BREAKING NEWS Virginia Giuffre, Fierce Advocate and Epstein Survivor, Dies by Suicide at 41

[Nick Carter icp]

Just now, Lacessit said:

The empathy shown on this thread for a deeply troubled woman reminds me how many sociopathic creeps there are on ASEAN.

 

  Always one that feels the need to give other posters abuse .

*I'm really nice and compassionate and everyone else is so horrible*

*Where's my prefects badge * ?

[robz]

Was'nt it the result of the car accident, a few days before?

[josephbloggs]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The empathy shown on this thread for a deeply troubled woman reminds me how many sociopathic creeps there are on ASEAN.

Absolutely correct. It's hateful and they all thumbs up each other's posts. This site is going to the dogs, it really is.

[Cameroni]

15 minutes ago, still kicking said:

 

Virginina made millions from the Epstein estate and other legal actions, and bought a house worth millions in Australia.

Nonsense, the house she bought was in a small town population of 300 and was not worth millions 

 

You're not well informed, as usual. She bought a palace worth 1.9 million USD.

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14561611/Virginia-Giuffre-Prince-Andrew-beachside-mansion.html

 

[Cameroni]

25 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The empathy shown on this thread for a deeply troubled woman reminds me how many sociopathic creeps there are on ASEAN.

 

A deeply troubled woman? You mean professional fornicator, ie a common whore, who serviced not just Epstein but all his assorted friends for pay, and then  claimed to be a victim in order to get yet another big pay day from the Epstein estate, and then promptly proceeded to run an exortion on Prince Andrew for which she received 16.3 million USD. 

 

A deeply troubled woman? This was a cold, scheming fraudster, whose lies were exposed in the Dershowitz trial. She made a cool 20 million claiming she was a sex slave, when she was nothing but a common whore with a talent for exortion and lies.

 

Show your own empathy to this vile liar and criminal, if you want to virtue signal, but you will do so for a cheap whore with a talent for extortion and lies. Well, not so cheap, she made 20 million. She was good at lying. 

 

 

[still kicking]

19 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You're not well informed, as usual. She bought a palace worth 1.9 million USD.

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14561611/Virginia-Giuffre-Prince-Andrew-beachside-mansion.html

 

Neergabby is a farming area within the Shire of Gingin, located around 20 km north of Perth metropolitan area's northern limit. Neergabby is situated at the confluence of the Moore …

Facts

Population:268 (SAL 2021)

Located:84 km (52 mi) N of Perth

[Cameroni]

Just now, still kicking said:

Neergabby is a farming area within the Shire of Gingin, located around 20 km north of Perth metropolitan area's northern limit. Neergabby is situated at the confluence of the Moore …

Facts

Population:268 (SAL 2021)

Located:84 km (52 mi) N of Perth

 

You wouldn't know facts if they kept you as a sex slave and made you learn massage in Chiang Mai.

[Nick Carter icp]

14 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

 

https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-760w,f_auto,q_auto:best/rockcms/2025-04/190809-evidence-image-virginia-giuffre-roberts-jeffrey-epstein-mn-0750-2273b2-dd51a9.jpg

 

 

 

   She was 18 years old at the time of the photo 

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  Always one that feels the need to give other posters abuse .

*I'm really nice and compassionate and everyone else is so horrible*

*Where's my prefects badge * ?

I call it as I see it, thanks for validating my post.

[WorriedNoodle]

19 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Now, was Epstein a sack of steaming caca, of course, he was using these girls for his sexual gratification on his island and paid them for it. However, Virgiina did so very WILLINGLY and took his money for years.

I think someone has their head up their ass. This oversimplifies the situation, and potentially minimizes the gravity of the harm done to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. While Virginia may have been paid for her time, it's important to remember that she was a minor and was being manipulated by a powerful man. The fact that she was "willing" doesn't change the fact that she was being exploited and taken advantage of. Regardless of whether or not she was "willing," the fact that Epstein was using these girls for his own sexual gratification is absolutely unacceptable. There were four people in that photo, the fourth being Epstein who took it, two now dead, one doing 20 years and the 'aristocrat' you referred to out of his day job. The stench and poison of Epstein knows no bounds, has it touched you likewise?

