Now that Ghislaine Maxwell has been convicted in the Jeffrey Epstein sexual abuse saga, the next case to follow will be that brought by one of the victims Virginia Giuffre against Prince Andrew. On Saturday, a federal judge blocked an effort by his lawyers to say that he did not have to turn over documents pertaining to the case since Giuffre did not have US jurisdiction. The judge rejected that claim.
Judge Lewis A Kaplan, in a written order, told the prince’s lawyers they must turn over documents on the schedule that has been set in the lawsuit brought by Guiffre who claims she was abused – aged 17 – by the prince on multiple occasions in 2001 while she was being sexually abused by financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Kaplan also rejected arguments by the prince’s lawyer, Andrew Brettler, on jurisdiction grounds after they argued last week that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Giuffre, a US citizen, no longer lives in the US. Brettler has called the lawsuit “baseless”.
The prince’s lawyers claimed evidence was so strong that Giuffre does not reside in the US that it was pointless to exchange evidence until that question is resolved because it could result in the lawsuit’s dismissal.
They argued that Giuffre has lived in Australia for all but two of the past 19 years, has an Australian driver’s licence and lives in a $1.9m (£1.4m) home in Perth, Western Australia, where she and her husband, an Australian national, live with their three children.
…Judge Kaplan, in a written order on Friday, noted the prince’s lawyers have requested that “extensive” materials be turned over by Giuffre by 14 January, including documents related to where she has lived.
The rulings come before an important case hearing in New York on Tuesday, one day after the scheduled public release on Monday of a 2009 settlement agreement between Epstein and Giuffre that lawyers for Andrew had hoped would protect him from Guiffre’s claims.
The developments follow revelations that Giuffre’s lawyers are reportedly claiming they have up to six witnesses linking the duke to his accuser on the eve of the hearing into a civil lawsuit filed by the 38-year-old, in which she accuses Prince Andrew of sexual assault.
In a separate development, Andrew’s lawyers are also reported to have not provided documentary evidence that he has the “inability to sweat”, despite the claim supporting his denial against allegations he had sex with Giuffre.
The duke is also said not to have so far named any witnesses to support his alibi that he was in Pizza Express in Woking on the night in 2001 he was accused of having sex with Giuffre.
The sweating issue is one of the truly bizarre developments in this case. It arose after Giuffre, in recalling her encounters with him, expressed disgust at his ‘profuse sweating’ all over her. In a BBC interview widely described as a car crash, Andrew sought to discredit her by making a startling claim of his own.
When quizzed about her allegations by BBC Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis, Andrew, 61, said her claims were impossible.
He said he had a condition that was brought on by an intensely traumatic event he experienced during the 1982 Falklands War, in which he served as a Royal Navy helicopter pilot.
The Prince told Maitlis: “There’s a slight problem with the sweating because I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at the time.
…But now Giuffre has challenged him to prove his claims asking for proof.
Her lawyers requested “all documents concerning your alleged medical condition of anhidrosis, hypohidrosis, or your inability to sweat”.
The Duke’s US attorney Andrew Brettler responded, writing: “The Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is harassing and seeks confidential and private information and documents that are irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
He added “no such documents exist in his possession, custody or control” and that a “diligent search and a reasonable inquiry have been made in an effort to comply with this demand”.
In the absence of documents, I am not sure how the merits of this particular issue can be adjudicated. Can he be ordered to undergo some kind of exercise regimen in the presence of a court-ordered doctor to see if he sweats or not?
Post Script: I have been wondering why Andrew felt it necessary to make this claim that he could not sweat. After all, nothing really hinged on it. It may be because for his family, dignity is everything and that he could not let pass the idea that he could sweat profusely like some common person. Now he has made it a test of his and her credibility.
Can he be ordered to undergo some kind of exercise regimen in the presence of a court-ordered doctor to see if he sweats or not?
Seems simple enough: is there any documentation of this, going back in time? Are there historical examples of other non sweaty patients? How did this condition come about and does it have medical precedent? (For example, it can be caused by botox: has Andy had botox?)
