Basically I think Prince Andrew is calling her bluff by asking for a jury trial and denying everything, which, if he does have an alibi for that night, he should be able to prove. Scott is of the opinion it will not see a courtroom, and I tend to agree.
Also, royalty are not used to having their word challenged, so are pretty useless at explaining or justifying anything. Usually what they say goes. Privilege LOL.
Re the burden of proof in a civil case it is the balance of probability rather than reasonable doubt, I think. (correct me if that is incorrect in the US).
I can agree with most of that. Privilege, royalty and honestly what does he have to prove but he can try to pose and get his denials out there to the media, etc. even if they end up settling. So much of law and cases (and it disgusts me) is just a dance and threat and let's see if we can back someone down or scare them. I mean generally even.
If his alibi is family or friend well I myself wouldn't put much store in it and as an opposing attorney I would drill that alibi thoroughly and that person. Not up on it but I know he named his daughter and know he has said something about his ex at different times and that there has been speculation about if they would be brought in...
I can't tell you exactly on the civil standards but many cases are a prime example when a criminal conviction does not happen, the civil is easier. OJ would be a classic example here.
I can tell you this, just take a car accident or a child drowning in a neighbor's pool, it is or used to be it has to be more than 50 percent fault. I'll take the swimming pool as an example and let's say a 3 year old. Okay the suing party is the parent of the child but was that parent watching their child? No. So that puts some fault on the parent. But then did the neighbor have the pool fenced and if not, was it an enticement to a small child? Well yes. So that puts some fault on the pool owner EVEN though his property was "trespassed" on.
So it goes like that and an allotment of fault. Now if it ends up 51 percent versus 49 of who is at fault, then that sounds like a stalemate BUT if a jury says this deserves $50, million, and the parent is the one with 49 percent, the other party owes that small percentage of that $50 mill and that is still a sh*tload of money.
So the female plaintiff in this case if that is still that way, it could be said well she stayed didn't she? So partly her fault. And then it could be said well she had this opportunity or that to get out of there as years went on. So again, partly her fault. But then the jury could say well, he though knew regardless and should have never done that and he knew better and a large part of fault gets put on him...
So in that way it is very different than a criminal trial where it is guilty or not guilty. And yes, some blame could be put on her but is she most at fault...?
www.nbcnewyork.com
