ForumGarden

A woman has alleged that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew as part of a lawsuit that claims an American investment banker passed her around rich and powerful friends as a “sex slave while she was still underage.

Oh dear......not another sex scandal.

I had no idea the attenuated regal bloodline was still able to take an interest.

Yep, they're aiming for higher stakes now. Seems that Royalty is going to go through this as well as the common celebrities ! It is time the government brought in a statute of limitations so that there is a cut-off point for claims of a sex assault that is older than say 15 years, and also that they throw out this unfair ruling of hearsay evidence is acceptable in sex cases. All I can say is that people should report these assaults as soon as they can, so that better evidence can be obtained. As it is at the moment, it seems to be 'open house' for particularly women 'jumping on the band wagon' and making these allegations, knowing that the courts will now take hearsay evidence ! How the hell can the alleged attacker defend themselves against hearsay evidence ??? Who is to say that a lot of these women are lying, risking the publicity just to get compensation with a cooked up story ? Something has to be done about these 'historic' allegations of sexual assault, and soon. It is getting stupid. This woman may be genuine, but where is the evidence ? We all know that Prince Andrew had a few odd associates, but was he really mixed up in this sordid business? Would he really risk his position as The Queen of England's son ? I for one thought he was more intelligent to get involved as has been suggested. But then, the most unlikely things happen sometimes.

G#Gill;1470665 wrote: making these allegations, knowing that the courts will now take hearsay evidence !I was unaware that any court had in any of these cases, Gill. Unsubstantiated, maybe, but that's always been so in any trial. What aspect of any woman's evidence describing what happened to her is hearsay? It's all, by definition, first hand evidence.

In conversation I was informed by a lawyer that courts accept hearsay evidence in sexual assault cases. This, at the time, staggered me because it meant that any woman/girl, or man for that matter, could cook up some cock-and-bull story and accuse some poor innocent person of such a crime ! How the heck is that justice ? The only thing the poor innocent person can do is deny the charge, but if the story is emotionally good enough, then there's a very good chance that the poor innocent person could 'go down'.

G#Gill;1470667 wrote: In conversation I was informed by a lawyer that courts accept hearsay evidence in sexual assault cases. This, at the time, staggered me because it meant that any woman/girl, or man for that matter, could cook up some cock-and-bull story and accuse some poor innocent person of such a crime ! How the heck is that justice ? The only thing the poor innocent person can do is deny the charge, but if the story is emotionally good enough, then there's a very good chance that the poor innocent person could 'go down'.


I'm totally baffled. I can't imagine what anyone could say in court which would constitute hearsay. If a woman says, with no evidence whatever, that Mr X had sex with her without her consent, that's first hand evidence. If he denies it, that's first hand evidence.

The trouble is that all these cases are decided by a jury. The judge will look the buggers in the eye and tell them that they must be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged before they can bring a guilty verdict, and the jury decides they believe the complainant despite the lack of any evidence other than her word. It's not hearsay, but it's an odd notion of "beyond reasonable doubt".

In conversation I was informed by a lawyer that courts accept hearsay evidence in sexual assault cases. This, at the time, staggered me because it meant that any woman/girl, or man for that matter, could cook up some cock-and-bull story and accuse some poor innocent person of such a crime ! How the heck is that justice ? The only thing the poor innocent person can do is deny the charge, but if the story is emotionally good enough, then there's a very good chance that the poor innocent person could 'go down'.

I was not referring to any recent cases. I was just passing on what I had been told by a lawyer a few years ago, and I have witnessed this to be actually practised !

G#Gill;1470669 wrote: I was not referring to any recent cases. I was just passing on what I had been told by a lawyer a few years ago, and I have witnessed this to be actually practised !


That's perfect, then. You've seen it happen, you can tell us what happened. What was done, that you personally witnessed, which involved a court accepting hearsay evidence?

When you wrote "it meant that any woman/girl, or man for that matter, could cook up some cock-and-bull story and accuse some poor innocent person of such a crime" I failed to see the hearsay element at all. Cooking up a lie and presenting it in court as the truth is just plain lying, it's not hearsay. Hearsay is when a witness says "I was told by Sandra that she saw him go into the bedroom at 2am", for example. Sandra isn't in court, isn't giving the statement and can't be cross-examined. The evidence that he was seen going into the bedroom at 2am is inadmissable unless Sandra can be produced to say what she saw, in person, and answer questions which arise from her evidence.

I'm In absolutely no doubt here that should I so much as dare critisize Gill's post, she'll accuse me of trolling or ' getting angry' with her.

However, frankly, both of your posts appall me Gill. As a woman, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Very often, the women you see today In historic sex crimes were either children or very young women at the time of the crime. When famous people are Involved, It Is their very status that deters the girls going to the police at the time because they feel or they are warned that no-one will believe them against the word of a wealthy famous name.

