Luxury-Agency
seeking.com

Fund Manager Jeffrey Epstein Is Charged With Sex Trafficking

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
18,365
1,401
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
By the way Prince Andrew was not stripped solely due to outrage by the Royal Family. The Queen was petitioned by many Royal Navy, RAF and Army veterans to strip this scumbag of his ranks and titles, reasoning that it would be inconceivable for any other senior military officer to still have such ranks and titles:
Of course they are right. Any regular Joe military officer would have been stripped long ago of those ranks and titles.
 

Patron

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2004
5,145
776
113
Visit site
One of the reasons that the current media stories focus on the alleged sexual encounters between Prince Andrew (who, by the way, served in the military for 22 years and saw combat, and has raised millions for charity, primarily through golf tournaments) and Virginia in the United Kingdom (where they were photographed together) instead of focusing on the activities in the Caribbean is that substantial doubt has been raised as to the validity of the witness in the Netflix documentary.


In case you get tired of reading all of Virginia’s lies, here is the part about the witness.

”Then they showed me one of Virginia Roberts, but it was a current photo, and I couldn’t identify her. But I was told to check a photo that had emerged from all of this investigative work, and that photo is a photo of Prince Andrew with a young blond girl. And as soon as I saw her; that was the girl he was sort of grinding against at the pool. She was at the time wearing a bikini bottom. That’s it. But I can absolutely tell you that the photo of her in the picture, which is her when I think she was 17 – that was Virginia Roberts”.

Scully’s claim, however, cannot possibly be true, and was not fact-checked by Netflix. If it had been, they would have realised that Scully claimed the event took place in 2004, when Virginia was married with children, living in Australia, and hadn’t had contact with Epstein for years.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptRenault

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
18,365
1,401
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
Scully’s claim, however, cannot possibly be true, and was not fact-checked by Netflix. If it had been, they would have realised that Scully claimed the event took place in 2004, when Virginia was married with children, living in Australia, and hadn’t had contact with Epstein for years.”
That's complete bullshit. Just because he said he thought it happened in 2004 does not mean it did not happen. He worked for Epstein from 1999 to 2005 and he may have been inaccurate on the year, but he is otherwise 100% rock solid as a witness. A jury will give him a pass on that discrepancy when they hear from him and the parties. He also admitted he did not think it was her until he the saw the photo of her in her early days. This guy has ZERO interest in this fight, and actually worked and was paid for by Epstein. And Andrew does not have any witnesses to say he was never there.

By the ways how many cases have you tried in Court, Patron? Do you think all witnesses are 100% perfect accurate on dates and times and you can only use perfect witnesses with mathematical memories or else you need to withdraw the case? I heard everything that guy said and from where I sit that is a summary judgment case. You put in his testimony and Giuffre's affidavit that sex happened in 2001 in the VI and how exactly do you as a defense attorney for Prince Andrew propose to create a genuine issue of material fact? With his statement to the BBC? Possibly it does go to trial but certainly a motion for SJ should be attempted based on everything I heard.

I file a motion for SJ even when I know I am likely to lose to flush out the bullshit of a lying defendant so I can use it later in depositions and trial. Andrew would have to file an opposing affidavit to avoid losing. I have not opposed a SJ motion in NY in around 20 years but pretty sure the law has not changed on that. And this is exactly the kind of case where you would do that.

In the real world as opposed to the fantasy world of media reports on Court cases, witnesses like the telecommunications guy make those kind of mistakes all the time. A jury looks past that when he is rehabilitated on redirect, and they look at the person and decide if the dude is real and telling the truth and maybe is not accurate on the year. If he is called before a jury and you as a defense attorney are thinking what you posted above and over-cross examine that guy, the jury will kill you and your client. I heard that guy's statement, understood the discrepancy and still believed him and a jury will too. What is arrayed against it? COMPLETE FUCKING NONSENSE. At some point they will subpoena the VI airport customs records from 2001 and if Andrew's name pops up he will be going down.
 
Last edited:

Patron

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2004
5,145
776
113
Visit site
So the entire concept of the alleged sexual abuse, to the extent it occurred in the Virgin Islands, hinges on her being 17 instead of 18, which is a matter of months.

But it is no big deal if the primary witness is wrong by three years on his memory.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
18,365
1,401
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
So the entire concept of the alleged sexual abuse, to the extent it occurred in the Virgin Islands, hinges on her being 17 instead of 18, which is a matter of months.