[BritManToo]

14 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

While Virginia may have been paid for her time, it's important to remember that she was a minor and was being manipulated by a powerful man.

Minor age 17, already left school, could go out to work, get married, have kids, live on her own, but still a minor. Now if she had been age 12, you might have had a point.

[WorriedNoodle]

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Minor age 17, already left school, could go out to work, get married, have kids, live on her own, but still a minor. Now if she had been age 12, you might have had a point.

Utterly ridiculous retort that would make Andrew Tate proud of you.

Just because a person is legally old enough to engage in certain activities, like getting married or moving out, doesn’t mean they can’t be taken advantage of. Let’s be clear: anyone who is under 18 is legally a minor, and anyone who is being sexually exploited, regardless of their age, is a victim of a crime. perpetuating harmful stereotypes that place the blame on the victim rather than the abuser.

 

You’re essentially saying that because Virginia was 17, she should’ve been responsible enough to avoid being exploited. But that’s not how it works. The responsibility lies with the abuser, not the victim.

[BritManToo]

7 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

Let’s be clear: anyone who is under 18 is legally a minor, and anyone who is being sexually exploited, regardless of their age, is a victim of a crime. perpetuating harmful stereotypes that place the blame on the victim rather than the abuser.

Sometimes they're a minor until age 21, why pick 18?

[giddyup]

20 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

Were they shipped off to an island for sex with celebs?

Was she in chains?

[impulse]

23 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

You’re essentially saying that because Virginia was 17, she should’ve been responsible enough to avoid being exploited. But that’s not how it works. The responsibility lies with the abuser, not the victim.

 

So, basically you're saying that any woman who sells sex is a victim.

 

Or, more broadly, any woman who uses sex to get what she wants is a victim.

 

[BritManToo]

18 minutes ago, impulse said:

So, basically you're saying that any woman who sells sex is a victim.

Or, more broadly, any woman who uses sex to get what she wants is a victim.

In any sexual interaction, one person is exploited, one person is the exploiter.

If you think you're having sex is mutually consensual, you're probably the one being exploited.

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

In any sexual interaction, one person is exploited, one person is the exploiter.

If you think you're having sex is mutually consensual, you're probably the one being exploited.

 

I don't know if I'd go that far, but there's a reason a common nickname for a hoohah is "moneymaker".

 

 

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, WorriedNoodle said:

I think someone has their head up their ass. This oversimplifies the situation, and potentially minimizes the gravity of the harm done to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. While Virginia may have been paid for her time, it's important to remember that she was a minor and was being manipulated by a powerful man. The fact that she was "willing" doesn't change the fact that she was being exploited and taken advantage of. Regardless of whether or not she was "willing," the fact that Epstein was using these girls for his own sexual gratification is absolutely unacceptable. 

 

It doesn't oversimplify the situation at all. Actually, you oversimplify the situation, you want to reduce Virginina Giuffre to an inanimate object of some kind, a minor, a toddler, with no brain, no free will, just a manipulated instrument, like a piano. Because the truth, most likely is much too hard to take for you. She was a willing participant in sex with Epstein for money. She was a whore at 17 already. If, as she claims, she was abused the first time she met Epstein and gave him a massage, which of course she wasn't, they asked her to get undressed and asked her to do sexual acts, which she complied with and did willingly, however, even if she had been abused, after this first meeting she could have chosen to never meet Epstein again. However, she chose to see him again and to have sex with him for money. Again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

 

Her narrative that she was a "sex slave" and in "servitude" is complete fantasy. She could have walked away at any time. It was a business transaction she happily partook of, again and again and again. And when Epstein asked her to have sex with his friends, she also agreed. For money. She was a whore. Plain and simple. She was willingly on Epstein's payroll. She only decided to jump ship when it became clear to her that she would never get a chance to have Epstein for herself and some other Simp offered to take her on, and she had made enough money from Epstein by that time to enjoy the change of scenery with the new guy.

