Prince Andrew settles out of court.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

Don't forget that, obviously, she also was advised not to risk cross-examination in a trial!

link? Most civil cases are settled before trial.

[ebice]

19 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

With 17 she had sex with men for money and we should call her victim

She was a victim of her own volition and by all accounts accepted money (payment for her services) without question and seemingly was free to leave anytime and she did when she got married in Thailand in about 2002 and contacted Epstein and Maxwell to inform she was not returning.

She was not called to offer her testimony and evidence in the recent G Maxwell case.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by onthedarkside
unsourced quotation removed

[Liverpool Lou]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who got the £millions and who had to apologize to whom?

Who decided to dump her "principles" (!) and, with legal advice, not to risk giving evidence at a trial but to take the money?  Seems so many want to ignore that aspect!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Who decided to dump her "principles" (!) and, with legal advice, not to risk giving evidence at a trial but to take the money?  Seems so many want to ignore that aspect!

Again, replete with your own assumptions.

[OneMoreFarang]

I suggest the following summary for this thread.

 

Fact: Giuffre had sex with Epstein and others and she received money for that.

 

Because she was 17 when she started with this and according to one member here not competent she was a victim at that time.

 

When she was 18 she had sex with rich men for money which is called prostitution.

 

A picture of her and Andrew and Epstein exist when she was age 17. What does that prove? That they were at the same time at the same place. It does not prove if she was trafficked. It also doesn't prove if she had sex with Andrew. It also doesn't prove if Andrew just met her or knew her well.

 

She claims she had to have sex with Andrew. What would have been the consequences if she wouldn't have said: No, I won't do that. No luxury life anymore?

 

Now, about 20 years after the event, she makes Andrew's life and the life of his family miserable. The family is able to pay what is for us a lot of money but what is for them peanuts to settle this case. They pay. Case closed. No admission of guilt. We still don't know if they had sex or not.

 

Public opinion is that most people don't like Andrew. And because he is a creep that obviously proves that he did it (whatever). He is guilty - at least in the public opinion.

 

Now it's up to us which part of her life we want to concentrate on. And it's up to us if it is more important that there is a law in the USA that she was not competent or that she was of legal age for having sex in the place where she maybe had sex.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Who decided to dump her "principles" (!) and, with legal advice, not to risk giving evidence at a trial but to take the money?  Seems so many want to ignore that aspect!

show us some evidence that occurred?

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I suggest the following summary for this thread.

 

Fact: Giuffre had sex with Epstein and others and she received money for that.

 

Because she was 17 when she started with this and according to one member here not competent she was a victim at that time.

 

When she was 18 she had sex with rich men for money which is called prostitution.

 

A picture of her and Andrew and Epstein exist when she was age 17. What does that prove? That they were at the same time at the same place. It does not prove if she was trafficked. It also doesn't prove if she had sex with Andrew. It also doesn't prove if Andrew just met her or knew her well.

 

She claims she had to have sex with Andrew. What would have been the consequences if she wouldn't have said: No, I won't do that. No luxury life anymore?

 

Now, about 20 years after the event, she makes Andrew's life and the life of his family miserable. The family is able to pay what is for us a lot of money but what is for them peanuts to settle this case. They pay. Case closed. No admission of guilt. We still don't know if they had sex or not.

 

Public opinion is that most people don't like Andrew. And because he is a creep that obviously proves that he did it (whatever). He is guilty - at least in the public opinion.

 

Now it's up to us which part of her life we want to concentrate on. And it's up to us if it is more important that there is a law in the USA that she was not competent or that she was of legal age for having sex in the place where she maybe had sex.

again, the civil case was about a time when she was 17 and not a minute after.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I suggest the following summary for this thread.

 

Fact: Giuffre had sex with Epstein and others and she received money for that.

 

Because she was 17 when she started with this and according to one member here not competent she was a victim at that time.

 

When she was 18 she had sex with rich men for money which is called prostitution.

 

A picture of her and Andrew and Epstein exist when she was age 17. What does that prove? That they were at the same time at the same place. It does not prove if she was trafficked. It also doesn't prove if she had sex with Andrew. It also doesn't prove if Andrew just met her or knew her well.

 

She claims she had to have sex with Andrew. What would have been the consequences if she wouldn't have said: No, I won't do that. No luxury life anymore?

 

Now, about 20 years after the event, she makes Andrew's life and the life of his family miserable. The family is able to pay what is for us a lot of money but what is for them peanuts to settle this case. They pay. Case closed. No admission of guilt. We still don't know if they had sex or not.

 

Public opinion is that most people don't like Andrew. And because he is a creep that obviously proves that he did it (whatever). He is guilty - at least in the public opinion.

 

Now it's up to us which part of her life we want to concentrate on. And it's up to us if it is more important that there is a law in the USA that she was not competent or that she was of legal age for having sex in the place where she maybe had sex.