But it is no big deal if the primary witness is wrong by three years on his memory.
Correct, because the law does not vary but a witness's memories and corresponding testimony can, so you are comparing apples and oranges. Nobody analyzes cases like this in the real world, Patron. When I report on witnesses to insurance carriers, they want to know, as much as what their testimony is, whether a jury will like them or not, whether they are credible or not, how they will appear, their demeanor, etc. What impression will they leave on the jury. I do this for a living. That telecommunications guy, based on what I saw of him in the Netflix documentary, is a rock solid witness and the goofing up on the year is something Boies can work with. No witness is perfect and that imperfection in his testimony, while not insubstantial, does not completely defeat his testimony either.

About 15 years ago my firm won a substantial verdict in a malpractice case. My responsibility on that file was to retain and prep the medical expert witnesses; a more senior attorney tried the case. The key expert witness was a Yale educated ER doctor who testified on the standard of care with respect to how an ER should handle and respond to the battery of complaints my client presented with. Going into trial, I thought he would do OK. Then I watched his trial testimony from the gallery. I knew we were winning that case when he finished, because of how the jury looked at him during his testimony. I listened to him but watched them. He was stupendous, and the jury was transfixed. The guy had a voice like James Earl Jones, a booming baritone, and an extremely distinguished appearance that included a perfectly strapped bow tie. He had the appearance of a well dressed professor, but spoke to the jury in a commanding way that was understandable, breaking down the standard of care into the language of the layman with little prompting from my colleague.

When I argued post trial motions with the defense attorney, he candidly admitted to me that our expert was excellent and he lost the case by over-cross examining him. He had conducted an unusually aggressive cross, and he told me the reason why is that his associate who had deposed the doctor reported that he was a quack, a practitioner of holistic borderline medicine, essentially a hippie doctor on the fringe of traditional medicine. A goofball Yale lib. He ate it up, but later threw his associate under the bus and said if he knew this guy for what he really was, he never would have crossed him like this. This defense attorney is one of the best med mal defense attorneys in my state. I am not sure he lost the case though, as much as our expert won it.

You are making the same mistake in reading news reports that this attorney made in letting his deposition summaries guide his cross. You are reading shallow or biased reports demonizing a witness as incredible due to one error he made in recalling an event that happened 20 years earlier. In a situation like this you need to assess the totality of what he said and evaluate his appearance and demeanor. A jury will like that dude. As witnesses go he is someone I would want in one of my cases. He is totally solid.
 
Last edited:

Patron

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2004
5,145
776
113
Visit site
If someone wants to read a real analysis of Virginia’s claims, and her involvement with Epstein, Maxwell and Prince Andrew, this is it.


The problem with documentaries like on Netflix is that it can’t escape the need to have heroes, villains, and innocent victims.

This story has no heroes or innocent victims. It was, and always has been about money. There are some manipulation and propaganda elements. But no heroes and no innocent victims. The linked PDF report is an excellent and entertaining read about Virginia.

The introduction does a great job of explaining why it is important to understand who the accuser is before simply deciding that Prince Andrew is guilty. It is also a good critique of the modern media and how it entertains and shocks, but doesn’t do unbiased reporting. You won’t hear these things when The Today Show does it’s daily Two Minutes Hate on rich guys like Prince Andrew, which is really just some token thrown out to make the poor feel somehow vindicated and part of the system when the media sacrifices someone wealthy and supposedly powerful.

“In this issue, we will be examining the shocking truth behind one of the main figures in the Epstein saga – Virginia Roberts. In particular, this report will undergo the awkward yet necessary task of scrutinizing the many wild accusations made by Roberts (now Giuffre). The tale of Virginia Roberts – and more importantly the endless lies she has now been proven to have made – is a stark warning for society’s tendency to rely upon trials by media. This report does not intend to undermine the ongoing search for justice. Jeffrey Epstein was a paedophile and a monster. But the only way to get justice for the victims of that monster is through exposing the truth – in its entirety.

