cost of a trial), if settlement offered is in line with an expected award ?

Or am I missing something obvious??

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

So surely then it makes no sense to continue (and incur unnecessary additional cost of a trial), if settlement offered is in line with an expected award ?

Or am I missing something obvious??

For me the closer this gets to HRH having to give evidence the larger the cheque
The statement today also suggests ( whether tactically or not ) she wants her day in court and maybe the lawyers do as well - think of the profile ! You couldn’t buy that publicity
It’s the next OJ Simpson case
Not everyday you get the chance to make a HRH sweat

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

For me the closer this gets to HRH having to give evidence the larger the cheque
The statement today also suggests ( whether tactically or not ) she wants her day in court and maybe the lawyers do as well
Not everyday you make a HRH sweat

No I get that, but there still comes a point (if the right settlement is offered) that continuation out of ‘principle’ is a daft choice…. (Well unless you’ve got money to literally throw away).

There’s no question in my mind that PA will settle and I suspect it may be sooner rather than later…

I’m not saying he’s guilty, but he’s gone a long way towards giving a very good impression of someone who is…..

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

No I think they might all pay their own costs but it could be different state to state
If I have a mo I’ll check

Based on a quick look

Let's start with the general rule:

New York courts, following the "American Rule," disfavor allowing parties to recoup their legal fees that are incurred in litigation. As New York's courts have put it:

"It is well settled that legal fees are not recoverable unless provided under the terms of a contract or authorized by statute." See, U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. City Club Hotel, LLC, 3 N.Y.3d 592, 597, 789 N.Y.S.2d 470, 822 N.E.2d 777 [2004].

There are two (2) exceptions to this general rule:

1. When there is a statute that provides for the recovery of a party's legal fees incurred in the prosecution or defense of an action; or,
2. When the contract between the parties provides for the recovery of their legal fees.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

M

No I get that, but there still comes a point (if the right settlement is offered) that continuation out of ‘principle’ is a daft choice…. (Well unless you’ve got money to literally throw away).

There’s no question in my mind that PA will settle and I suspect it may be sooner rather than later…

I’m not saying he’s guilty, but he’s gone a long way towards giving a very good impression of someone who is…..

Not daft for public profile
Winning this one would set your reputation for life
I doubt very much she’s paying anything
If I was them I wouldn’t even entertain their calls trying to settle it
Just crack on

 

[Danny Ocean]

As this is a civil case what happens if the accuser meets with a nasty accident?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

M

Not daft for public profile
Winning this one would set your reputation for life
I doubt very much she’s paying anything
If I was them I wouldn’t even entertain their calls trying to settle it
Just crack on

So legal costs born by the lawyers then…. And presumably an agreement over how an award would be split?

Who makes the call in that case then TAM…? I think I may have read in another action (related to VG and other victims) that the Lawyers made the call whether or not to settle.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

So legal costs born by the lawyers then…. And presumably an agreement over how an award would be split?

Who makes the call in that case then TAM…? I think I may have read in another action (related to VG and other victims) that the Lawyers made the call whether or not to settle.

Hopefully collaborative but yes lawyers hold the power
I repeat though this is a once in a career case
You dream of running a case like this to trial
Why cut and run

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

As this is a civil case what happens if the accuser meets with a nasty accident?

Their estate can still pursue the claim

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Hopefully collaborative but yes lawyers hold the power
I repeat though this is a once in a career case
You dream of running a case like this to trial
Why cut and run

Boies is probably at the wrong end of the career ladder to be making a name for himself at 80 and has a pretty illustrious record, but I get you…

I must admit, the way the rhetoric has been going, I just anticipated a fairly quick settlement now that the Judge has given the go ahead…

Of course VG’s teams have said they want to go through with the process, but I’d written that off on the basis “what else would you expect them to say”

I hope it does go all the way TBH

 

[todayistheday]

Would you want to crack on for the money if VG said, thats enough or if she had severe mental issues resulting from the sexual assault,media attention and the civil claim. Is it a case of winning or amassing the most dollar/pound.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

Would you want to crack on for the money if VG said, thats enough or if she had severe mental issues resulting from the sexual assault,media attention and the civil claim. Is it a case of winning or amassing the most dollar/pound.