Here’s a better summary.

 

Prince Andrew settled out of court for £millions and a formal apology to Giuffre.

 

Just the bare facts will do nicely.

[OneMoreFarang]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

One has to ask, Prince Andrew clearly decided doing so was in his very best interest, so why the incandescent rage from his male supporters?

 

Read their comments and decide for yourself.

Speaking for myself I am not Andrew's supporter.

I support the concept of innocent until proven guilty. And I support that concept even for sleazebags like Andrew. The fact that he is an a$#$# doesn't make him guilty! 

 

Recently lots of women accuse lots of men of having abused them or raped them, often decades ago. Many of these men lots their reputation and they job. Reputation destroyed with no way back to normality for these guys. Are they all guilty because some women say they are guilty?

Personally I think it is horrible that these days even reputable media help to ruin the lives of people who are legally innocent.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Don't forget that, obviously, she also was advised not to risk cross-examination in a trial!

link? Most civil cases are settled before trial.

The woman insisted many times that she wanted to go to trial "for justice" and that she was not in it for the money.   What happens in "most civil cases" is not relevant to this case.

 

"Sources told The Telegraph that she initially sought a settlement of $5 million from Andrew — 10 times the $500,000 she got from Jeffrey Epstein, the late pedophile who she says ordered her to have “disgusting” sex with the prince.

But now that the case looks set to go to trial later this year, the longtime accuser is no longer willing to settle out of court, the paper’s sources said.

Giuffre — a founder of the nonprofit Speak Out, Act, Reclaim (SOAR) helping sex-trafficking victims — wants to instead show the legal consequences for those preying on young girls, the paper said.

She believes that accepting a payout from the scandal-scarred son of Queen Elizabeth II would not “advance that message,” the UK paper said.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/prince-andrews-sex-accuser-wanted-5m-but-wants-trial-report/

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The woman insisted many times that she wanted to go to trial "for justice" and that she was not in it for the money.   What happens in "most civil cases" is not relevant to this case.

 

"Sources told The Telegraph that she initially sought a settlement of $5 million from Andrew — 10 times the $500,000 she got from Jeffrey Epstein, the late pedophile who she says ordered her to have “disgusting” sex with the prince.

But now that the case looks set to go to trial later this year, the longtime accuser is no longer willing to settle out of court, the paper’s sources said.

Giuffre — a founder of the nonprofit Speak Out, Act, Reclaim (SOAR) helping sex-trafficking victims — wants to instead show the legal consequences for those preying on young girls, the paper said.

She believes that accepting a payout from the scandal-scarred son of Queen Elizabeth II would not “advance that message,” the UK paper said.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/prince-andrews-sex-accuser-wanted-5m-but-wants-trial-report/

Does any part of that link include advice that she should not go to court?

[Liverpool Lou]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Who decided to dump her "principles" (!) and, with legal advice, not to risk giving evidence at a trial but to take the money?  Seems so many want to ignore that aspect!

Again, replete with your own assumptions.

Replete with evidence!...

 

https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/prince-andrews-sex-accuser-wanted-5m-but-wants-trial-report/

"Sources told The Telegraph that she initially sought a settlement of $5 million from Andrew ...

But now that the case looks set to go to trial later this year, the longtime accuser is no longer willing to settle out of court, the paper’s sources said.

Giuffre — a founder of the nonprofit Speak Out, Act, Reclaim (SOAR) helping sex-trafficking victims — wants to instead show the legal consequences for those preying on young girls, the paper said.

She believes that accepting a payout from the scandal-scarred son of Queen Elizabeth II would not “advance that message,” the UK paper said.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Perhaps a reminder of the statement the prince issued in connection with the settlement is in order:

 

"The statement added: "Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre's character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks. It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years."

 

https://www.insider.com/virginia-roberts-sexual-assault-claims-prince-andrew-timeline-2021-8#february-2022-andrew-reached-an-out-of-court-settlement-with-giuffre-16

 

[Liverpool Lou]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The woman insisted many times that she wanted to go to trial "for justice" and that she was not in it for the money.   What happens in "most civil cases" is not relevant to this case.

 

"Sources told The Telegraph that she initially sought a settlement of $5 million from Andrew — 10 times the $500,000 she got from Jeffrey Epstein, the late pedophile who she says ordered her to have “disgusting” sex with the prince.

But now that the case looks set to go to trial later this year, the longtime accuser is no longer willing to settle out of court, the paper’s sources said.

Giuffre — a founder of the nonprofit Speak Out, Act, Reclaim (SOAR) helping sex-trafficking victims — wants to instead show the legal consequences for those preying on young girls, the paper said.

She believes that accepting a payout from the scandal-scarred son of Queen Elizabeth II would not “advance that message,” the UK paper said.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/prince-andrews-sex-accuser-wanted-5m-but-wants-trial-report/

Expand  

Does any part of that link include advice that she should not go to court?

