The court hearing in Virginia Giuffre’s case didn’t go well for Prince Andrew

Prince Andrew China

Yesterday was a major hearing in Virginia Giuffre’s civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew for sexual abuse. Lawyers for Giuffre and Andrew gathered in a court hearing which was open to the media. Judge Kaplan heard various arguments from both sides, and long story short, he seemed to lean quite heavily towards Giuffre’s side. As in, it looks very likely that Judge Kaplan will rule – some time this week – that Giuffre’s lawsuit can go ahead to trial, that Andrew’s lawyers have not shown why the case should be dismissed.

Lawyer Lisa Bloom had an excellent thread reporting on and analyzing the hearing, go here to see the full thread. Andrew’s lawyers argued that Giuffre was not specific enough with her claims of being raped at 17 and the judge said she had no obligation to do so in the complaint. Andrew’s lawyers also argued that the New York law itself is unconstitutional, the law extending the statute of limitations on sex crimes, child abuse, etc. Andrew’s lawyers were truly arguing that no victim of rape, molestation or sexual abuse should be able to sue their abusers using this law. Judge Kaplan also seemed to agree with Giuffre’s legal argument re: the 2009 settlement with Jeffrey Epstein and how Andrew should not be “included” in the legal language.

The British papers are full of reporting on the court hearing and Judge Kaplan told the lawyers that he would have a ruling soon, which is why I think we’ll probably hear about it this week, if not today. The New York Times did have an interesting story about how pathetic Andrew is, and how this case will affect the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. There were some quotes from royal commentators I wanted to highlight:

“If the case drags on and on and on, yes, it will be a thorn in the side of the Platinum Jubilee,” said Dickie Arbiter, who served as a press secretary to the queen from 1988 to 2000. Beyond the fraught issues raised in that case, he said, were the lingering questions stirred by the rift between the family and Prince Harry and his American-born wife, Meghan.

“My gut feeling is that most people have lost interest in him,” said Penny Junor, a royal historian. “He’s arrogant and not particularly popular. Since he’s gone past middle age, there’s been a general sense of ‘what’s he for?’”

In one respect, however, Andrew could remain a lingering problem, Ms. Junor said. The queen has not stripped him of his honorary military titles, some of which he inherited from his father, Prince Philip, who died last year. That has prompted objections from veterans, who say it is unseemly to be under the command of a person facing such allegations.

Julian Perreira, a former sergeant in the Grenadier Guards who served in Afghanistan, told The Times of London last week, “Being allowed to retain his role as colonel of the Grenadier Guards and other military titles, Prince Andrew will put a stain on the regiment’s proud history and will devalue the hard work of past and future generations of Grenadiers. He must step down immediately.”

“The queen gives and the queen takes away, but she’d probably be reluctant to take this away because that’s all he got left,” Mr. Arbiter said. “She is the head of state and head of the nation, but at the end of the day, she’s also his mother.”

[From The New York Times]

This whole “what is she going to do, she’s his mother” thing is so f–king stupid. She stripped her beloved grandson of his military honors because he refused to be bullied and harassed by the courtiers and media. The Queen refused to allow Harry, a veteran of war, the ability to have a wreath laid on the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day. And at the same f–king time, she’s giving Andrew millions of dollars under the table so that he can pay his lawyers to argue in court that victims should have no right to sue their abusers. Note how Dickie Arbiter couldn’t wait to drag Harry and Meghan into Andrew’s mess too, like “Harry writing a memoir” is somehow equivalent to Andrew’s criminal and disgusting behavior.

Trooping the Colour 2019 Photo: Albert Nieboer / Netherlands OUT / Point De Vue OUT

Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts **FILE PHOTOS**

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

85 Responses to “The court hearing in Virginia Giuffre’s case didn’t go well for Prince Andrew”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. MrsGuyIncognito says:

    So, would you say he’s sweating it now? I’ll show myself out

  2. Amy T says:

    I have a very large bag of popcorn on hand…

  3. milliemollie says:

    Well, thank God, he can’t sweat!

  4. Apollocat says:

    Yawn this white monster wont face jail. Brf will protect him til the end. My big question is how all the windsor men andy alone who is pushing 60 have head full of hair. Is he really Philip son ?? If bald gene pass from mother side how it skip andy alone?? But like in eastern science blad gene comes from father it is very possible theory andy is not Philip son.

    • Leanne says:

      That rumor is why I’ve always thought she is overly protective of him

    • Sofia says:

      Look I am not an expert in genetics but siblings can and do get different genes. Charles himself isn’t completely bald and I’d argue he has more hair than William. Never got into the “Porchey is Andrew’s father” stuff either. Yeah they have similar face shapes but the aristocracy is inbred that all the men probably look similar enough if you line them up and look at them for long enough.

      • Apollocat says:

        No but every single one has blad or bald patch. Specially gene like bald wont skip. Even harry where many ppl believe charles is not father has Windsor bald but andy none. I will wait for cambridges male kids too.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I’m a twin, and have heard that genes aren’t as simple as you have them or you don’t. Identical twins can have same genes and look different because some genes “turn on and off”. So Andrew’s balding gene might be there, just hasn’t been activated.

        *my “expertise” comes from a documentary, so take some salt with it!

      • Andie says:

        Um what at the comment “a gene like bald won’t skip” LMAOOO are you saying you can’t have siblings where one guy is bald and the other isn’t? LOLLL girl what????

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Andrew heavily resembles the males in the Carnarvon clan. Google the current Earl of Carnarvon and his brother as the resemblance is interesting and worth a look.

      • milliemollie says:

        I’m not seeing it.
        I think Andrew looks like his great-grandmother Queen Mary.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        milliemollie, I just looked at picture of Princess Alice of Battenberg (Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark). Does he have her nose and mouth?

    • Becks1 says:

      This is a civil suit, so no, he is not going to face jail time from this lawsuit.

    • Mich says:

      If you told me his father was Peter Pettigrew, I would believe it.

    • HeyJude says:

      You all haven’t taken into account the most simple explanation- that hair plugs got decently convincing right around the time Andrew was in the range were he would have been balding the most- late 80s/early 90s.

      • Denise says:

        I think it’s hair plugs too and often wondered why Willam didn’t go that route especially since he went bald so young.

  5. Janey says:

    best late Christmas present I could have asked for after Maxwell being found guilty.

  6. Wiglet Watcher says:

    So, the queen will burn it all down for her favorite son, a known rapist, but god forbid her grandson want a life free from abuse towards him and his family to prop up his incompetent and racist older brother.

    I’m really more interested in what Charles will do. Exile Andrew? Or avoid more chatter and just push him into a corner, paying his bills to exchange for keeping quiet.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “just push him into a corner, paying his bills to exchange for keeping quiet” and out of public site.

      I think this is exactly what will happen.

    • Mac says:

      I think Charles will strip him of whatever titles he can the second he gets the chance. I also think the queen will leave Andrew a tidy sum which will give Charles an excuse to cut him off entirely.

    • HeyJude says:

      You should correct you statement to this- “So, the queen will burn it all down for her favorite son, a known pedophile, but won’t lift a finger in defense of a woman with an ounce of blackness in her, even if she bears her blood heirs.”

      I mean that’s what the real issue is for her.

  7. Tessa says:

    She was not reluctant to sit back and let the trashing of Harry and Meghan go on. Nor take away his medals. Yet “she’s a mother” and what can she do about Andrew? Junor’s argument of people losing interest in Andrew is totally absurd. I wish these writers would leave Harry and Meghan out of it. Harry protecting his wife and children is something admirable. And he was right to move away from all the dysfunction.

    • Kalana says:

      She’s a bad mother who enabled her son’s terrible behavior from the time he was a child.

      I came across a Twitter thread of UK military sharing stories about Andrew. He was despised.

  8. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Which is more objectionable to these Brits today, the idea of begin woke, or the idea of being in (Pizza Express) Woking?

  9. Tessa says:

    Why the Queen just sat back and did nothing about Andrew’s visits to Epstein, is typical. She ostriches until the issues get out of control. But she misdirects her “actions” instead allowing Harry and Meghan to be driven out and not keeping William under control.

    • Seraphina says:

      I think we are also missing Philip in all this drama. Who knows what he knew and what he told Liz and what he turned a blink eye to. Philip dealt with a great deal of the family issues. But, the buck stops with Liz right now as far as Andrew being coddled at her breast vs allowing the mistreatment of H&M.

      • Tessa says:

        Given Philips reputation, I SINCERELY doubt he cared about what his son did with (some irrelevant for them) 17-year-old. He might have been annoyed it came out.

  10. Sofia says:

    I think a lot of is more “he’s the favourite” rather than “she’s just a poor mummy”. If this was happening to let’s say Edward, would she still let him keep his military titles? Maybe, maybe not.

    But what’s this nonsense from Arbiter saying it’s “all he has left”? Even if all his military titles are gone, he’s still going to keep the ones he’s earned when he was in the navy (not sure what he actually earned). And even if he didn’t “earn” any titles, he’s still going to be HRH The Duke of York, he’s still going to have a massive house in Windsor, he’s still going to have security paid for by mummy and he’s still going to be in the line of succession. So he’s got a lot left.

    • superashes says:

      I think you are spot on and this is more about the fact that he is her favorite than anything else. She will always give cover to Charles since he is FK, and for Andy because he is the favorite.

  11. CC says:

    If you have sympathy for Andrew, please consider a tax-deductible gift to the new charity The Foundation For Those Who Suddenly Couldn’t Sweat But Eventually Began Sweating Again. They accept both monetary donations and sticks of antiperspirant. It’s, uh, not going well for them either.

  12. Melissa Melnychuk says:

    I’m just so proud of Virginia. Imagine knowing who and what you were up against and persisting every single day. Both her and Meghan. These two are really knocking the monarchy on its knees, just by existing.

    • BrainFog 💉💉😷 says:

      Agreed. So proud of them.

    • NIlestheninja says:

      Absolutely agree. They are the exemplification of badaxs women. I admire their determination & strength across the board. Turning a seemingly unimaginable situation into a positive, whilst empowering others to do the same… is admirable, to say the least.

  13. Lizzie says:

    I’ve always found it odd that Betty was such a distant mother, at least to Charles, yet she grew up with parents who adored her and her sister and they loved spending time together. She didn’t try to emulate her parents at all until she had Andrew and Edward.

    • Tessa says:

      At the same time, she coddled Charles. Different way, but he got to do what he wanted in his personal life with the Queen’s backing. Especially as an adult.

  14. mich says:

    Love that article pointed out quickly Queen removed Harry’s titles. I’m loving the more balanced reporting outside of UK. Saw a clip of Tominey and her critique. I think the RR got their instructions to gently throw PA under bus

  15. Commonwealthy sounded witty at first says:

    Someone said on twitter and a lightbulb went off – the Queen was detail-oriented enough to express dismay at her granddaughter-in-law’s black nail polish, and all the little bullshit things Meghan was blamed for, but not detail-oriented enough to express dismay at her son’s credible acts of child sex abuse. So how are the courts and the media going to go with “she’s just a mummy and she’s 95” now, while simultaneously wanting us to believe all “the Queen’s” statements of Harry and Meghan before and after Sussexit were really her, and not Will/Kate/Carole/courtiers?

    Also, I think Americans are noticing how little coverage Andrew’s sex abuse case is getting in the media, compared to how much Meghan’s privacy case got, and how much every little thing she does gets.

  16. MonieInTheMiddle says:

    Just listening to a podcast on this subject this morning whilst wfh.

    The hosts did an incredible analysis of the settlement agreement and how seeking to rely on it was always going to be a risky move for Andrew.

    The men in grey suits along with Andrew must surely be sweating out their Barbour jackets.

    My guess now is that Andrew knows that he will never again re-enter ‘public life’. His patronages have already pre-emptively sought to distance themselves, but Bucks palace continue to live in la la land. I am hoping that they too will soon begin the process of radical acceptance.

    In the meantime, Andrew’s only objective I suspect is damage limitation, by using every conceivable argument to lobby for the cessation of the case.

    Personally, I do not think that Andrew will face justice in any real meaningful criminal sense. But hopefully the case can at least be heard on a civil basis thus allowing VG to have her day in court to show the world how utterly reprehensible Andrew and his family have been in perpetuating and covering up these heinous crimes.

    In other news I suspect that Kate is very cross that all this n*nce business is overshadowing her birthday and snazzy bash outfit.

    I will happily wager £100 that the Duchess of Cuckoldery aka Keen to share the community peen will take this opp to show that all is good with her and William. Prepare yourself peeps for another snazzy Bond girl outfit and an ever bigger fake laugh for the paps, who will of course be on tap.

  17. Laalaa says:

    Thank God the judge said the victim had no obligation to be SPECIFIC ENOUGH in the complaint. To even make that argument to dispute the VICTIM… makes me sick.

  18. harperc says:

    IANAL. That being said, isn’t an argument like “this entire law is unconstitutional” basically laying the groundwork to get the case overturned in appeal? Since appeals are a matter of the law and not the facts of the case, an appeals court could possibly find the NY statute of limitations law unconstitutional and toss it out.

    For a family that doesn’t believe in interfering in legislation and politics, that’s certainly a whole bunch of interfering. A whole heck of a lot more than just calling a senator or two.

  19. superashes says:

    I think Andrew would have been better served to do more editing in his arguments.

    Dismissals for vagueness are famously difficult to win, and even when you are successful the Court just requires the complaint to be amended. That they tried to have the extension of the statute of limitations be declared unconstitutional is also just absurd and nauseating.

    In my experience you are much better off focusing on one or two strong arguments, and just letting weaker ones go, so that you retain credibility before the judge. Given that for him to win would mean an abuse victim is silenced and further distanced from any form of relief, that is all the more reason to tread delicately as there is zero chance a Judge is not going to let the claim go forward unless the Judge is 100% obligated to dismiss it.

    The fact that those first two arguments were ever put up is just ridiculous. He should have just focused on the third one.

    • WithTheAmerican says:

      It seems like his primary goal is negative PR in attempt to shame Virginia. Surely his lawyers know better, but we saw how arrogant PA was in his interview and I suspect he’s trying to run this show too.

      It reeks of his entitlement that it hasn’t occurred to him that smearing a victim of child sex trafficking isn’t a good look.

      • superashes says:

        I suppose that is possible, but his goal should be to win his case. If he cared about PR, he should have considered how bad it is going to look when he loses this Motion to Dismiss. Once you lose credibility with the Judge you are in a bad spot even if you have a very good legal argument.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think they are trying to shame Virginia, but I’m not sure how effective that’s going to be on a PR level (it doesn’t really matter on a legal level.) Virginia has been very open about her story for years now. She gave an interview in response to Andrew’s NewsNight interview, she was on the Netflix documentary about Epstein, she’s outspoken on Twitter about this, etc. And that’s not getting into her other interviews (including the one that ABC news refused to air bc the palace threatened them).

        So I guess i’m just not sure what else there is to say about her. Are more people paying attention now that Andrew is being sued directly? Maybe, but given his overall unpopularity and the disaster of the news night interview, I don’t think people are going to buy into the whole “I’m just a rich prince who was seduced by this woman who was 17 SO TOTALLY LEGAL because she wants all my mommy’s money!!!” argument. Do some people think that’s what’s happening? Sure, of course. But I don’t think its the PR winner that Andrew thinks it is, overall.

    • Becks1 says:

      And if you read some of the quotes from the judge during the hearing, he agreed (that some of the arguments were ridiculous.) The judge was basically telling the lawyer to move on and he kept going with some of them.

      • superashes says:

        More often than not, when you are in a grey area a lot of tough questions typically is actually a good thing, because it means the Judge is considering adopting your position and wants to press on what they view as weak spots to see how to shore that corner of the rationale up. My guess is the Judge is going to either toss the defense entirely or find the settlement agreement ambiguous and allow parol evidence as to what the parties intended, which will bring in the 2009 case materials. I don’t think he is going to win on the argument at this stage, though he might later.

      • superashes says:

        Telling the attorney to move on is a pretty bad sign.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Superashes – right. I’m an attorney too.

  20. Margaret says:

    There have been rumors about Phil, Charles, the queen also, and others in regards to kids. I truly believe she sees nothing wrong with his behavior.
    When you yourself have unanswered questions regarding disappearing children, well why wouldn’t she back her son?.

    • Lily says:

      Would love to know more about everything you mentioned here, especially disappearing children.

  21. Mslove says:

    I notice how the royal commentators point out that Meghan is American born, like Harry lowered himself by marrying an American, lol. But it’s okay to stick up for rapist Andrew, pay his attorney fees and fund his lavish lifestyle.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I know they meant it as an insult, but I read “American born” as a compliment. We don’t take crap from the British royal family.

      • Alexandria says:

        Not entirely true since the ABC reporter had to squash her story because the royals threatened to cut access to the prize that is the Cambridges. Last I checked, ABC still didn’t get some award winning, substantial, hard hitting interview with Burger King and Fries…so what else? But I must admit the US press is waaaay better and less unhinged than whatever is happening to “journalism” in the UK.

  22. MerlinsMom1018 says:

    As I said in a different post.
    Dear Goliath. You remember David, yes?
    Welp it looks like David is winding up that slingshot for an epic take down. Again.

  23. Jais says:

    Lisa Bloom’s live blog was really good. I was living for the way the judge just them off.
    “Vague? Involuntary sexual intercourse is clear to me”
    Such a f*ck you right there. Love it.
    The part about trying to call the statue of limitations for sexual assault victims unconstitutional was jaw dropping. What’s interesting is that prince Andrew was definitely covered in the UK news but no one brought up this fact that I saw. The fact that Andrew’s lawyers argued for this. Other parts were brought up but not this. To me, that’s still protection. Twitter brought it up of course but not the BBC as far as I can tell.

    • gruey says:

      @jais it was her thread that first called my attention to what I was talking about in my comments—that he’s trying to overturn protection for ALL child victims. This is what the Queen has got herself wrapped up in!

  24. Julia K says:

    How can Andrew declare himself “innocent” and be a potential defendent at the same time? One who truly feels innocent knows that they cannot be a potential defendent, because that could imply some measure of guilt. So which is it? Any legal minds care to set me straight?

  25. Amy Bee says:

    When the agreement between Virginia and Epstein was disclosed on Monday, the royal rota was breathlessly reporting that Andrew may be spared a trial. It provided further evidence that the British press have not been reporting on Andrew with the same scrutiny that they report on Meghan. Yesterday was fantastic because either the royal rota kept quiet about the case or they were very disappointed that the Judge didn’t view the agreement in the same way that Andrew and his lawyers did. Another thing, Andrew in his defense yesterday, said everything except that he was innocent.

    • Jais says:

      Wouldn’t the royal rota want this case to drag out though for the headlines? I know they’re protecting the institution but thought they’d still be excited for the potential headlines cuz it’s still $$$

      • MonieInTheMiddle says:

        I think that goes against the RF line.

        Also the Royal Rota are essentially parasites. They feed on their host but not to the point where they kill them.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Jais: The press is all about protecting the monarchy. The case dragging on would be very damaging to the institution.

