[imagesource: Steve Parsons / Pool Photo / via AP, file]

It’s tough to muster a solid legal defence when all the evidence points to your guilt.

Also, public sympathy for Prince Andrew must be at an all-time low because it’s tough to feel sorry for somebody who’s lived a life of abject luxury, and the crimes he is accused of are heinous.

Even his own brother has turned on him, although Prince Charles has always had his own interests front of mind.

I wonder if ‘Randy Andy’ watched Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile? It must have been uncomfortable viewing.

Earlier this week, the Duke of York filed legal papers denying all of Virginia Roberts’ allegations. He also sought to bar her claim on grounds including time elapsed since the alleged offences and what he calls her “wrongful conduct”.

Never mind that a New York statute has extended the window for child victim claims.

Lawyers are casting doubt on the strength of his defence, reports The Guardian:

Much of the document was made up of repetitive responses either denying allegations made by Giuffre in the complaint, or stating that Andrew “lacks sufficient information to admit or deny”.

Nick Goldstone, head of dispute resolution at Ince Gordon Dadds LLP, said: “There are certain things where it is ludicrous for him to say he has insufficient information to admit or deny. Six months on, he has at least put forward a defence and that is interesting, but it does appear to be a boilerplate exercise, rather over-enthusiastically deployed.”

When you can neither admit nor deny, I think it’s clear that you’re in the dwang.

The list of allegations that Prince Andrew could not admit or deny include:

Andrew and convicted sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell have been photographed at numerous social events together.

Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to the charge of procuring a minor for prostitution.

Andrew had been on Epstein’s private plane and stayed at some of his homes.

The infamous photograph depicts Andrew, Giuffre and Maxwell at Maxwell’s home.

So he can’t recall whether he flew on Epstein’s plane or stayed at his home? Give me a break.

Epstein’s conviction is obviously common public knowledge, and as for that infamous photo, it’s, umm, a photo showing you were there:

The Duke is clearly trying to distance himself from Maxwell, who was recently found guilty on charges including sex trafficking underaged girls for which she is looking at up to 65 years in jail.

This despite multiple sources saying the pair were so close many assumed they had dated.

There are also previous claims that are now being walked back:

The defences in the court papers contain no reference to previous claims made by Andrew that he cannot sweat (Giuffre had alleged that he got sweaty on a dancefloor with her in 2001) and that he visited a Pizza Express on the day of the claimed sexual encounter with Giuffre.

Spafford said it was “interesting” they were not in the document, as might have been expected, and suggested that may mean they are not points his legal team mean to pursue.

One lawyer described the filing as “designed probably to show the world that he’s ready for a fight, whilst, in my view, he clearly isn’t ready for a fight”.

There’s talk of trying for a quick settlement as to not upstage the Queen’s platinum jubilee celebration.

You’ll have to excuse me if I’m not much bothered about all that when her son is accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting an underage girl.

Even The Daily Mail, which is prone to rush to a Royal Family defence (provided you’re not a woman of colour or married to one), is putting the boot in.

They’ve laid out exhibits A through G picking apart the Duke’s claims

As an example here’s exhibit D:

Andrew ‘lacks sufficient information to admit or deny’ if he invited Epstein to his daughter Beatrice’s 18th birthday party in 2006, despite Epstein being charged with paedophile offences.

The prince and his family and their guests posed for photographs at their daughter’s fancy dress event that July even though Epstein’s house had already been raided by police (he was charged shortly after the party).

One of these portraits is the stuff of reputational nightmares.

It shows Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein (jailed in 2018 for sexual offences), Epstein (died in jail the following year as he awaited trial on sexual offences) and a masked woman. Her name? Once again, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Just a tad awkward.

You can read the rest of the exhibits here.

What’s so sad about all of this is that Andrew is only facing a civil case, and not a criminal one, meaning he can just pay his way out of trouble.

There’s no amount of money that can ever repair the reputational damage.

[sources:guardian&dmail]