world

Prince Andrew effort to toss sex assault suit hits roadblock

22 Comments
By LARRY NEUMEISTER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Epstein, Maxwell and anyone that was involved are human garbage, regardless of politics. That should not be controversial. Let the chips fall where they may.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Sex trafficking, perversion, prostitution and exploitation are never defendable and nobody is above the law. Andrew's past actions are well documented from Koo Stark to today. As for that photo he has a lot of explaining to do. A LOT.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Mummy is supporting him and paying his massive legal fees. Shameful.

Lock the trash up!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If Prince Andrew is innocent, then he's certainly taking a rather strange round about way to avoid proving it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

stormcrowToday  10:48 am JST

If Prince Andrew is innocent, then he's certainly taking a rather strange round about way to avoid proving it.

If he's innocent then what's he got to hide? Why did he try to stop the info release? His very actions and all his blubbering are an unbrilliant disguise. Just like Kavanaugh, just like Trump and just like Clinton when fingers were pointed at him for doing something stupid but not illegal in 1998.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If he's innocent then what's he got to hide? Why did he try to stop the info release? His very actions and all his blubbering are an unbrilliant disguise.

Well, to be fair, he is innocent until proven guilty and that fact hasn’t been established yet.

Just like Kavanaugh, just like Trump

No, nothing has been remotely established that even a crime has taken place. Stop falling into the left conspiracy echo chamber.

*and just like Clinton when fingers were pointed at him for doing something stupid but not illegal in 1998.*

So, what he did should be excused? Guy, you say so very often questionable statements…

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Taking sides with a child abuser? 

Never, I have always maintained that a person in innocent until proven guilty, nothing has changed.

This is not a criminal case, it's a civil one

Still

and there is no case of being found guilty and more of a case of being found liable just like in the OJ case

OJ was something completely different.

Andrew Windsor has a long history of young women and his playboy living.*

We know. But still, he’s innocent until proven guilty

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Taking sides with a child abuser? 

Proof?

actually not always.

Always

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Mortified to find I'm kinda agreeing with bass.

I've got no time for Randy Andy - when I saw the photos put out during his courtship of Fergie, I couldn't help thinking what a skin-crawling creep he looked then, and my opinion since hasn't changed.

But at the same time, I don't get this Virginia Guiffre person. By her own account at the time she was 17, above the legal age in the UK where the assault is said to have occurred. That's slimy, but not illegal.

And if she considered it assault the first time, why on earth did she continue seeing him, and hanging out with the Epstein crowd? What's with the big smile and leaning into Andy in the famous photo? She doesn't look like she's being forced into anything in any photo. Why didn't she kick up a fuss then, to stop it happening to her again and to stop it happening to other girls?

She was not a child, she was just stupid. She should give herself a sharp slap up the back of the head for her misspent youth, and get on with her life. And if she has any kids, to raise them to be a bit smarter than she was.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The 14 year-olds are a different story. I don’t think Andrew has been accused of messing around with children. If it turns out that he did, then by all means throw the book at him.

Sex traffic victims are those who are too young to make rational decisions, and those who are coerced into prostitution through poverty, threats, confiscation of passports, etc. Not 17 year-olds dressed to the nines, jetting around the world with rich men, taking smiley photos and staying in posh hotels and palaces.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If Epstein and Maxwell were guilty then probably Andrew's is too but he won't spend a day in a cell

There is no way of knowing unless he testifies, is cross-examined, witnesses on both sides are called and it all goes to trial, but we are talking about the legal judicial system, but as an individual and private outsider giving an opinion, I do feel he is guilty just like in the case of OJ, but personal opinions matter little in a legal system, public opinion is a different story though.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Netflix has four-part miniseries, “Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich” (2020), that well-documents the ‘grooming’ of these teenage girls Ghislaine Maxwell performed to later put them in a position to be raped by Epstein. Judge for yourself from their own testimonials if you belief they voluntarily participated or were systematically trafficked.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

 the science tells us that the prefrontal cortex isn’t fully developed until your late 20s,

….so I was non compos mentis when I determined my future life by marrying in my mid-twenties? I don’t think so.

do you honestly think 17 year olds are old enough to truly make rational decisions?

On whether it’s a good idea to crawl into bed with a selection of creepy older men?

Yes I do. If they’re not old enough to work that out, what are their parents doing letting them out by themselves?

I’m not defending Andrew, I think he’s a total creep. But Guiffre is no innocent victim, either. If she didn’t know what she was doing then she needs to sue the people who raised her and let her go chasing after men with money, not the moneyed creeps she let into her bed.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites