As noose tightens on Prince Andrew, his protection hangs on these authorized methods

Prince Andrew doesn’t sweat, and as a member of the British royal household, he doesn’t often hug both.

These have been simply two of the weird excuses the Duke of York gave when he tried to disclaim allegations he had ever met or had intercourse with a teenage intercourse slave recruited by his buddies, convicted intercourse trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell and billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein greater than twenty years in the past.

Now, as a Manhattan federal court docket choose seems poised to permit a civil lawsuit from accuser Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) to maneuver ahead in opposition to the British royal, his denials will seemingly get him nowhere.

Prince Andrew claimed he had by no means met Giuffre regardless of {a photograph} displaying the British royal along with his arm across the waist of the then-17-year-old at Maxwell’s London dwelling in 2001. In a “car crash” interview with the BBC in Nov. 2019, Andrew steered that the {photograph} was probably not a real likeness.

“It’s {a photograph} of {a photograph} of {a photograph}. No person can show whether or not or not that {photograph} has been doctored,” he said, including that “I’m not one to, um, because it have been, hug.”

He additionally claimed he couldn’t have had intercourse with Giuffre as a result of she stated he was “dripping with sweat” the evening they danced at Tramp evening membership earlier than the tryst. The rationale? “I didn’t sweat on the time as a result of I had suffered what I might describe as an overdose of adrenalin within the Falkland’s Conflict after I was shot at,” he stated within the BBC interview.

He has additionally claimed he was with certainly one of his daughters on the evening of the tryst, having taken her to a Pizza Specific restaurant, adopted by an early evening at dwelling. However in 2020, witness Shukri Walker got here ahead and stated she remembered Andrew being on the membership that evening, as a result of at one level she apologized for stepping on his foot.

Now, as Andrew’s tales seem more and more ridiculous, his attorneys are counting on authorized technicalities to get him off, ought to the case go forward. In a digital listening to on Jan. 4, federal choose Lewis Kaplan appeared unconvinced by Andrew’s attorneys’ argument {that a} $500,000 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre in 2009 additionally protected the royal from prosecution. Kaplan is anticipated to rule quickly on whether or not the case can transfer to trial.

“It was an actual pleasure to listen to Choose Kaplan aggressively query Prince Andrew’s lawyer as he tried each attainable technicality to dam Virginia Giuffre’s entry to justice,” stated lawyer Lisa Bloom, an lawyer who represented eight of Epstein’s victims.

Now, Andrew’s capacity to mount a protection rests on a couple of, skinny authorized technicalities, which can seemingly fail to persuade anybody he by no means had intercourse with Giuffre. However one of many following arguments would possibly simply get him off:

Statute of Limitations: Giuffre, now 38, introduced her case in opposition to Andrew underneath the Little one Victims Act, a 2019 New York State Regulation giving victims of sexual abuse a window of two years to file civil fits in opposition to their alleged childhood abusers. Her swimsuit was filed 5 days earlier than the shut of the “window” for submitting claims — some stretching again many years — expired on Aug. 14.

Last month, attorneys for Andrew, 61, tried to get the case thrown out of court docket, arguing that the Little one Victims Act was “unconstitutional” — an argument Bloom finds abhorrent.

“Most annoying was Andrew’s try to get the whole prolonged statute of limitations for New York baby sexual abuse victims held unconstitutional, which might harm so many victims struggling for justice,” Bloom informed The Submit. “Does the Queen know what he’s as much as?”

Age of consent: Andrew’s attorneys additionally argue that as a result of Giuffre was 17 — the authorized age of consent in New York on the time of the alleged abuse — she would have problem proving that the she was “compelled” to have intercourse.

Andrew’s attorneys have argued that in a case the place a 17-year-old alleges abuse, the sufferer should show an absence of consent by “implied menace” — which, in Giuffre’s case, would rely upon unavailable third-party witness testimony. The prince says solely 4 individuals have been witness to the alleged abuse — Maxwell (who didn’t testify at her personal trial final month), Epstein (who died in jail awaiting trial in 2019), Andrew himself and Giuffre.

Giuffre’s claims underneath the Little one Victims Act are “based mostly solely on the unverified (and unverifiable) competition that they didn’t consent to these acts,” Andrew’s attorneys say in court docket papers.

Residency points: In court docket papers, Prince Andrew argued that Giuffre’s lawsuit needs to be thrown out as a result of Giuffre is just not a US resident, and doesn’t have the suitable to file a declare in a US court docket as a result of she lives full-time in Australia. Giuffre’s attorneys David Boies and Sigrid McCawley countered that she is a resident of Colorado, the place her mom at the moment lives, and stated the residency query was little greater than “a clear try to delay discovery into his personal paperwork and testimony.”

Lack of documentation: Prince Andrew’s attorneys declare that he has no paperwork requested by Giuffre’s attorneys, together with any communications with Epstein or Maxwell, who was convicted on a number of federal intercourse trafficking expenses and is now awaiting sentencing. In addition they argued he had no data associated to his journeys to go to Epstein in Florida and New York or any medical documentation about his incapacity to sweat. His attorneys have known as the calls for for the documentation “oppressive” and “harassing,” including that the data is protected against disclosure by rights of privateness underneath the US structure.

Blaming the sufferer: Andrew’s attorneys are arguing that Giuffre is just not credible as a result of she allegedly helped procure women and younger girls for Epstein and Maxwell and took a payout when she settled her claims in opposition to Epstein in 2009. And but, greater than ever, juries are inclined to imagine the alleged sufferer even when there are lapses of their reminiscence.

“They have been all plausible. Nothing they stated felt to me like a lie,” Scotty David, a juror who helped convict Maxwell, told the Independent this week.

It’s not but clear whether or not Andrew’s case might be heard by a jury or a single choose. Regardless of the final result, any trial is for certain to generate much more damaging publicity for the British royal household and the beleaguered prince, who’s eighth in line to the throne. One authorized skilled believes that Prince Andrew ought to have settled instantly to keep away from the embarrassment of a future discovery course of ought to the case transfer to trial. Legal professionals for Giuffre reportedly have proof from one unnamed girl who remembers being informed to prepare for Andrew at Epstein’s Higher East Aspect mansion — particulars which might come out in an eventual discovery course of.

Former federal prosecutor Richard Signorelli, now a protection lawyer, who is just not related to the case, stated, “Prince Andrew’s attorneys ought to have given severe consideration whether or not it could have been of their shopper’s curiosity to keep up as low a profile as attainable by confidentially settling this lawsuit even when they thought it was not probably meritorious.”

As an alternative, the Duke of York finds himself within the hardest spot of his life, preventing not only for his standing as a member of the royal household but additionally for his future as a possible convict.