kimilseung

The issue here, is not so much the age itself, but in relationships to her having been trafficked at that age.

SultanOfSwing

She was under 18, that's why I called her a minor.

Consent is the key, as is the issue of trafficking, which was already mentioned. If this was a consensual encounter, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I have my own personal objections to men in their 40s going after 16 year olds just because it's 'legal' but that's not in play here since this is sexual assualt/rape we're talking about.

Lion in Winter

She was a vulnerable teenager, already sexually assaulted and trafficked, picked up and targeted by Maxwell to have sex with multiple men. This wasn't two people who met at a party.

kimilseung

Need to remember that little circle...
Maxwell - convicted on sex crimes
Epstein - convicted on sex crimes
Andrew - sued on sex crimes
Giuffre - not charged with sex crimes.

Assanah

This is true for quite a few prostitutes. They are basically sex slaves. That's why I think that this case could potentially have great implications for a lot of women out there and even maybe the possibility that men who have sex with trafficked women finally face criminal charges

philat98

Prince Andrew thinks Giuffre is suffering from false memories. Since he has almost no memory of his 10 year friendship with Epstein that include visits to his private island it might be good to get the Duke tested at the same time.

macliam

Shitehawk "thinks" nothing, Shitehawk's lawyers are grasping at any straw that might help them to get the action dismissed, not on the principal accusation, but on technicalities. They also want to inerview her husband and assess Giuffre's finances..... draw your own conclusions.

The fact that these guys are so keen to get the case dismissed before it begins smells very badly of a team that knows they are on a loser once the case gets before a jury.
I'm sure they'll want to keep Shitehawk off the stand, because that's a losing hand right there!!

dave_j

Yes, I'm sure his lawyers are casting around to identify anything, absolutely anything at all that'll embarrass Ms Giuffre in the vain hope that it'll identify a point of leverage that they can use to moderate her demands.
One problem they have is that the issues that generally embarrass people, ie their sexual behaviour, forms the basis of the suit and are already well publicised so other paths need to be explored.
This will be a nasty dirty tell-all if it ever reaches court and I'd expect Andrew to wilt and shrivel on the stand before Ms Giuffre breaks sweat.

Assanah

This whole situation is disgusting. I don't know what is wrong with the royal family? Harry loses his titles quickly for simply walking away while a likely rapist of a trafficked teenager can keep his titles until the last minute.

hughandi

Harry didn't 'simply walk away'...........he put the boot in.
Harry hasn't lost his title, he has lost his right to his military patronages.
It is right and acceptable that they revert back to the Queen, as its not feasible that he can represent UK military services and charity while living permanently in th USA.

The disgraced Dirty Dukes patronages will also revert back to the Queen, as he is not worthy to represent them.

Boomhauer

The latest article from the Daily Fail claims a Royal Protection officer witnessed Andrew scream at his maids if they messed up the arrangement of his teddy bears.

Quote:

Prince Andrew's teddy bear tantrums revealed: Ex-Royal protection officer claims Duke of York would 'shout and scream' if palace maids knocked out of place his collection of 60 stuffed toys

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ffed-toys.html

philat98

Along with those 60 bears Ghislaine Maxwell was frequently found in the bedroom.

macliam

I doubt it - far too old.

Scamp

Snort.

macliam

..............are you suggesting that white powder on his washbasin wasn't Vim?