 

She was much more than a whore. She was a liar, a professional blackmailer and an extortionist. Once she figured she would get paid for telling stories of how she was "trafficked" for sex, and would not just get paid, but get 500,000 USD, a million, and ultimately 16.3 million USD, for her made up lies, it was her who manipulated the legal system, in order to obtain riches beyond her, and most people's wildest dreams, she made around 20 million USD from her blackmail lawsuits based on her whoring herself out to Epstein. This woman was a liar and fraudster. She was the manipulator who took advantage of the legal system. Going so far as to accuse celebrities she never had sex with! Just to get another few millions. By the grace of God Dershowitz was able to defend himself against the utter lies and expose her for the fraud she was.

 

The real miracle is that she was not imprisoned for perjury, after she lied with abandon at the Dershowitz trial. However, Dershowitz was so relieved that Giuffre agreed to do a joint statement to say her accusations were false, that he willingly accepted her, totally spurious, claim, that she just "misremembered". If any man had made the claims Giuffre made, he'd be held for contempt, perversion of justice, and imprisoned. Of course thanks to fools like you the "poor victim" of exploitation got off scott free.  And promptly proceeded to shake down Prince Andrew for 16.3 million USD.

 

One small consolation we can take however from her story, namely that karmic law works, karma is real, and ultimately those who try to ruin others will themselves be ruined. Good. She was no "Angel", she was a vicious fraudster who lied with no shame to live a life in luxury. But she didn't get to enjoy it for long. Because Karma is real.

[ChipButty]

If Randy Andy had been a member of Thai Visa in them days he would have got off with that, we could have a built a case for his defense, 

[ChipButty]

I never did believe her, she wasnt exactly dragged kicking and screaming on to that Lolita express, and her trip to Chiang Mai, would be interesting to know which nice 5 star hotel she stayed in, 

[dcalaska]

The CIA took her out to silence her.

[xylophone]

22 minutes ago, dcalaska said:

The CIA took her out to silence her.

Such nonsense......

[WorriedNoodle]

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

In any sexual interaction, one person is exploited, one person is the exploiter.

You must have had one sorry sex life if that's what you got out of it.

[Hamus Yaigh]

3 hours ago, dcalaska said:

The CIA took her out to silence her.

Yes dear, have you taken your meds as prescribed today yet?

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

You must have had one sorry sex life if that's what you got out of it.

 

I highly doubt it, its' just a factual statement that is obvious to anyone.

[WorriedNoodle]

5 hours ago, Cameroni said:

It doesn't oversimplify the situation at all. Actually, you oversimplify the situation, you want to reduce Virginina Giuffre to an inanimate object of some kind, a minor, a toddler, with no brain, no free will, just a manipulated instrument, like a piano. Because the truth, most likely is much too hard to take for you. She was a willing participant in sex with Epstein for money. She was a whore at 17 already. If, as she claims, she was abused the first time she met Epstein and gave him a massage, which of course she wasn't, they asked her to get undressed and asked her to do sexual acts, which she complied with and did willingly, however, even if she had been abused, after this first meeting she could have chosen to never meet Epstein again. However, she chose to see him again and to have sex with him for money. Again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

 

Her narrative that she was a "sex slave" and in "servitude" is complete fantasy. She could have walked away at any time. It was a business transaction she happily partook of, again and again and again. And when Epstein asked her to have sex with his friends, she also agreed. For money. She was a whore. Plain and simple. She was willingly on Epstein's payroll. She only decided to jump ship when it became clear to her that she would never get a chance to have Epstein for herself and some other Simp offered to take her on, and she had made enough money from Epstein by that time to enjoy the change of scenery with the new guy.