If she wanted to settle then of course you would
The point I’m making is that if she wants her day in court then don’t assume the lawyers will want out for a quick buck
It’s worth doing the case for free just for the profile
It’s the best shot at promoting yourself you are ever going to get

 

[Danny Ocean]

Thanks for your reply Tam, in the Kevin Spacey sexual assault one of the accusers died and the case got dropped.

Surely if the accuser is not able to testify in court it weakness the case, as the main evidence will be just a read-out statement.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

Thanks for your reply Tam, in the Kevin Spacey sexual assault one of the accusers died and the case got dropped.

Surely if the accuser is not able to testify in court it weakness the case, as the main evidence will be just a read-out statement.

It would to be fair however if there was sufficient evidence from others technically it could go ahead

 

[todayistheday]

If she wanted to settle then of course you would
The point I’m making is that if she wants her day in court then don’t assume the lawyers will want out for a quick buck
It’s worth doing the case for free just for the profile
It’s the best shot at promoting yourself you are ever going to get

Only if its a win, has there been any disastrous losses in similarish cases.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

Only if its a win, has there been any disastrous losses in similarish cases.

The lawyers on both sides of the OJ case weren’t complaining

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

Extract from the Times report

It was unclear whether Giuffre would be willing to settle the case, unless he acknowledged her allegations. “Her attorney David Boies is saying that she’s not interested in a settlement outside of an admission of liability,” Mitchell Epner, an attorney with the New York firm Rottenberg Lipman Rich, said. “This is a horrible day for Prince Andrew,” he added. “He has only bad options in front of him.”

He said he did not see how other members of the royal family could avoid being called as witnesses and predicted that Boies’s cross-examination could be devastating. “I would not want to be in the crosshairs of David Boies for a deposition,” he said. “I don’t think Saint Francis of Assisi would want to be in the crosshairs of David Boies for a deposition.”

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Was wondering that, whether settlement might require some acknowledgment from him. I suppose how far that would go would be up for negotiation.

The big issue for PA as well is that there is a sense that VG and others were denied their opportunity for justice when Epstein popped his clogs…. So acknowledgement could well have increased value as a result.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

Normally settlements are without admission but there are no rules that prevent that - indeed you actually often see it in defamation

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Normally settlements are without admission but there are no rules that prevent that - indeed you actually often see it in defamation

Interestingly comment from Boies was along the lines… “Ms Giuffre has done as much as she can to try and resolve without the need for litigation”

I’d inferred that meant that they’d sought a financial resolution, but perhaps they were looking for something else….

 

[bfcpete]

It will be interesting to see what may be exposed in discovery and whether Maxwell throw a few bouncers in a sentencing deal.

I have to say, some of the attempts by PA and his lawyers to skirm out of the case were quite pathetic. Particularly distasteful was the attempt to hold onto the coattails of the settlement agreement between Epstein and VG.

 

[Mark_GT]

Interestingly comment from Boies was along the lines… “Ms Giuffre has done as much as she can to try and resolve without the need for litigation”

I’d inferred that meant that they’d sought a financial resolution, but perhaps they were looking for something else….

Presumably an admission of some degree of culpability as opposed to "I have no recollection..." etc?

If it does go to court he is going to be woefully useless in the box. When you have that level of inherited privilege with such a weak intellect I cannot see how you can be prepared by any legal team, however good, to give a decent account of yourself. Sound familiar?

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

Bear in mind you all have the deposition stage in the US
This is effectively a form of cross examination that takes place in advance of a the trial

Deposition​

Out-of-court testimony a witness gives under oath before an officer authorized to administer oaths for use later in the proceeding. Depositions may be taken by:

• Oral examination, where the witness's answers to the deposing attorney's questions are recorded and often transcribed.
• Written questions, where the witness answers prepared questions in writing and attests to the truth of the answers.

A party may use deposition testimony:

• In support of (or in opposition to) a summary judgmentmotion at the end of discovery.
• To negotiate a favorable settlement before trial.
• At a hearing or trial under certain circumstances, such as to impeach the witness or to substitute for live testimony if the witness has died or is otherwise unavailable to testify in person.

 

[bfcpete]

Presumably an admission of some degree of culpability as opposed to "I have no recollection..." etc?