While genuine victims must be heard, those who exploit genuine victims and the #metoo movement for their own financial or personal gain, must be exposed, for fear that their exploitation will potentially hinder true justice from being obtained and victims from securing closure.
So too must truth always be held above all things – without it, when it comes to cases so serious in nature, more lives can be destroyed, and more innocent victims created in the process. This report, for the first time, will comb through the many developing claims and accusations made by Virginia Roberts, and will prove beyond any doubt that Roberts has lied on multiple occasions, including in legal documents and while under oath.
This report will also demonstrate how media outlets and the press have been negligent in their presentation of the facts, how in some instances claims have not been fact-checked before publication, and even in other cases intentionally published despite the publisher knowing them to be inaccurate or misleading.”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CaptRenault

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,265
448
83
Casablanca
...The linked PDF report is an excellent and entertaining read about Virginia.
Thanks, Patron. That's the first in-depth investigation and analysis of Virginia's many lies and fake stories.

Here are a couple other relevant links. This first one is a link to a recorded interview of Maria Farmer, one of the accusers of Epstein and Maxwell and the sister of Annie Farmer, one of the women who testified against Maxwell. Maria Farmer has participated in a number of interviews that can be found via Google and YouTube searches. She also appeared in and was a main information source for the Netflix documentary.


After listening to Maria's interviews, I think she's crazy, paranoid, a narcissist and a liar. According to Alan Dershowitz, she also appears to be an anti-semite.


During one of the interviews, at about the 14 minute mark, she does make a comment similar to one of the quotes that Dershowitz attributes to her.

Here's another couple interviews of the crazy Maria Farmer:


 
  • Like
Reactions: Patron

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,265
448
83
Casablanca
Sharon Churcher, a writer for the Daily Mail, at first believed Virginia’s lies, but Churcher eventually realized that Virginia had lied about a lot of things. Virginia’s track record as a liar is the reason that she was not used as a prosecution witness in the Maxwell trial.


THE JOURNALIST’S CONDEMNATION

In a shocking, yet largely unreported twist, Sharon Churcher would later go. onto condemn Virginia as a liar and ‘blackmailer’, after her stories and accusations began to wildly deviate from the account she had provided to the Mail.

In a transcript of a telephone call between Churcher and publisher Tony Lyons, the journalist discusses her run-ins with Virginia; stating that it was “chequebook journalism”, before making further eye-opening statements:

LYONS: “How old was she [Virginia], really?”

CHURCHER: “Well, she lied. She told me that she took a year off. She apparently was 16, not 15, when she was recruited. But she’d been on the game for about a year then.”

On another accusation made by Virginia – this time against Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Alan Dershowitz – the journalist made her position clear.

CHURCHER: “I mean, I have my views… I don’t believe her in that. His name is not in my stories, which is enough to really speak for itself, so.”

“I don’t remember that email [an email Virginia Roberts claims Churcher wrote, insinuating that Dershowitz could be a ‘pedo’]. And I wonder about some of these emails, too, that she’s produced. Because of course you can change emails… And I’m supposed to have said in one email ‘of course we all think Alan’s a pedo’ – and it’s a word I’ve never heard of. I never used that word.”

“I think Brad Edwards, you know, one of her lawyers, hates him because -“

LYONS: “Hates Alan?”

CHURCHER: … “Edwards hated Dershowitz. And I think he put her [Virginia] up to it [accusing Dershowitz]. That is my theory… So yeah, I think Brad Edwards and his team just made it up.”

… “She’s changed her story about Trump too. It’s interesting because I’ve written what she told me about Trump. She’s now saying she never said it…. because she’d told me she’d lied around half naked at Mar Lago, and he said to Jeffrey, ‘you have the life’. And that was a very distinct quote. I always remembered it. We ran it… but now she’s saying she never said it.”

CHURCHER: “She’s collected millions, you know…. So she’s now suing Alan. I don’t know if you knew that.

LYONS: “Yeah. No, no, no, I -“

CHURCHER: “She sues him for (inaudible).

LYONS: “I saw that, yeah.”

CHURCHER: “The idea is that he will then pay her off. It’s just openly – this really is blackmail.”

LYONS: “Well, because what’s happening, it’s going to cost him so much money that he gets put in the position where he’s better off -“

CHURCHER: “Just giving her -“

LYONS: “I don’t think he’s going to do that because he’s not willing to have his legacy sort of tarnished by this, you know. He’s 81-years-old.

CHURCHER: “And She’ll just move on to other people if she gets away with that one too… Apparently, she’s a big spender. She’s spent so much money.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patron

Patron

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2004
5,145
776
113
Visit site
Wish I could give that last post two or three likes.