      • Alexandria says:

        Difference is the royals can offer them access so they can make money from authorized biographies or whatever. They want to be friends with benefits. HM just wanted to work, not offer private access and leaks. Anne probably got away with it because of the Queen and she was never the spare thrown under the bus. That role was for Diana and Fergie and then subsequently for Harry and his family.

  26. Lady Digby says:

    Just wondering what PA will do should the frail TQ die suddenly in her sleep. I am sure she’ll leave him a huge wedge but would he not want to settle this case OUT OF COURT rather than spend his inheritance on a long, drawn out court case?

  27. gruey says:

    Sometimes I talk to my (lawyer) husband about this stuff. I need for everyone here to understand how batshit yesterday was!!

    So for anyone not following this, Andrew’s dumbass lawyers tried to argue that NY’s Child Victims Act is unconstitutional. This was passed in 2019 after so much work from victims rights groups. Literally blood sweat and tears from Victims and advocates went into this legislation. It lengthens the statute of limitations so that adults can actually sue their childhood abusers, because we know, kids are not usually in a position to sue their abusers as minors!!

    So Andrew’s lawyers were asking a judge to overturn this law on constitutional grounds. Let’s say the judge granted Andrew’s motion on those grounds. And Giuffee would appeal, of course being repped by David Bois, arguably the greatest living litigator in the United States. That means, The Queen of Motherfucking England could have been in the position of essentially funding litigation to gut protections for Child Victims of sex crimes in New York. That is fucking INSANE.

    Now, the judge is going to deny Andrew’s motion most likely but still!! And what if they appeal on those grounds??? This is a VERY bad look.

    • superashes says:

      Yep, his lawyers actually went ahead with that argument. It is pretty notably awful.

      Andrew might want to appeal the decision, but the Judge needs to issue a final decision before the appeal is “ripe” and denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final decision, so he can’t use an appeal as a way to delay the trial.

    • Alexandria says:

      So this outsider British nonce and his legal team tried to overturn a freaking American law and the unhinged UK press didn’t react aggressively to this because Prince Andrew is not a biracial American woman. Did I get it right? How did the US press react?

      • gruey says:

        Yes. Precisely. And not just any law. A ver very very special law passed on the hard work of many advocates, that’s designed to make justice against entities like the Catholic Church possible.

      • gruey says:

        I didn’t see anything about it in the media but tweets were getting traction. Interestingly, people were pointing out that Andrew was mysteriously not trending

      • Feeshalori says:

        This is absolutely despicable that they think they can overturn the laws in this country, especially one as sensitive as this. I really want to see Andrew, his legal team and his mummy get DRAGGED for the audacity of this asinine ploy.

  28. Lizzie says:

    I’m guessing that andrew didn’t settle this at the start in hopes it would be dismissed then he could worm his way back into a public role. As with most rf plot’s it’s backfired spectacularly.

  29. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    “military titles, some of which he inherited from his father, Prince Philip”

    Why stop there? Why not inherit a license to practice medicine? Or inherit a pilot’s license? Nothing in life should be based on merit, it should all be inherited. At least, that’s how I assume monarchists think.

  30. aquarius64 says:

    And these rota clowns thought they can put the downfall of the BRF on the Sussexes. Harry and Meghan will not be tainted by this because they got away. What galls me is the hand wringing over the queen’s jubilee instead of the victims. The RRs only care that their source of income is taking a massive reputation hit and it will hurt their wallets. That’s why the Kate embiggening is in full force and Willie’s wandering is hidden. If that and the KP based smear campaign is exposed it will be a wrap for the House of Windsor.

  31. what's inside says:

    The comments here have been some of the best I have ever seen. Thank you all.

  32. Stacy Dresden says:

    Go Virginia!!!

  33. Lily says:

    I love that Celebitchy posts *that* photo every single time.

    It’s probably the truest reflection of the BRF that has ever been made public.

    It’s the image that burns in my mind whenever anyone mentions royalty, power and wealth.

    The same way many Americans fell for the Trump / muh freedum cult, many Brits are still indoctrinated in the BRF cult, and it just blows my mind.