 

She was much more than a whore. She was a liar, a professional blackmailer and an extortionist. Once she figured she would get paid for telling stories of how she was "trafficked" for sex, and would not just get paid, but get 500,000 USD, a million, and ultimately 16.3 million USD, for her made up lies, it was her who manipulated the legal system, in order to obtain riches beyond her, and most people's wildest dreams, she made around 20 million USD from her blackmail lawsuits based on her whoring herself out to Epstein. This woman was a liar and fraudster. She was the manipulator who took advantage of the legal system. Going so far as to accuse celebrities she never had sex with! Just to get another few millions. By the grace of God Dershowitz was able to defend himself against the utter lies and expose her for the fraud she was.

 

The real miracle is that she was not imprisoned for perjury, after she lied with abandon at the Dershowitz trial. However, Dershowitz was so relieved that Giuffre agreed to do a joint statement to say her accusations were false, that he willingly accepted her, totally spurious, claim, that she just "misremembered". If any man had made the claims Giuffre made, he'd be held for contempt, perversion of justice, and imprisoned. Of course thanks to fools like you the "poor victim" of exploitation got off scott free.  And promptly proceeded to shake down Prince Andrew for 16.3 million USD.

 

One small consolation we can take however from her story, namely that karmic law works, karma is real, and ultimately those who try to ruin others will themselves be ruined. Good. She was no "Angel", she was a vicious fraudster who lied with no shame to live a life in luxury. But she didn't get to enjoy it for long. Because Karma is real.

 

 

 

[WorriedNoodle]

The opinion you @Cameroniprovided contains several problematic elements, both factually and ethically, that warrant a reply:

You use derogatory terms like "whore" and reduces Virginia Giuffre to an object devoid of agency or complexity. This dehumanizing language dismisses the nuances of her situation and perpetuates victim-blaming. It ignores the power dynamics inherent in relationships involving minors and influential adults, especially in cases of alleged trafficking or exploitation. Giuffre was 17 when she met Epstein, a minor under U.S. law, which complicates the narrative of "willing participation."

 

You assert Giuffre "chose" to engage with Epstein repeatedly, framing her actions as purely transactional and voluntary. This ignores the potential for grooming, manipulation, or coercion, which are well-documented tactics used by individuals like Epstein to exploit vulnerable people. Minors cannot legally consent to sexual activities in many jurisdictions, and psychological or financial pressures can undermine perceived "free will."

 

The claim that Giuffre "made up lies" to extort millions is speculative and not fully supported by evidence. Giuffre’s allegations against Epstein and others were part of legal proceedings that resulted in settlements, not convictions for perjury or fraud. For example, her settlement with Prince Andrew (reportedly around $16 million) was a civil agreement, not proof of falsehood. The opinion also misrepresents the Dershowitz case: Giuffre’s acknowledgment of possible "misremembering" was part of a mutual settlement, not a legal finding of perjury.

 

The assertion that Giuffre was a "professional blackmailer" lacks substantiation beyond the opinion’s narrative. Legal settlements in high-profile cases often involve complex motivations, including avoiding protracted litigation, and do not inherently prove deceit.

 

Misogynistic Undertones: Your fixation on Giuffre’s alleged greed and sexual behavior, while framing her as manipulative, reflects misogynistic tropes that disproportionately vilify women in sexual abuse cases. It suggests that her pursuit of financial compensation undermines her credibility, ignoring that civil lawsuits are a common recourse for survivors seeking justice.

 

Misapplication of "Karma" and Moral Judgment: The invocation of "karmic law" and the claim that Giuffre was "ruined" introduces a moralizing tone that lacks grounding in evidence. There’s no clear indication that Giuffre faced legal or personal ruin; this appears to be wishful speculation. Such rhetoric shifts focus from factual analysis to personal vendetta.

