Prince Andrew Slut Shames his teenage victim

Post Reply New Topic

Just when you thought Randy Andy couldn't sink any lower...well he somehow managed....

Over the weekend, HRH Prince Andrew’s legal team filed their official rebuttal against Epstein trafficking victim Virginia Giuffre’s (nee Roberts) civil case against the royal in which she alleges that he sexually assaulted her on three occasions, scathingly attacking the mother-of-three, accusing her of trying to procure underage “slu*ty” girls for the disgraced financier.

The royal’s legal team, which is being headed by Los Angeles-based celebrity lawyer Andrew Brettler, argues in the filing that Giuffre’s case is “baseless”, that “sensationalism and innuendo have prevailed over the truth” and that she was motivated to launch her legal action “to achieve another payday at his expense and at the expense of those closest to him”.

In the 36-page document, lawyers for the royal alleged that she was involved in the “wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse” and includes a reference to her as a “money hungry sex kitten.” (One section in the document is headed: “Giuffre’s role in Epstein’s criminal enterprise.”)
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/c ... df58b5df32

In a sign his legal team are getting desperate spending over a million pounds of British taxpayer money they are now indulging in this wince-inducing frenzy of victim-blaming that is wildly tone deaf, especially in the post-Me Too era.

It's a character attack. They get used a lot in law in the absence of evidence. You can't prove what did or didn't happen between two people in a closed room, years after the fact. Any witnesses are unlikely to talk because they'll incriminate themselves. The defense's only recourse is to attack the character of the person making the claim. It actually can often be a wrong defense because the 'evidence' is usually inadmissable because it doesn't directly address the claim. But that's not the point.

Cyberdad may be right, but to be honest I don't know how much the average person cares about slut-shaming. Indeed, if you read the UK press which is broadly right-leaning and increasingly trashy, people seem quite comfortable with judging people they don't know based on their rumoured sexual behavior.

As for the court of public opinion, I doubt many people have much sympathy for Prince Andrew either. I get the impression our love of Royals doesn't extend much further than the Queen herself.

This case is far too crazy to know what really went on to be honest, plus any chance of attacking the royals people jump at because it's been that way for years. I think if the queen knew he did it she would have stripped him of his royal rank and duties by now, the fact that it's dragging on is questionable.

I have no doubt that even if the Queen knew for a fact that Andrew had sex with this girl, her first and last instinct would be to protect the institution of the royal family however she could from the scandal. Stripping him of his title would be an admission of guilt at this stage and if there's any way a scintilla of doubt about his conduct can be preserved then the Windsors will move heaven and earth to make sure it remains.

Who says she is a victim?  Herself?  Why should anyone take her word for an alleged crime?  Is there any forensic evidence to back up her claim?  Why is she given the benefit of the doubt and not he?

For the record, if he is guilty, then he should face the full impact of the law, regardless of his royal status.

But when a case comes down to "He Said / She Said", his guilt should not automatically be presumed before the actual trial even begins.

I also have no doubt that if the Queen knew that Andrew was taking part in a sex trafficking ring, the first moral she could have considered would be to ask insiders of the Royal Family to conduct an investigation into Andrew, but of course this has never happened. Taking away Andrew's rank and title at some point could have been a strong benefit for the Royal Family.

If you read my post, I said it's not evidence, But it raised some uncomfortable questions for Andy, ones he's not been able to defend very well. If he has nothing to hide then it seems strange he has lied. His attempt to manage the damage has been woefully hopeless. I strongly suspect he did sleep with her. am willing to accept he did not know Virginia Giuffre's exact age but he must have known she was young just by looking at her (and given he knew Epstein well he must have suspected).

I think we should leave it all in the courts hands and between them. I do not like it when the press open up what really should be a private court case. No one else would want their deepest secrets uncovered in public, and why should it be ok for him and the lady who are in court? I really think we should let them alone to have their input in court and sort it all out between them before a judge and jury so they can decide who is right or wrong (Maybe both were wrong... Who knows!) but let it all be between them. Not for us. We should never ever let this alter the fact that these people have good points about them too.
All so often we see nagatives all over the press. How often do the oress even want to print positives about people? Why is it that they only seem to earn money chasing negatives? Why can't we be a people who seek out the best in others and want to buy newspapers and watch or listen to news which seeks out the good in people?

We can get far to negative.

Look. Every single one of us has done something bad and embarissing. Some have only done even worse things because they have had the opportunity and given in. None of us is immune from sin.
Why do we sensationalize the bad. Yes, they needed to bring this to court as they needed someone to stand there and judge to clear the air between them so that the right ways are shown and so it gives a chance for any wrong doing to be clarified, and if needed, to be put right or if it was really bad, a form of corrective punishment is needed to make the wrong doer think again before he or she makes the same mistake twice.

But this should be private in that all the embarissing details should not be allowed to be made public, and I say this in any case and every case where it involves delicate details.

Anyway. I have had my say. I tried and tried to write this and kept deleting what I put as I did not know how to say it. I have said it now.