It seems to me like a pretty stupid lie, he’s going to have a hell of a time supporting medically.
One thing to remember: courts are not science, generally. In court you CAN convince people of a negative, using enough circumstantial evidence and argument. That was why the LA prosecutors lost the OJ Simpson case -- they forgot that OJ could make the bloody glove not fit on his hand, and allowed him to demonstrate that. It was an amazing flaw in their case. Trying to get Andy to sweat would be a similar blunder.
He’s doing exactly none of the things an innocent man would do, that ought to be a problem for him right there.
Prior documentation, or the absence of such, is far better than any test. Given that this condition is claimed to have been caused while he was a member of the military and as a direct result of his service, it should be documented in his military records. The absence of such a record will be very telling, as the inability to sweat is more serious than you might at first think. Remember that sweating is our best built-in method of shedding excess heat, so losing this makes hyperthermia a very real possibility in any warm environment or during any physical exertion.
Pure bluster. Such records are highly relevant, and the Prince opened the door to that evidence when he used this condition as part of his defence.
wouldn’t an inability to sweat lead one to be in pretty severe risk of danger during physical exertion or in warm conditions? Wouldn’t it be possible to disprove this claim by just documenting if he had engaged in any significant physical exertion without a heat injury during the time period? or sufficiently long exposure in a hot/warm climate/weather without medical aid?
This reminds me a lot of that supposed claim about the North Korean leader never defecating…
“He sweat profusely while he was having sex with me.”
“I did NOT sweat profusely while I was having sex with her”!
“So you acknowledge you WERE having sex with her.”
“D’oh”!
Reminds me of the “plain vanilla penetration” defense of child rapist Archbishop George Pell in Australia.
Holms @2:
Yes, it should be. His active service ended (2001) about the same time as the alleged abuse.
“They argued that Giuffre has lived in Australia for all but two of the past 19 years, has an Australian driver’s licence and lives in a $1.9m (£1.4m) home in Perth, Western Australia”
I find it disgusting that Randy Andy’s lawyers went out of their way to mention the value of the plaintiff’s house. What bearing does this datum have on her residency status? None. I can only see this as a cheap shot intending to paint her as a golddigger.
When lawyers whine about their profession being disdained by almost everyone, this kind of shit is the reason why.
Holms@#2:
Given that this condition is claimed to have been caused while he was a member of the military and as a direct result of his service, it should be documented in his military records. The absence of such a record will be very telling, as the inability to sweat is more serious than you might at first think.
You mean it was like … bone spurs?
moarscienceplz@#6:
I find it disgusting that Randy Andy’s lawyers went out of their way to mention the value of the plaintiff’s house.
Andy’s house is a real dump, I bet.
Marcus @#1,
If it was a lie, then I agree that it was a stupid thing to say because nothing really hinged on his sweating but now he has elevated it to something that could be used as a test of his credibility.
So why say it at all? As I added in a Post Script to my post, it may be because for his family, dignity is everything, and that he could not stomach the idea that people would have the image that he sweats profusely like some common person
So why say it at all?
He’s an overbred aristocrat upper class twit; they don’t breed ’em smart, just to look good in a uniform.
mjr said it: the man is a fucking moron. And worse, an arrogant one too stupid to understand how stupid he is, or to take notice of the plethora of advisers who must have been unanimously screaming at him not to do the interview.
I was curious and decided to do a google inage search for “prince andrew sweaty” -- I think he is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
There should be no shortage of witnesses from his time in the army. “I saw him sweat” vs “I never saw him sweat”. Seems like a strong defence if he really doesn’t (and didn’t) sweat, but if he does (and did) then he’s in deep shit.
But that seems a very strange addition to make. So you don’t sweat, or you do?
file thirteen, you beat me to it. The fall-back caveat is informative in itself.
From the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50451953):
So yeah, no testing will work as falsification. “Well, I sweat now“.