Scrutable

tom p wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 1:38 pm

I love the implication that he might, conceivably, have a long-term strategy. Unless it involves slowly poisoning his brother, nephews & great nephews, then it's one that's not going to get him anywhere

With Kate playing the part of Margaret Beaufort?

Don't forget his great nieces as well, they're ahead of Andrew now in the list. Equal primogeniture and all that.

ETA: Actually, that said, they always would've been, but still.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 3:39 pm

Don't forget his great nieces as well, they're ahead of Andrew now in the list. Equal primogeniture and all that.

ETA: Actually, that said, they always would've been, but still.

Oops, i forgot that william and harry had girls too.

tenchboy wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 3:12 pm

tom p wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 1:38 pm

I love the implication that he might, conceivably, have a long-term strategy. Unless it involves slowly poisoning his brother, nephews & great nephews, then it's one that's not going to get him anywhere

With Kate playing the part of Margaret Beaufort?

I like it.
Truth be told, I was thinking more of Andrew as Louis D'Ascoyne Mazzini

Prince Andrew's statement seems to contradict answers he gave me - Emily Maitlis


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60407806

Found this elsewhere

jimbob wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:15 am

IvanV wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:46 am

Maybe it's cheaper, all told, to pay them to go away. It is left to us to judge whether that is what happened in Andrew's case. Many of us will conclude it is not what happened. The plaintiff is smiling, the defendant is not.

And the bold is why that doesn't make sense in this case.

Andrew said he wanted to clear his name.

That was never going to happen regardless of the evidence. Even if Andrew proved conclusively that he didn't meet Virginia Giuffre on one specific occasion, it was incontrovertible that he had met her at some time and if she alleges that he had sex with her there would be no way to prove that that was not true even if it wasn't. And, of course, even if the case was narrowed down to some specific occasion where he couldn't have been there, many people would have believed him guilty anyway and said he did it at some other time and Virgina merely made a mistake over the date. And, don't forget that the American legal system generally makes winners pay their own costs. Winning can be very expensive, so there is a huge incentive to settle. The only big danger in settling against a meritless opponent is that you risk someone else deciding you provide a good chance of them getting money too.

My god, Prince Charles is really f.cking up his reading out of the queen's speech!

I know what he's done, he's confused it with Eurovision.

Never heard him sing before. Quite a good voice. But choosing Bucks Fizz as his classic Eurovision song? I suppose it's a message to the government to not let its indecision take it from behind.

Oops! Nearly a wardrobe malfunction there. Tore off Camila's dress and almost took the mini skirt with it!

Nice segue into Waterloo. He seems to think it's literally about Waterloo though. Bringing on a regiment to reenact the battle is a bit silly.

Well that was good! Lays down the gauntlet to the rest of Europe for Saturday night's contest. Macron remains favourite to win of course, at least assuming Zelensky won't be able to make the show.

Listening to his giving of the speech
I'm reminded
"There are two great tragedies in life; one is not to get your heart's desire..."

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:39 am

His response is bizarre. He's dropped his defences that he can't sweat and was eating pizza, presumably because he can't substantiate either part of the alibi.

Though he also seems to be suffering from terrible amnesia:

Among the allegations from Giuffre’s complaint that Andrew said he could not admit or deny were that:

Andrew and convicted sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell have been photographed at numerous social events together.

Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to the charge of procuring a minor for prostitution.

Andrew had been on Epstein’s private plane and stayed at some of his homes.

The infamous photograph depicts Andrew, Giuffre and Maxwell at Maxwell’s home.

Andrew admitted in the disastrous 2019 Newsnight interview to having been on Epstein’s jet and having stayed at several of his properties, while Epstein’s conviction is a matter of public record. The prince’s court papers also raised eyebrows for their denial that Maxwell, whom Andrew met when she was at university, was a close friend.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... to-lawsuit

I really hope they get to dig out all kinds of juice documents in front of a jury, oh boy. As long as he ends up paying the costs.

Maxwell just got 20 years

I'm sure the sentence will shortly be commuted to ~suicide~.

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:41 pm

Maxwell just got 20 years

Her lawyers have been trying to argue down the sentence. So that's a kind of admission, at least that they don't hold much chance out for an appeal. She has acknowledged that there are victims, but not that their abuse was any of her fault, so in principle still leaving the way open for an appeal.