 

Selective Use of Legal Outcomes: You highlight Giuffre’s settlement with Dershowitz as evidence of her dishonesty but ignores the broader context of Epstein’s crimes. Epstein’s 2008 plea deal and subsequent 2019 charges for sex trafficking corroborate a pattern of predatory behavior, lending credence to some of Giuffre’s claims. Dismissing her entire narrative as "fantasy" overlooks these established facts.

You fail to grapple with the power imbalance between a wealthy, connected figure like Epstein and a young, economically disadvantaged individual like Giuffre. Even if she returned to Epstein, this does not negate the possibility of exploitation, as victims of trafficking or abuse often face barriers to leaving, including fear, financial dependency, or lack of support.

[DaLa]

On 4/26/2025 at 1:38 PM, Jerzy Swirski said:

Will Andy be going to the funeral?

Of course he will. No sweat.

[xylophone]

3 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

The opinion you @Cameroniprovided contains several problematic elements, both factually and ethically, that warrant a reply:

You use derogatory terms like "whore" and reduces Virginia Giuffre to an object devoid of agency or complexity. This dehumanizing language dismisses the nuances of her situation and perpetuates victim-blaming. It ignores the power dynamics inherent in relationships involving minors and influential adults, especially in cases of alleged trafficking or exploitation. Giuffre was 17 when she met Epstein, a minor under U.S. law, which complicates the narrative of "willing participation."

You assert Giuffre "chose" to engage with Epstein repeatedly, framing her actions as purely transactional and voluntary. This ignores the potential for grooming, manipulation, or coercion, which are well-documented tactics used by individuals like Epstein to exploit vulnerable people. Minors cannot legally consent to sexual activities in many jurisdictions, and psychological or financial pressures can undermine perceived "free will."

The claim that Giuffre "made up lies" to extort millions is speculative and not fully supported by evidence. Giuffre’s allegations against Epstein and others were part of legal proceedings that resulted in settlements, not convictions for perjury or fraud. For example, her settlement with Prince Andrew (reportedly around $16 million) was a civil agreement, not proof of falsehood. The opinion also misrepresents the Dershowitz case: Giuffre’s acknowledgment of possible "misremembering" was part of a mutual settlement, not a legal finding of perjury.

The assertion that Giuffre was a "professional blackmailer" lacks substantiation beyond the opinion’s narrative. Legal settlements in high-profile cases often involve complex motivations, including avoiding protracted litigation, and do not inherently prove deceit.

Misogynistic Undertones: Your fixation on Giuffre’s alleged greed and sexual behavior, while framing her as manipulative, reflects misogynistic tropes that disproportionately vilify women in sexual abuse cases. It suggests that her pursuit of financial compensation undermines her credibility, ignoring that civil lawsuits are a common recourse for survivors seeking justice.

Misapplication of "Karma" and Moral Judgment: The invocation of "karmic law" and the claim that Giuffre was "ruined" introduces a moralizing tone that lacks grounding in evidence. There’s no clear indication that Giuffre faced legal or personal ruin; this appears to be wishful speculation. Such rhetoric shifts focus from factual analysis to personal vendetta.

Selective Use of Legal Outcomes: You highlight Giuffre’s settlement with Dershowitz as evidence of her dishonesty but ignores the broader context of Epstein’s crimes. Epstein’s 2008 plea deal and subsequent 2019 charges for sex trafficking corroborate a pattern of predatory behavior, lending credence to some of Giuffre’s claims. Dismissing her entire narrative as "fantasy" overlooks these established facts.

You fail to grapple with the power imbalance between a wealthy, connected figure like Epstein and a young, economically disadvantaged individual like Giuffre. Even if she returned to Epstein, this does not negate the possibility of exploitation, as victims of trafficking or abuse often face barriers to leaving, including fear, financial dependency, or lack of support.

A great and well structure post @WorriedNoodle. Thanks.

[ChipButty]

I bet there is a few people have breathed a sigh of relief at that news