I do believe some have jumped on the band wagon as the woman were proved to be liars In the William Roache case but not every one of them.

So by your 15 year rule, the likes of Savile would have got away It had he lived ?

Would you Ignore new evidence In a murder over 15 years old ? Of course not. Yet you're willing to Ignore new evidence just because It Involved sex and a young woman ?

The problem I have had with some celebs being prosecuted under Operation Yewtree such as Dave Lee Travis Is because his entire career was brought Into question over fondling someone's bottom 30 years ago. Yet, some of the cases tried, Involved serious rape.

But it is hearsay evidence when the accuser's lawyers bring in a so-called witness who swears that the accuser told them what had happened, and although they had not actually seen the so-called offence, that witnesses 'evidence' although hearsay, was accepted by the court in front of the jury. That is hearsay evidence. What the accuser says is their word against the word of the accused, which is never a satisfactory situation, so the accuser magics a witness to back up her story. The accused can also bring witnesses to back him up, but only, it seems, as character witnesses ! What chance has the poor accused got ?

Hearsay was accepted In my trial by the judge also.

G#Gill;1470672 wrote: But it is hearsay evidence when the accuser's lawyers bring in a so-called witness who swears that the accuser told them what had happened, and although they had not actually seen the so-called offence, that witnesses 'evidence' although hearsay, was accepted by the court in front of the jury. That is hearsay evidence. What the accuser says is their word against the word of the accused, which is never a satisfactory situation, so the accuser magics a witness to back up her story. The accused can also bring witnesses to back him up, but only, it seems, as character witnesses ! What chance has the poor accused got ?


I can easily see that particular evidence being accepted, but not as hearsay. The accuser has given the evidence to the court herself. The second witness gives first-hand evidence that this is not something concocted recently, it's a story that he, the second witness, can confirm from first-hand evidence was being told by the accuser on, for example, the day after the attack. The court isn't accepting the words spoken that day as evidence, it's accepting on first-hand evidence that the accusation was made immediately, and perhaps in exactly the same terms, and not thought up over a prolonged subsequent period.

FG;1470668 wrote: I'm totally baffled. I can't imagine what anyone could say in court which would constitute hearsay. If a woman says, with no evidence whatever, that Mr X had sex with her without her consent, that's first hand evidence. If he denies it, that's first hand evidence.

The trouble is that all these cases are decided by a jury. The judge will look the buggers in the eye and tell them that they must be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged before they can bring a guilty verdict, and the jury decides they believe the complainant despite the lack of any evidence other than her word. It's not hearsay, but it's an odd notion of "beyond reasonable doubt".


But if the court accepts a statement by Ms, X's friend that Ms. X told her at the time of the incident then that's hearsay.

FG;1470676 wrote: I can easily see that particular evidence being accepted, but not as hearsay. The accuser has given the evidence to the court herself. The second witness gives first-hand evidence that this is not something concocted recently, it's a story that he, the second witness, can confirm from first-hand evidence was being told by the accuser on, for example, the day after the attack. The court isn't accepting the words spoken that day as evidence, it's accepting on first-hand evidence that the accusation was made immediately, and perhaps in exactly the same terms, and not thought up over a prolonged subsequent period.


Nah, it's hearsay because the witness is reporting what she was told happened, not what she saw happen or knows to have happened from her own knowledge.

Bryn Mawr;1470684 wrote: Nah, it's hearsay because the witness is reporting what she was told happened, not what she saw happen or knows to have happened from her own knowledge.


You're quite mistaken. The witness is reporting that the accuser is telling the same story to the court that she told the day after the alleged event. It's first hand evidence of fact.

Oscar Namechange;1470671 wrote: I'm In absolutely no doubt here that should I so much as dare critisize Gill's post, she'll accuse me of trolling or ' getting angry' with her.

However, frankly, both of your posts appall me Gill. As a woman, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Very often, the women you see today In historic sex crimes were either children or very young women at the time of the crime. When famous people are Involved, It Is their very status that deters the girls going to the police at the time because they feel or they are warned that no-one will believe them against the word of a wealthy famous name.

I do believe some have jumped on the band wagon as the woman were proved to be liars In the William Roache case but not every one of them.

So by your 15 year rule, the likes of Savile would have got away It had he lived ?

Would you Ignore new evidence In a murder over 15 years old ? Of course not. Yet you're willing to Ignore new evidence just because It Involved sex and a young woman ?

The problem I have had with some celebs being prosecuted under Operation Yewtree such as Dave Lee Travis Is because his entire career was brought Into question over fondling someone's bottom 30 years ago. Yet, some of the cases tried, Involved serious rape.