If it does go to court he is going to be woefully useless in the box. When you have that level of inherited privilege with such a weak intellect I cannot see how you can be prepared by any legal team, however good, to give a decent account of yourself. Sound familiar?

I am sure he will be well schooled by the defence lawyers. The trouble is he made many gaffes and incredulous statements in that public interview and there will be loads of evidence and witnesses to contradict him. The burden of proof is less in civil trials and he will be wary of making false statements in case it could lesd to any criminal charges. I can't recall will feature a lot I suspect. Can he wlso claim the 5th amendment? It will be interested if he tries to settle out of court and she refuses to.

 

[TangerineBayern]

If it does go the distance and he gives evidence in a US court for several hours that will be very interesting given the damage he managed to do in a 1 1/2 interview on Newsnight!

 

[Lala]

If it does go the distance and he gives evidence in a US court for several hours that will be very interesting given the damage he managed to do in a 1 1/2 interview on Newsnight!

He’s the last person the defence would want in any witness box. Comedy gold.

I feel like his privileged life has given him a deluded confidence that he’s bullet proof and that public support would be behind him. He cannot read the room, any room.

 

[Stony Hill]

Bear in mind you all have the deposition stage in the US
This is effectively a form of cross examination that takes place in advance of a the trial

Deposition​

Out-of-court testimony a witness gives under oath before an officer authorized to administer oaths for use later in the proceeding. Depositions may be taken by:

• Oral examination, where the witness's answers to the deposing attorney's questions are recorded and often transcribed.
• Written questions, where the witness answers prepared questions in writing and attests to the truth of the answers.

A party may use deposition testimony:

• In support of (or in opposition to) a summary judgmentmotion at the end of discovery.
• To negotiate a favorable settlement before trial.
• At a hearing or trial under certain circumstances, such as to impeach the witness or to substitute for live testimony if the witness has died or is otherwise unavailable to testify in person.

I’ve read all this thread and done my best to understand the legal jargon. I don’t know you TAM but I do know of you and your involvement in our own Prince (the unmentionables) A. Are you a professional in the Law trade? Thankyou.

 

[Lost Seasider]

You can’t accept HRHs culpability for his actions can you
I can hear you now -
‘ How dare this jumped up trailer trash stain the reputation of our illustrious royal family ‘
Just think for one minute - why did HRH travel to NYC to visit a convicted sex offender
It certainly wasn’t for the reasons he said
He was crapping himself then !

Has anything been proven at this stage?

 

[Mexboroseasider]

He’s the last person the defence would want in any witness box. Comedy gold.

I feel like his privileged life has given him a deluded confidence that he’s bullet proof and that public support would be behind him. He cannot read the room, any room.

Very very true. I suppose the question is whether he learnt any lessons from his TV interview? Or not?

While I think a settlement is the more likely outcome I’m not sure that’s a foregone conclusion.

There’s obviously huge pressure on him to settle in order to protect his mum and also his daughters - there’s talk of Beatrice giving evidence about the trip to the Pizza parlour for instance. Any son/father would surely want to protect his family from all that and that’s before you even start on the institution of the Royal Family.

But remember Epstein and Maxwell also both settled civil claims with Giuffre but still faced criminal charges. In other words I’m not sure a settlement necessarily makes PA’s problems go away, as so many media pundits are saying. They could actually make them worse. He needs to weigh up those risks.

So far as Giuffre is concerned she’s saying she wants justice and her day in court rather than a settlement. That may be true or it may just be a tactic to get PA to increase his offer. But there are pressures on Giuffre to settle as well.

It’s worth remembering that in the US, civil cases are decided before a jury and as we know from the Coulston Four case juries don’t always jump the way people expect. So there are two obvious questions:

1. Is PA as loathed in the US as he is in the U.K.? Or will a jury over there have a more forgiving view than the one expressed on here?
2. How will the jury react if and when they hear evidence from Carolyn Andriano and any other Epstein victims PA’s lawyers can find with a narrative similar to Andriano? Will a jury buy into Giuffre’s narrative that she was coerced? Or will they decide she was another predator and that it would be wrong to reward a predator? Remember Giuffre wasn’t called to give evidence in the Maxwell trial and there would have been a reason for that. I suspect the reason was because the conflict between what Giuffre was saying and what Andriano was saying would have muddied the waters with the jury. Those issues will be front and centre if this case comes to trial.