This makes the Duke Lacross case look tame.

It is a shame that real investigative journalism is now relegated to obscure websites, and will never see the light of day in The New York Times, or ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and certainly not Netflix.

There can be only one narrative, facts be damned, and the mainstream media has already written it.

And unfortunately, the Brits aren’t any better than the Americans in this regard, and arguably even started the world down the road to ruin by being the first to do it.

Look at Dershowitz. The media outlet that sought his opinion on the Maxwell trial was criticized for doing so, and highly qualified journalist / media personality Meghan McCain, who got where she is today all by herself, suggested that Dershowitz not be allowed to comment on Epstein matters since he is accused. Such a wonderful system. The media wants to judge guilt without looking at facts or even hearing from the accused, when the guilt of the accused fits their narrative.

Hopefully the person doing this investigative journalism will be able to publish a book titled something like The Railroading of The Prince. It won’t sell well in the U.S. or the U.K., but might do okay in France, where the populace was shocked at the arrest and presumption of guilt of DSK. I doubt that it would sell well in Canada either, since it’s media isn’t that much different than the U.S. or the U.K. So the writer won‘t make millions like Virginia will. Or like the Miami writer, Julie Brown did. The best part of the Maria Farmer video was where she rolls her eyes at how the Southern District of New York said they wouldn’t have known anything about this case if it wasn’t for Julie Brown. There are no words to describe that comment.

In a perverse way, incidentally, I actually sort of admire Virginia Roberts. She went from teen sex worker, to one of Epstein’s biggest recruiters, to making money from media sensationalism and being paid for stories by the Daily Mail, to suing wealthy folks for Money Damages, and now she is doing the biggest shakedown yet, Prince Andrew. His choice is now clear. He can come to the U.S. to fight the civil case (with probably some distant risk of criminal prosecution given how the Southern District of New York is so inventive on what and how it charges people), he can give her just about everything he has as a settlement, or he can say Fuck It, don’t come to the U.S. to fight, accept a civil verdict, never pay it, and go ahead and drop out of a society that will never re-accept him anyway. That society already watched the trial on Netflix, which said he was guilty without examining real facts like the investigative journalist presented.

I would like to think he could win if the judge / jury evaluated all the evidence, but we are a long time from the days of the Kennedy-Smith rape trial, where facts mattered. We now live in #metoo and Believe Survivors, no matter what. And it is of course complicated by the fact that Prince Andrew, a single man, likely did have sex with a young lady medical student at Epstein‘s New Mexico property during a visit there. That lady was well over 18, and certainly never alleged rape or abuse by Prince Andrew, so it shouldn’t matter. But things like that do matter since society doesn’t much care for sex work.

So I still think Prince Andrew should say Fuck It and take the millions he gets from the sale of the Swiss property, and move somewhere warm and far away from the U.K. (Certainly not to the U.S., though). He was long ago found guilty in our new justice system. Why bother participating in the boring old-fashioned trial which may just affirm the verdict already determined by the media.

Netflix should actually do a story of Virginia becoming a multimillionaire. They did The Ozarks, and the lady who played the teen daughter in that show looks a lot like Virginia at that age, as most blondes in their late teens and early 20s do. But that maintenance guy in the U.K. (Corrected, I meant the Virgin Islands) is able to remember Virginia‘s looks without hesitation, even though he missed the year he saw her so clearly by three years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CaptRenault

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
18,365
1,401
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
But that maintenance guy in the U.K. is able to remember Virginia‘s looks without hesitation, even though he missed the year he saw her so clearly by three years.
You are pathetically focused on one side of the case in almost deranged fashion. Watch this and tell me Prince Andrew is not a LYING piece of shit:

NEWS FLASH TO PATRON: When there are two lying pieces of shit on both sides of any civil litigation, the case is decided by witnesses. If the witnesses can pass as essentially credible, the case rides on their testimony. This is like Litigation 101 dude. You really need to go to court and watch a few trials.

By the way, the maintenance guy as far as I know is American. Sure sounded like it to me, although I did not delve into his origins. Did you even listen to his interview? Sounds like you did not and have prejudged him based on a nonsense article you read on the case to me.
 
