I agree he is innocent until proven guilty in the eye's of the law, but the royal family and others in the know, now know he is guilty so they have now started to distance them selves from the problem which is what they always do in these matters, the royal family will always do what needs to be done to protect the name as they did when they landed here and changed from sax coburg to windsor which is taken from windsor castle,There seems to be a lot of assumptions made above. I am not defending anyone but Prince Andrew is innocent until proven guilty, as is everyone.
What hartens me with the recent events is that at least we can rely on the institution of the Royal Family to do the right thing when things go bad. Unlike our current government.
Yes, the level of proof required is somewhat less than a criminal court. In essence it requires sufficient evidence that it's more probable x happened than it didn't, as opposed to a level of proof beyond reasonable doubt being required, as in a criminal case. A judge adjudicates on the cases presented, rather than there being a jury of peers ascertaining guilt.I'm no legal expert, but is the burden of proof in a US civil court 'balance of probabilities' as oppose to 'beyond reasonable doubt'?