So those issues, and the questions Giuffre will be presumably be asked as part of discovery, will put pressure on her to settle as well.

So overall I think a settlement is still the most likely outcome but the negotiation may not be as one sided as you might think from media reports.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Very very true. I suppose the question is whether he learnt any lessons from his TV interview? Or not?

While I think a settlement is the more likely outcome I’m not sure that’s a foregone conclusion.

There’s obviously huge pressure on him to settle in order to protect his mum and also his daughters - there’s talk of Beatrice giving evidence about the trip to the Pizza parlour for instance. Any son/father would surely want to protect his family from all that and that’s before you even start on the institution of the Royal Family.

But remember Epstein and Maxwell also both settled civil claims with Giuffre but still faced criminal charges. In other words I’m not sure a settlement necessarily makes PA’s problems go away, as so many media pundits are saying. They could actually make them worse. He needs to weigh up those risks.

So far as Giuffre is concerned she’s saying she wants justice and her day in court rather than a settlement. That may be true or it may just be a tactic to get PA to increase his offer. But there are pressures on Giuffre to settle as well.

It’s worth remembering that in the US, civil cases are decided before a jury and as we know from the Coulston Four case juries don’t always jump the way people expect. So there are two obvious questions:

1. Is PA as loathed in the US as he is in the U.K.? Or will a jury over there have a more forgiving view than the one expressed on here?
2. How will the jury react if and when they hear evidence from Carolyn Andriano and any other Epstein victims PA’s lawyers can find with a narrative similar to Andriano? Will a jury buy into Giuffre’s narrative that she was coerced? Or will they decide she was another predator and that it would be wrong to reward a predator? Remember Giuffre wasn’t called to give evidence in the Maxwell trial and there would have been a reason for that. I suspect the reason was because the conflict between what Giuffre was saying and what Andriano was saying would have muddied the waters with the jury. Those issues will be front and centre if this case comes to trial.

So those issues, and the questions Giuffre will be presumably be asked as part of discovery, will put pressure on her to settle as well.

So overall I think a settlement is still the most likely outcome but the negotiation may not be as one sided as you might think from media reports.

What is interesting is that from what I’ve read, VG’s legal team plan to call Carolyn Andriano as a witness.

Now THAT doesn’t quite fit with the Daily Mail narrative

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

Has anything been proven at this stage?

No but notwithstanding that you’ve seemingly decided VG is gold-digging trailer trash who’s claim should be dismissed coupled with which she should be indicted for sex trafficking

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

No but notwithstanding that you’ve seemingly decided VG is gold-digging trailer trash who’s claim should be dismissed coupled with which she should be indicted for sex trafficking

Indeed for “masterminding the entire operation” no less

 

[Mexboroseasider]

What is interesting is that from what I’ve read, VG’s legal team plan to call Carolyn Andriano as a witness.

Now THAT doesn’t quite fit with the Daily Mail narrative

There’s no doubt that Carolyn’s evidence isn’t 100% helpful to PA. For instance she’d be corroborating Giuffre’s claim that she (VG) did indeed have sex with PA. (Although PA’s lawyers could just ask “Did you see them have sex? Or are you just repeating what VG told you?”).

But I can’t see how the evidence Carolyn gave on oath in the Maxwell trial (that at them age of 14 she was recruited into the Epstein sex ring by Giuffre aged 18) is going to help Giuffre’s claim. The only way it would help is if Carolyn went on to confirm Giuffre’s claim of coercion which, as you say, would be at odds with reports in the Mail.

To call Carolyn as a witness is a high risk strategy for Giuffre’s lawyers to take and I can’t see why they would. I’m sure they’d much prefer Carolyn not to give evidence at all.

 

[seasider3]

Has anything been proven at this stage?

What has been proven is that the innocent party in your view tried to stop a trial that would prove his innocence and the guilty party in your view was the one pushing for a court date.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

There’s no doubt that Carolyn’s evidence isn’t 100% helpful to PA. For instance she’d be corroborating Giuffre’s claim that she (VG) did indeed have sex with PA. (Although PA’s lawyers could just ask “Did you see them have sex? Or are you just repeating what VG told you?”).