Last edited:

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
18,365
1,401
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
In a civil case the plaintiff's burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, in case you are confused. And it sounds like you may be. Jurors are told, and I have heard this instruction many times, that "if the scales tip more slightly to one side than the other on the evidence you hear, there is a preponderance of evidence."

If the jury decides that both parties are liars or can't decide who is right, witnesses decide the case. In a he/said she said on a red light or green light, the witnesses decide the case. If one witness says he was behind one driver and the light was green, the jury is not going to care if he got the year of the accident wrong and it was 2017 and not 2018. Cases get decided like that every day, everywhere in Courts in our country. Juries are far more forgiving on events even more remote in time. Especially if they think a defendant is a lying fucking turd.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
18,365
1,401
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
By the way Patron, if you are interested in passionately defending the lying pieces of shit of the world, you should go over to the tennis thread and post on the plight of No-Vax Djokovic. In his case one can argue that he should have been told not to go to Australia in the first place, nothwithstanding his lie or, as he calls it, "human error" on his visa application. Of course Prince Andrew would tell us that the same lie is an "error of memory."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Womaniser

Patron

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2004
5,145
776
113
Visit site
You keep acting as though courtroom trials (civil or criminal) and jury instructions matter in a high profile case involving sex.

They don’t. They already had the damn trial. It was on Netflix. The producers rendered both a criminal verdict of Guilty and a civil determination of Liable.

The verdicts were upheld on Appeal by the consortium of NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX and the Daily Mail.

This is the next step in the only useful quote of the last decade. That quote was Facts don’t matter in a post-fact world.

Now courtroom trials in high-profile cases don’t matter. The trial has already occurred in the media, which decides which facts are allowed, then renders a verdict largely based on what will maximize advertising revenue. Right now the Virginia’s are in, the Prince Andrew’s are out.

Prince Andrew has the unique opportunity to keep the money that Trial by Media has determined should be transferred to Virginia, since he is a foreigner who doesn’t have to come to the U.S.

Just my opinion, but I think he should forego participating in a civil trial. If he wins, he is in the same place financially as he would have been had he not participated, except for being out more attorney fees. How can he win?

A civil case determination of Not Liable won’t overturn the media’s verdict of Guilty of a crime and Liable for damages, so he will never get his life back as a Royal. He should take his money, move, get with that investigative journalist and co-author The Railroading of a Prince and hand it to anyone who gives him shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptRenault

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
18,365
1,401
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
Patron, you do make a good point as far as it being very difficult to pick an impartial jury in this case. I will tell you one thing though. If you and Captain Renault were summoned as jurors on this case your asses would get kicked out so quickly on challenges for cause that you would both be seeing cosmetic surgeons to get the bootprints off your asses.

Assuming a legit, fair jury could be picked, my money would be on the lying Virginia to convince a jury that the lying Duke of York is liable. And that is regardless of all the media bullshit. Although for purposes of trial, the Prince Andrew interview will not get buried somewhere. It will be front and center.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Womaniser

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,265
448
83
Casablanca
I don't know whether Andrew has lied about anything. He seems to sidestep some questions with "I don't remember" answers. But Virginia is a world class liar whose lies and ever changing stories go completely unquestioned by the mainstream media.

Here's a video interview by Jay Beecher (of the Votewatch site) of Dershowitz from last week.


in a credibility contest between Giuffre and Dershowitz, I'm with Dershowitz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patron

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
18,365
1,401
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
I don't know whether Andrew has lied about anything.
Medical doctors do:
Will be very easy to call medical experts and establish this liar is in fact a liar. It then becomes easy, or easier, to prove the cascade of lies that the Duke of York has spewed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Womaniser

Patron

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2004
5,145
776
113
Visit site
It is a very convincing interview by Dershowitz.

But two things pop into my mind.

He rails on about how he hasn’t had sex with anyone but his wife in the last many years, I think he might have said 50 years or something like that. Jesus Christ, he is a multimillionaire who spends a lot of time on the road (his travel schedule is a killer to Virginia’s accusations). The guy really needs to get laid more often. You don’t get to take your dick with you when you die, or even when you get really old.

The other obvious but complicated question is collectibility on a judgement if Virginia takes back off to Australia if Queen Mommy gives Andrew a few million to give to Virginia to add to the $6-$10 million she has supposedly already gotten from her lawsuits. Since Virginia is a U.S. citizen, he might be in a better position to collect it than Virginia would be if she gets a default judgement against Andrew.

