Prince Andrew - out of court settlement?

I too was looking forward to him doing jail time. First time in the showers he would probably rediscover his ability to sweat.!!

 

Well obviously. I'm on about the age of consent.

Which is 14 in Italy, apparently. What do you think about that?

 

It is a civil case, but I just used "guilt" as a more straightforward expression than liability.

No firm would take a case of this magnitude on as a "freebie" without at least some form of insurance for their fees. And even if they did, the decision to settle is exclusively hers and not her lawyers'. If they were doing it on a freebie she would actually be less incentivised to settle as she would know that if she lost she wouldn't have to pay their legal fees, so that makes no sense.

Saying she settled because she was likely to lose is ignorant of the realities of litigation. Let's say she was likely to receive $10m in damages if she won, and estimated her chances of winning to be 80%. If Prince Andrew offered her $8m to settle then its a no brainer - she's getting her expected value and avoiding the risk of the 20% of the time where she loses, gets made bankrupt and branded a money grabbing liar.

 

She was of legal age in our country. Our country.

You seem to wish to equate the matter of trafficking with the age of consent for sex.

You can be traffficked in your 40s. It's a different thing altogether. It's illegal and mega criminal. Run by evil people.

A discussion about the arbitrary ages of consent in different jurisdictions, and the merits of the extent to which someone should be criminalised therefor, is something completely different.

 

Neither you nor I know the exact terms of her lawyers retainers nor the terms of settlement either. So this discussion is far too speculative to reach a meaningful conclusion.

 

I doubt that’s the probable outcome.
If her lawyers didn’t think she could win, why would he settle? In settling he’s lost a shedload of cash and any scrap of a chance people would believe he’s not guilty.

Why the fc uk would he do that if he had a chance of winning the case and clearing his name.

Thats the most batsh it analysis of a situation I’ve ever read.

 

We'll never see the numbers but that doesnt mean your assumptions and analysis aren't clearly misguided.

 

No sweat lol

 

Old enough to bleed old enough to butcher. So the ancient royal proverb says.

 

It takes two to settle. He was desperate to get it out of the way. I bet his lawyers snapped her lawyers hands off.

And he was only given the chance to do this if her lawyers advised her to settle. And they would only settle if there was too much of a chance she'd lose.

He's not had to admit he lied about their relationship. Or admit anything. Great result for him. He's not even having to admit he's paying her compensation. He's paying it to her "charity".

He's been let off the hook. And there has to be a reason for that.

 

Well I've analysed my assumptions and I'm quite happy. But thank you anyway.

 

Vile.

Utterly vile.

 

You’ll find he did have to accept that she was a victim, as per his statement.

As if your assessment wasn’t so obviously mental, the fact you based it on an incorrect assumption ought to remove all doubt.

 

Again…
Massively misunderstood

She couldn’t ‘decide’ to settle except as an answer to an offer from his lawyers.

So that leaves you to answer the same question; if his lawyers thought he had anything more than a 50% chance of winning, why would they make an offer to settle out of court?

And given her previous stance that she had no desire to settle out of court, what do you really think might make her change her mind?

 

Did he admit she was a victim of his?

That is my point.

 

Either side of a dispute can put forward an offer to settle.

Either side may have numerous different reasons for wanting to settle.

So we can but speculate what brought both sides to a settlement. Hers might have been money, his might have been to get it over with. Either might have been fear of losing

95% of US cases settle, so it's not unusual.

 

Why would he give her millions of dollars if he’s innocent?

You don’t have a point.

 

Did he admit she was a victim of his? I myself don't know - but given that you haven't told me that he did so admit, I presume that he hasn't.

I thought he'd paid money to her charity, not given her compensation. Again, you can tell me if I'm wrong.

 

If I had been accused of an appalling awful crime that I knew I had not committed and knew that this wasn't just a case of Possible misunderstanding or any kind of grey area where we both remembered things differently (which I'm not defending) but was a case of someone outright lying about me in order to ruin my reputation.
If I had unlimited money to defend myself and could prove my innocence.
If I had access to some of the most detailed and reliable medical records in the world to prove that I had an extremely rare medical condition making me unable to sweat.
If I had such a high public profile that everyone working at pizza express would undoubtedly remember me attending their place of employment on a specific date AND had highly detailed diaries proving where I was at all times as a senior member of the royal family.

If I had all of those things to quite easily prove that my alleged victim was making the whole thing up.

Then I would most definitely be having my day in court to show the whole world without a shadow of a doubt that I am an innocent man.

The absolute last thing I'd dream of doing is paying my accuser to drop the case thus making people all over the world believe I was guilty as hell.

In fact it seems such a stupid concept to me that I don't believe for one second that Prince Andrew is innocent. I think he has just admitted guilt in an informal way in order to avoid being found guilty formally.

 

Welcome to a world where the victim is the enemy.