But I can’t see how the evidence Carolyn gave on oath in the Maxwell trial (that at them age of 14 she was recruited into the Epstein sex ring by Giuffre aged 18) is going to help Giuffre’s claim. The only way it would help is if Carolyn went on to confirm Giuffre’s claim of coercion which, as you say, would be at odds with reports in the Mail.

To call Carolyn as a witness is a high risk strategy for Giuffre’s lawyers to take and I can’t see why they would. I’m sure they’d much prefer Carolyn not to give evidence at all.

I’m not really too sure what evidence that VG recruited CA means as far as this case is concerned really. As has been repeated numerous times, loads of girls who were abused also recruited (including Carolyn)… It doesn’t materially change the facts of what happened with Prince Andrew

 

[Mexboroseasider]

I’m not really too sure what evidence that VG recruited CA means as far as this case is concerned really. As has been repeated numerous times, loads of girls who were abused also recruited (including Carolyn)… It doesn’t materially change the facts of what happened with Prince Andrew

It might though impact in the minds of the jury who, as we saw in the Coulston case, can be unpredictable.

If enough doubt can be sown in their minds about Giuffre’s integrity, they might just decide “well we aren’t going to reward a predator” and decide in favour of PA.

I’m assuming there will be a jury. There usually is in the US even in civil cases (unlike the U.K.). If I’m right the issue then is whether a majority verdict is acceptable or whether unanimity is required. If the latter then presumably it only takes one member of the jury to say no. Even if it’s a majority it means Guiffre has to convince whatever number of jurors is required. If she can’t then her claim fails.

To my mind this also puts pressure on Giuffre to settle. Ironically it might convince Andrew that it’s worth pushing on to trial as the only way to clear his name. Shit or bust to coin a phrase.

 

[Lost Seasider]

What has been proven is that the innocent party in your view tried to stop a trial that would prove his innocence and the guilty party in your view was the one pushing for a court date.

I don't doubt that a trial will be an unpleasant process for PA, and one that he wants to avoid, but it's a big stretch to assume that indicates guilt.

I have no fixed view on guilt/innocence in this case BTW, I'm just trying to keep an open mind, unlike some.

 

[Lost Seasider]

If enough doubt can be sown in their minds about Giuffre’s integrity, they might just decide “well we aren’t going to reward a predator” and decide in favour of PA.

I think the key point with Carolyn is going to be the issue of coercion, if she testifies that VG appears to have been happy to have bedded a prince, then it's hard to see on what basis VG is claiming against him unless she can demonstrate that PA knew she was being coerced.

Carolyn's testimony may also cast further doubt as to the level of coercion that VG was subject to and raise questions as to whether she was in fact a willing participant, which would further damage her case.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

It might though impact in the minds of the jury who, as we saw in the Coulston case, can be unpredictable.

If enough doubt can be sown in their minds about Giuffre’s integrity, they might just decide “well we aren’t going to reward a predator” and decide in favour of PA.

I’m assuming there will be a jury. There usually is in the US even in civil cases (unlike the U.K.). If I’m right the issue then is whether a majority verdict is acceptable or whether unanimity is required. If the latter then presumably it only takes one member of the jury to say no. Even if it’s a majority it means Guiffre has to convince whatever number of jurors is required. If she can’t then her claim fails.

To my mind this also puts pressure on Giuffre to settle. Ironically it might convince Andrew that it’s worth pushing on to trial as the only way to clear his name. Shit or bust to coin a phrase.

It might, but that really depends on what testimony looks like, when compared to highly edited media story.

To my mind Carolyn serves two purposes…

1. To confirm VG met and had sex with PA

2. To confirm VG has been taken outside the US at the time

 

[Mexboroseasider]

I think the key point with Carolyn is going to be the issue of coercion, if she testifies that VG appears to have been happy to have bedded a prince, then it's hard to see on what basis VG is claiming against him unless she can demonstrate that PA knew she was being coerced.

Carolyn's testimony may also cast further doubt as to the level of coercion that VG was subject to and raise questions as to whether she was in fact a willing participant, which would further damage her case.