The remaining question is whether she has any actionable dirt on Epstein's numerous guests, such as Handy Andy, and whether therefore she might dish it in return for some sentence reduction. It seemed to me the chance of getting off was remote, so I would have thought this would come up earlier. Or maybe her potential evidence isn't very useful.

IvanV wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:21 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:41 pm

Maxwell just got 20 years

Her lawyers have been trying to argue down the sentence. So that's a kind of admission, at least that they don't hold much chance out for an appeal. She has acknowledged that there are victims, but not that their abuse was any of her fault, so in principle still leaving the way open for an appeal.

The remaining question is whether she has any actionable dirt on Epstein's numerous guests, such as Handy Andy, and whether therefore she might dish it in return for some sentence reduction. It seemed to me the chance of getting off was remote, so I would have thought this would come up earlier. Or maybe her potential evidence isn't very useful.

When we have a victim's testimony that Maxwell instigated some of the sexual assaults.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:36 am

IvanV wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:21 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:41 pm

Maxwell just got 20 years

Her lawyers have been trying to argue down the sentence. So that's a kind of admission, at least that they don't hold much chance out for an appeal. She has acknowledged that there are victims, but not that their abuse was any of her fault, so in principle still leaving the way open for an appeal.

The remaining question is whether she has any actionable dirt on Epstein's numerous guests, such as Handy Andy, and whether therefore she might dish it in return for some sentence reduction. It seemed to me the chance of getting off was remote, so I would have thought this would come up earlier. Or maybe her potential evidence isn't very useful.

When we have a victim's testimony that Maxwell instigated some of the sexual assaults.

She was not charged with anything that related to any instigation or participation in sexual assault, at least as far as I can see from this CNN article. So, true or not, legally it wasn't at issue.

"Maxwell, 60, was found guilty of five federal charges: sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three related counts of conspiracy. She was acquitted on the charge of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts."

None of those charges, even the one she was acquitted of, depend on any participation in or instigation of sexual acts, only trafficking and transporting. Further, the one charge she was acquitted of was based only on the evidence of "Jane", who appears to be the only witness who alleged Maxwell directly joining in assault. So it seems that the jury might not have accepted "Jane's" evidence - although there may be other reasons for the acquittal on that charge.

"Jane, testifying under a pseudonym, said Maxwell organized sexual massages with Epstein and sometimes joined in the abuse. The charges of enticing -- on which Maxwell was acquitted -- and transporting relate to testimony solely from her."

Another witness, "Kate" alleged more direct involvement in the form of sexual instruction. But this was also not relevant to the convictions, as all the offences charged were in relation to minors, and "Kate" was not a minor at the time.

""Kate" testified Maxwell invited her over and directed her how to give Epstein a sexual massage. She said Maxwell spoke often of sexual topics with her and asked Kate to invite other young girls for Epstein's sexual desires. The jury was instructed it could not convict Maxwell on any of the counts based solely on testimony from Kate as she was over the age of consent at the time of the events."

So she is convicted of trafficking and transporting of minors, and various related conspiracy charges. She certainly isn't going to admit to any more than that, especially if an admission is a requirement of negotiating a sentence reduction in return for giving evidence on others. And isn't going to admit anything very much until the issue of appeals is dealt with. There are various reports that she will still appeal, though some reports say appeal the sentence and others the verdict.

Meanwhile, Metro reports fresh calls to expand investigation of Andrew and other Epstein guests, from victims' lawyers. Who doubtless wouldn't mind more fees.

Meanwhile Megan's lawyers show Boris to be an amateur when it comes to the art of flim-flam...
[That's all I know cos that's all I can see]

tenchboy wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:29 am

Meanwhile Megan's lawyers show Boris to be an amateur when it comes to the art of flim-flam...

DOS.png

[That's all I know cos that's all I can see]

"Don’t minimise others’ experiences - we believe in the value of robust evidence, but also respect the importance of individual experience. Importantly, if someone posts about their personal experiences, respond in a validating way to that first, before any other remarks. It is very important to be sensitive about this."

shpalman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:12 am

tenchboy wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:29 am

Meanwhile Megan's lawyers show Boris to be an amateur when it comes to the art of flim-flam...

DOS.png

[That's all I know cos that's all I can see]

"Don’t minimise others’ experiences - we believe in the value of robust evidence, but also respect the importance of individual experience. Importantly, if someone posts about their personal experiences, respond in a validating way to that first, before any other remarks. It is very important to be sensitive about this."

My apologies, I meant no harm.