Most liked posts in thread: Prince Andrew

So in your eyes what does this paragraph mean....

The settlement contains a provision releasing “second parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including state or federal, cause and causes of action”.......

If it doesn't mean to exclude her from suing other third parties who were involved in the alleged crimes? The settlement went wider than just Epstein/Maxwell themselves.

 

How was this private agreement known about out of interest? How did Prince Andrew and his lawyers know about it's existance?

 

I don't think the Epstein settlement was just about trafficking - I don't think they actually stipulate the alleged crime in the document from what I've read. It's been described in the media at least as a settlement for alleged sex-trafficking and sexual-abuse claims. The accuracy of the media explanations are of course debatable.

Whether they've been caught out or not, the fact we're even discussing it shows that it's not cut and dried and it's therefore a valid question to ask even if it gets thrown out. I would hope it does get set aside purely so we have half a chance of getting closer to the bottom of this horrendous mess. That doesn't change the legal agreements in place though.

 

She didn't name names already because she pleaded not guilty. To name names and plead not guilt is somewhat of a contradiction in itself.

If she is going to appeal then she needs to remain from the standpoint that she is not guilty. Once she knows there is no way back she will change her tune. Even if she has nothing to gain from it knowing she has been banged up when those who took part in those crimes are walking round free will make her change face.

 

Isn't this ruling also from California and they argued it has no legal standing within New York.

 

Not so sure about that. Apparently she thinks Epstein was murdered in jail, rather than killing himself. If she thinks he was killed to protect the rich, famous and powerful she might not be keen to suffer the same fate.

 

What has she got to live for, life in jail? I doubt that is something worth keeping quiet for.

 

But living what's left of your life in fear of a brutal violent death isn't an attractive prospect either.

 

Media reports suggest a misstrial may be called after one of the jurors claims to nave been a victim of abuse.

 

isn’t it too late for a mistrial ?

 

Does sound dodgy but surely if they were that bothered they should have asked the question during voir dire

 

That's an absolute mess.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59884806

God knows what they're going to do if it turns out that some of the jurors have been influenced by an undeclared bias. Why they let jurors talk to the media I will never understand.

 

I am reminded of , was it Oscar Wilde?
And I apologise if anyone things I am being insensitive but the whole "settlement" issue tells its own tale.

 

Update mate:

The US citizen Anne Sacoolas is due to face criminal proceedings in the UK, charged with causing the death by dangerous driving of the 19-year-old motorcyclist Harry Dunn. The 44-year-old is accused of killing the teenager in a road crash outside the US military base RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire on 27 August 2019.

 

Interesting.