I don’t know enough about the charges or the relevant age of consent (or ages - there are 3 allegations of sexual assault in 3 different jurisdictions) to be able to comment. Usually if you’re below the age of consent then you can’t consent at all so in that instance the issue of consent and coercion is irrelevant. If it’s established PA had sex with someone under the age of consent then to my mind it’s case proven.

If however consent could be given and we’re talking about whether or not there was consensual sex, then yes whether or not there was coercion is key. CA has been reported in the press as saying she doesn’t believe VG was coerced. If she’s called as a witness and testifies to that effect then VG has to somehow show that CA is wrong. And I don’t think it’d go down well with the jury is she goes in too strong against a fellow victim.

But first of course VG has to convince the jury that she and PA did actually have sex. Ironically of course that’s where CA might help her. It’s just the rest of her testimony that might cause problems for VG.

So we have to ask what other evidence does she have other than her word? The photo proves that they met but it doesn’t prove they had sex. We also know that PA frequently met with Epstein but again that doesn’t prove he had sex with VG.

So at the end of the day it may just come down to one person’s word against another’s, with some circumstantial evidence, and which of the two the jury believes.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

It might, but that really depends on what testimony looks like, when compared to highly edited media story.

To my mind Carolyn serves two purposes…

1. To confirm VG met and had sex with PA

2. To confirm VG has been taken outside the US at the time

First I agree that all media package their articles depending on the message they are trying to get across, but do you have any evidence that the story in the Mail was “highly edited”? Other than the fact it’s the Mail of course. To my mind the comments attributed to CA seem like direct quotes.

On your two other points:

1. Yes. As I’ve already said CA could be used to corroborate VG’s claim that she had sex with PA. But remember she didn’t see it and is only going by what VG told her. I’d assume PA’s lawyer would ask a question along the lines of “Could VG be lying?” On the basis anyone can lie about anything the answer surely has to be yes. Doesn’t mean VG is lying. Just that she could be. Seed of doubt in jury’s mind.

2. Probably but I think that could also be established in other ways. So not a biggie.

Unfortunately for VG you don’t decide what questions PA’s lawyers get to ask CA so I don’t think the questioning will be limited to those two issues. If she’s in the box I’m sure CA would be asked about the testimony she gave in the Maxwell trial impacting on VG and also the interview with the Mail. I can’t see that any of that is going to help VG in the minds of the jury.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

I think the key point with Carolyn is going to be the issue of coercion, if she testifies that VG appears to have been happy to have bedded a prince, then it's hard to see on what basis VG is claiming against him unless she can demonstrate that PA knew she was being coerced.

Carolyn's testimony may also cast further doubt as to the level of coercion that VG was subject to and raise questions as to whether she was in fact a willing participant, which would further damage her case.

Putting aside BFCx3 points about coercion you are trying to utilise alleged conduct towards third parties unrelated to the litigants some 12 months or more after the ' cause of action ' arose to support a defence to the claim
I'm not sure that works for HRH to be honest

 

[Lost Seasider]

I don’t know enough about the charges or the relevant age of consent (or ages - there are 3 allegations of sexual assault in 3 different jurisdictions) to be able to comment. Usually if you’re below the age of consent then you can’t consent at all so in that instance the issue of consent and coercion is irrelevant. If it’s established PA had sex with someone under the age of consent then to my mind it’s case proven.

The three locations are London, NY and the US Virgin Islands.

Of the three the USVI is the one that could cause him the most problems, since they set the a.o.c at 18 and don't appear to recognise mistakes as to the victims age as a defence, however that is the third alleged occasion and the suggestion appears to be that she was 18 at the time.

New York sets the a.o.c at 17, so, similar to London, there's no obvious criminal issue there unless VG can prove that PA knew she was being coerced.

However the point is this is a civil claim in NY, so I'm not completely sure what effect any potential criminal liability in USVI (if any) would have on that claim.

But first of course VG has to convince the jury that she and PA did actually have sex. Ironically of course that’s where CA might help her. It’s just the rest of her testimony that might cause problems for VG.

So we have to ask what other evidence does she have other than her word? The photo proves that they met but it doesn’t prove they had sex. We also know that PA frequently met with Epstein but again that doesn’t prove he had sex with VG.

So at the end of the day it may just come down to one person’s word against another’s, with some circumstantial evidence, and which of the two the jury believes.