In view of her announced "principles" influencing her decision, why else would she not go to trial and risk cross-examination?

[OneMoreFarang]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here’s a better summary.

 

Prince Andrew settled out of court for £millions and a formal apology to Giuffre.

 

Just the bare facts will do nicely.

Do you understand the concept of a settlement without admitting guilt?

 

It doesn't matter if Andrew admitted that she was a victim (in general) and it doesn't matter if she received many millions. That doesn't make Andrew guilty.

It obviously also doesn't make him not guilty. But remember: Both parties agreed to that deal. She could have gone to court to hear Andrew in court. She decided not to do that (for whatever reason).

[ozimoron]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

In view of her announced "principles" influencing her decision, why else would she not go to trial and risk cross-examination?

Because Andrew explicitly acknowledge that she was a victim in his final statement which obviated her need to go to court to prove that. See Tall Guy's post above.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Replete with evidence!...

 

https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/prince-andrews-sex-accuser-wanted-5m-but-wants-trial-report/

"Sources told The Telegraph that she initially sought a settlement of $5 million from Andrew ...

But now that the case looks set to go to trial later this year, the longtime accuser is no longer willing to settle out of court, the paper’s sources said.

Giuffre — a founder of the nonprofit Speak Out, Act, Reclaim (SOAR) helping sex-trafficking victims — wants to instead show the legal consequences for those preying on young girls, the paper said.

She believes that accepting a payout from the scandal-scarred son of Queen Elizabeth II would not “advance that message,” the UK paper said.

She set off to get $5million and wound up getting over £12million + a formal apology.

 

Well done!

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She set off to get $5million and wound up getting over £12million + a formal apology.

 

Well done!

Forever validating the accusations that the English royal family are inbred idiots.

Edited February 18, 2022 by ozimoron

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Perhaps a reminder of the statement the prince issued in connection with the settlement is in order:

 

"The statement added: "Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre's character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks. It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years."

 

https://www.insider.com/virginia-roberts-sexual-assault-claims-prince-andrew-timeline-2021-8#february-2022-andrew-reached-an-out-of-court-settlement-with-giuffre-16

 

Which does not stop some here engaging in attacks upon her.

 

Figure that.

[giddyup]

On 2/17/2022 at 8:29 AM, ozimoron said:

You are wrong. The hapless prince had access to some of the finest intelligence and security services in the world and the liklihood that he truly believed she was over 18 is ludicrous.

 

Although the age of consent is 16 throughout the United Kingdom, it is illegal to buy sex from a person under 18 where the perpetrator does not reasonably believe they are 18 or over.

Is it proven anywhere that he paid her?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, giddyup said:

Is it proven anywhere that he paid her?

You're kidding, right?

[giddyup]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You're kidding, right?

A simple answer to my question will suffice.

Edited February 18, 2022 by giddyup

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do you understand the concept of a settlement without admitting guilt?

 

It doesn't matter if Andrew admitted that she was a victim (in general) and it doesn't matter if she received many millions. That doesn't make Andrew guilty.

It obviously also doesn't make him not guilty. But remember: Both parties agreed to that deal. She could have gone to court to hear Andrew in court. She decided not to do that (for whatever reason).

He’s done and you know he is.

 

 

 

[giddyup]

43 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No one's disputing that, except the exaggerated part that you added, he was not being sued for "battery".   

 

Remember that the record will also show that she decided against taking it to trial, contradicting what she had long insisted she would do, "I [she] am not in it for the money"!   I wonder why her legal team advised her to accept a payout and not risk being cross-examined in a trial?

I imagine her legal team urged her to accept because of what was in it for them, ie a huge percentage of her payout.

[ozimoron]

13 minutes ago, giddyup said:

A simple answer to my question will suffice.

It would be irrational to believe he didn't compensate her.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, giddyup said:

I imagine her legal team urged her to accept because of what was in it for them, ie a huge percentage of her payout.

They would have received that either way. There was little doubt who was going to win this case.

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

It would be irrational to believe he didn't compensate her.

But unproven. It may well be that she was paid for by Epstein, which was unknown to Andrew, but I have read nowhere that she said she was actually paid by him.

[ozimoron]

Just now, giddyup said:

But unproven. It may well be that she was paid for by Epstein, which was unknown to Andrew, but I have read nowhere that she said she was actually paid by him.

Of course Andrew had no idea that Epstein paid minors for sex. He claimed he went to the US personally to end his friendship with Epstein.

[giddyup]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

They would have received that either way. There was little doubt who was going to win this case.

But not necessarily as much if it had gone to court. A bird in the hand....

Edited February 18, 2022 by giddyup

[ozimoron]

Just now, giddyup said:

But not necessarily as much if it had gone to court.

Usually much more which is why Andrew settled out of court.

 

Anyway, I'm done with arguing with apologists for ex prince silver spoon.