Wouldn‘t that be a great ending to the Netflix show Virginia, who I really want the daughter on The Ozarks to play. The former pot smoking teen hooker from Florida is sitting in Australia with well over $10 million, and one of the most predominant attorneys in America smashing things on his desk because he is owed a lot of it but can’t collect it, and Prince Andrew sitting in the castle listening to Pink Floyd’s hit song Mother.

I hope to God no one thinks any of this is still about the sexual abuse of minors. If it ever was, that ended in Florida decades ago. Epstein II, playing on New York’s Broadway instead of in sunny Florida, has been about money and entertainment of the masses from day one of its opening day.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CaptRenault

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,265
448
83
Casablanca
Here's another Beecher interview video worth watching. It's an interview of Brian Basham, a former reporter for the Times of London, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail. He also has had a career in PR and Maxwell is his client. However, he doesn't spend much time addressing Maxwell's guilt or innocence. He talks mainly about the accusers of Maxwell, her treatment by the press, the behavior of the lawyers for the accusers, the #MeToo movement and the general mood of hysteria and moral panic in the U.S. about sex scandals.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Patron

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,265
448
83
Casablanca
Before Beecher posted the interview with Dershowitz linked above, he did an earlier interview with Dershowitz that covered some of the same ground but that has some other good points. The interview is broken into five parts (not sure why). Here the links from Beecher's YouTube page:


One of the main takeaways from this Dershowitz interview is that scuzzy lawyer David Boies is the real source of the ridiculous accusations made by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, Maria Farmer and Sarah Ransome. Dershowitz reviews how all three are clients of Boies and how all three, with encouragement from Boies, have accused various famous people of sexual assault in hope of getting big paydays for himself and his lying clients.
 

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,265
448
83
Casablanca
In this article from last week Dershowitz reminds everyone that an accusation against Andrew by a serial liar such as Virginia Giuffre should be treated with skepticism and not the reverence that most media give it.


Prince Andrew has been accused, by one woman with a long history of not telling the truth, of having had sex with her when she was over the age of consent and claims she was paid $15,000.

The accusation has ruined his life, his work and his reputation. He has been stripped of his titles and responsibilities based on this accusation.

But what if his accuser Virginia Giuffre simply made up the story? What if she, in fact, only posed for a photograph with Prince Andrew, and then used that “evidence” to falsely claim that she had sex with him?

What if she is framing Prince Andrew in order to obtain more than millions she has already gotten from others in similar suits?

What if Prince Andrew is actually innocent?

I am not asking the readers of this article to believe Prince Andrew in his denials of ever having had sex with the accuser.

None of us knows what happened or didn’t happen after that photograph was taken.

I am only asking the readers to assume, simply for purposes of analysis, the possibility that Prince Andrew might be innocent.

Right now, he is presumed guilty. If he had been charged by an official government agency, say a prosecutor or grand jury, he would be presumed innocent as a matter of law, even though the imprimatur of the government was behind the accusation.

Here, no governmental agency or unbiased official has ever accused Prince Andrew of a crime.

His only accuser is an individual who stands to benefit financially from the accusation.

Yet the media and public opinion seem to presume Prince Andrew is guilty.

The New York Times reports that there “are legal charges hanging over him.” This suggests that some unbiased institution has leveled charges.

But anyone can be sued by anyone – hence the expression, “The Pope can be sued for paternity.”

A lawsuit for money brought by an individual should never give rise to any kind of presumption of guilt.

As Judge Jose A. Cabranes of the U.S. Court of Appeals has cautioned the media and the public:

Materials submitted by parties to a court should be understood for what they are. They do not reflect the court’s own findings. Rather, they are prepared by parties seeking to advance their own interests in an adversarial process. Although affidavits and depositions are offered “under penalty of perjury,” it is in fact exceedingly rare for anyone to be prosecuted for perjury in a civil proceeding. ...

Thus, although the act of filing a document with a court might be thought to lend that document additional credibility in fact, allegations appearing in such documents might be less credible than those published elsewhere.

[T]he media does the public a profound disservice when it reports on parties’ allegations uncritically. ... Even ordinarily critical readers may take the reference to “court papers” as some sort of marker of reliability. This would be a mistake...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patron
Ashley Madison