There is another option, that the court accepts that they had sex, but believes that she was a willing partner, or at least PA believed she was.

 

[Lost Seasider]

Putting aside BFCx3 points about coercion you are trying to utilise alleged conduct towards third parties unrelated to the litigants some 12 months or more after the ' cause of action ' arose to support a defence to the claim
I'm not sure that works for HRH to be honest

I think the main point about Carolyn's testimony is that it indicates VG was a willing partner and was not coerced as claimed.

Her conduct towards C and others may cast further doubt on her claims, but it's not necessary for her claim to fail.


Edit:

I've checked the Mail article again and it appears that Carolyn's statements are contemporaneous and not 12 months after the event as claimed.

It also appears to me that VG was working on recruiting C as a 13 year old.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

The three locations are London, NY and the US Virgin Islands.

Of the three the USVI is the one that could cause him the most problems, since they set the a.o.c at 18 and don't appear to recognise mistakes as to the victims age as a defence, however that is the third alleged occasion and the suggestion appears to be that she was 18 at the time.

New York sets the a.o.c at 17, so, similar to London, there's no obvious criminal issue there unless VG can prove that PA knew she was being coerced.

However the point is this is a civil claim in NY, so I'm not completely sure what effect any potential criminal liability in USVI (if any) would have on that claim.




There is another option, that the court accepts that they had sex, but believes that she was a willing partner, or at least PA believed she was.

Yes. That was my point when I used the term consensual. To my mind VG has to convince the jury (or maybe just a majority of them):

1. That she and PA had sex.
2. If claimed, that she was under the age of consent when they had sex (I’m not sure whether PA’s knowledge or belief comes into it - that might depend on the jurisdiction) in which case there’s presumably no question that she didn’t consent to sex ie she couldn’t because of her age. And
3. If she was over the age of consent when they had sex that it wasn’t consensual and that she was coerced. (Strictly it’s probably for PA to argue it was consensual and I’m not sure how he can do that if he’s said they didn’t have sex at all).

I suppose if VG was under the age of consent in one jurisdiction but not another, the jury could find for VG on one claim but not the other(s) ie if she was under the age of consent then she couldn’t consent but where she was over the age of consent that she had consented.

 

[Sooty59]

Anybody who’s nothing to hide wouldn’t have acted in the way PA has. Absolute fact, you’d go full pelt to clear your name. He’s guilty of something that’s for sure.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

I think the main point about Carolyn's testimony is that it indicates VG was a willing partner and was not coerced as claimed.

Her conduct towards C and others may cast further doubt on her claims, but it's not necessary for her claim to fail.


Edit:

I've checked the Mail article again and it appears that Carolyn's statements are contemporaneous and not 12 months after the event as claimed.

It also appears to me that VG was working on recruiting C as a 13 year old.

You said when 18 so if it was when HRH was allegedly having sex with her she was a minor herself
No doubt you'll continue to castigate her morality whilst at the same giving the benefit of the doubt to HRH on all counts

 

[Lost Seasider]

You said when 18 so if it was when HRH was allegedly having sex with her she was a minor herself

If you read the article, the claims about the text messages and conversation relate to when VG was 17 and C was 13, March 2001 I think.

So a minor, but above a.o.c.

No doubt you'll continue to castigate her morality whilst at the same giving the benefit of the doubt to HRH on all counts

There's plenty on here who would be happy to lock PA up and throw away the keys, I'm interested in what the other side of the story is.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I think the key point with Carolyn is going to be the issue of coercion, if she testifies that VG appears to have been happy to have bedded a prince, then it's hard to see on what basis VG is claiming against him unless she can demonstrate that PA knew she was being coerced.

Carolyn's testimony may also cast further doubt as to the level of coercion that VG was subject to and raise questions as to whether she was in fact a willing participant, which would further damage her case.

I suspect the Judge will simply direct the Jury to the effect that Carolyn’s ‘opinion’ is not a basis to determine coercion or not… They’d expect facts to support.

‘Willingness’ of a trafficked minor is also not a defence… The whole point of gradual grooming is to get to a point where the victim is compliant…

Of course you’re also making a big assumption that Carolyn’s testimony would reflect the daily Mail article,… I suspect it will be very different.