Ghislaine Maxwell arrested by FBI

There is a civil case that his lawyers are trying to find all sorts to get that chucked out. Something to do with Ms. Guifrre's rsidency

As for any criminal proceedings, can't see anything happening unless Ms. Maxwell now starts talking (if she doesn't commit 'suicide')

Mr Conspiracist strikes again! Get off the wakky bakky!

That’s such a slimy defence for something. We’re talking about a deal a dead sexual predator made with his victim here and he thinks leaning on that will make this all go away?

He’d be so much better off just facing the civil case, denying it ever happened and hearing the verdict. I’m guessing it will be hard to find enough evidence to rule in her favour given the length of time since the alleged offences took place.

That process takes longer with more media coverage but to be honest his reputation is irrevocably damaged at this point and he’d at least be able to say ‘he didn’t do it’ at that point rather than ‘he denies he did it but he has immunity so no-one can sue him anyway’

Yeah it appears to be legally solid. Wouldn’t be surprised if either Giuffre’s legal team sued him with the intention of bringing the negative publicity that it would provide, knowing that it wouldn’t hold when push came to shove or that they’ve been caught off guard by the paper.

I must admit I don’t really understand civil proceedings of this nature. If he’s guilty of a criminal act in a “civil” sense, then why hasn’t he been brought to task in a criminal court. Then if there isn’t enough evidence to meet the threshold of prosecution in a criminal sense, how can damages be awarded without the admittance of guilt? I get civil proceedings for stuff that wouldn’t be considered criminal but would be considered negligent, but it’s hard to argue that Andrew has been negligent but not criminal if an instance of alleged sexual assault can be proven.

Completely agree.

He is utterly desperate not to have to actually defend himself.

This only makes him look worse, if that were possible.

What he should have done was just said, I shagged her in London, she was 17 and as far as I was aware she was fully consenting.

He would probably have had the backing of most of the country.

Please don't misunderstand me, I think he's a nonce too but he could probably convince a lot of people he wasn't if he admitted to having sex with a 17yr old (which is over the UK age of consent)

Denying knowledge of sex trafficking is much easier than saying "I don't recollect", "I am unable to sweat" and looking desperate to avoid going to court with a string of pathetic legal shinnanigans.

Yep just read the same thing. If that’s the case then absolutely game on, but would need to see the full document (when I say I’d need to see it, I have absolutely no interest in seeing it).

The final part about signatures and permission was pretty big as well, “Even if Prince Andrew could be properly classed as a "potential defendant" to Ms Giuffre's 2009 Florida claims, her settlement with Epstein says that third parties - meaning someone whose signature was not on the agreement - could not use that agreement in another court without their permission.

Given that Epstein is dead and Ms Giuffre doesn't want the prince to benefit from the agreement's terms, a strict reading of that paragraph would mean the agreement is irrelevant to her damages case.”

Not sure how the law works with the dead though

I think you are missing my point.

The legal age of consent is 16.

She was said to have been 17 when she says she had sex with Andrew.

Legally, what has he done wrong in that scenario?

Im not defending him, and morally I think what he is alleged to have done is disgusting.

I'm talking about legal right and wrong, not actual right and wrong.

I concede the phrase "backing from most" is probably wrong. What I was trying to say is that his behaviour makes him look guilty of much more than having a questionable, but ultimately legal relationship with her.