It's nothing to do with "daring to criticize" Gill's post, it's to do with making it a personal attack.



It's not your place to tell Gill when she should be ashamed. She has one opinion and you have another so discuss the difference - don't make it personal.



In this instance there is a very fine line between justice for those who were genuinely wronged many years ago and who could not speak out at the time and the destruction of a celebrities reputation by a gold digger or a person with a grudge. In protecting the one it is very easy to penalise the other before the issue of guilt has been decided (and that statement works in both directions).

I fully believe that the identities of both parties should be protected by law until the verdict has been reached and then only the guilty party should be named - the situation we have at the moment is totally one sided and destructive to the accused.

My slant on the case would be, why would a multi millionaire need to force a young lady into sex, there are many who could be bought for the same service.

I may, it seems, be wrong. The law may have changed since I was last aware of it, I'll have to go and look. I have now seen this, on Wikipedia, though I do not so far understand how the final sentence (which I have underlined) can possibly be true, surely the person quoted may have lied in the past...Previous consistent and inconsistent statements

Sometimes during the testimony of a witness, the witness may be questioned about statements he previously made outside court on an earlier occasion, to demonstrate either that he has been consistent or inconsistent in his account of events. The Act did not change the circumstances in which such statements could become admissible in evidence (which are still prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act 1865), but it did change the evidential effect of such statements once admitted. Formerly, such statements were not evidence of the facts stated in them (unless the witness agreed with them in court): they only proved that the witness had kept his story straight or had changed his story, and so were only evidence of his credibility (or lack of it) as a witness. They were not hearsay. Under the 2003 Act, however, such statements are now themselves evidence of any facts stated in them, not just of credibility, and so are now hearsay.

Hearsay in English law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bryn Mawr;1470684 wrote: Nah, it's hearsay because the witness is reporting what she was told happened, not what she saw happen or knows to have happened from her own knowledge.


You are correct here Byn.

Bryn Is right.

Twice In my trial was hearsay accepted. The first was another youth, nothing to do with the Incident, telling the Judge how one of the youths had bragged to him In school about getting compensation. The youth did not see the Incident nor hear the version of events after the Incident. It was just something he was told.

The second time hearsay was accepted was when a witness my lawyer was reluctant to call due to her young age, approached the judge for the girls mother to testify what the child had told her upon getting home which was that the ringleader had squared up to me and the child thought at the time, I was In danger of being attacked by him. Both examples were accepted by the judge. However, had I of produced a witness who said ' The defendant told me the day after that so and so happened'... that would not have been accepted.

To be fair... It's ambiguous and I believe much depends on the judge at the time and whether he/she believes the Info Is relevant.

Bruv;1470688 wrote: My slant on the case would be, why would a multi millionaire need to force a young lady into sex, there are many who could be bought for the same service.


Rape is a power thing Bruv, not a sexual act as such. Why wouldn't a wealthy man force someone? It gives a control over another that hiring doesn't. It's mental.

Didn't he used to be called 'Randy Andy?'

AnneBoleyn;1470699 wrote: Rape is a power thing Bruv, not a sexual act as such. Why wouldn't a wealthy man force someone? It gives a control over another that hiring doesn't. It's mental.

Didn't he used to be called 'Randy Andy?'


In that case you purchase an actress's services.

Bruv;1470709 wrote: In that case you purchase an actress's services.


You are a great guy, a secure man; that's why you're Not getting the point. There is no thrill in a purchase.

In the posts thus far describing Hearsay evidence, the party of the 1st part is someone who was directly involved in the incident (Accused, Victim, or Immediate Witness). The party of the 2nd part is someone who gives testimony to what the party of the 1st part said (i.e. Hearsay). Therefore, if you think about it, anything a Police Officer says, unless they were actually at the event in question, is technically Hearsay.

Personally I find it very difficult to believe that Andrew would do any such thing, but I don't have all the facts to hand. None of us do. All we know is what the tabloids have reported. What is a matter interest, though, is if it comes to court, might there not be a conflict with it being 'Crown' Court?

AnneBoleyn;1470710 wrote: You are a great guy, a secure man; that's why you're Not getting the point. There is no thrill in a purchase.


Aw shucks shuddup.

I am sure if you are into that sort of sex there will be somebody to supply it realistically for a sum of money.

Anne is quite right. Rape is a power kick for the aggressor. I doubt he would get the same satisfaction by paying a Tom for the same thing, as there would be no resistance from the woman ! Not the same as forcing himself on a woman/girl who doesn't want him to do that ! However, this 'sex slave' organisation I'm not sure how that works, but I wouldn't have thought violence was involved. Perhaps somebody knows differently ?