The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

It is entirely possible IMHO that Virginia Giuffre and/or her lawyers overestimated Andrew's wealth and made outrageous settlement demands well beyond Andrew's ability to pay. Most American have this misconception that British royals are billionaires as they confuse the Crown Estate (held in trust by the Queen in right of the Crown) with the Royal Family's private fortune.

I also agree it is somewhat odd that she is targeting Andrew specifically when, given Epstein's network of acquaintances, there are probably other far more wealthy men who might have abused her and whom she could go after.

Prince Andrew might perhaps be even more of a celebrity than other potential defendants, but he is not necessarily the best one to go after if Ms Giuffre's primary goal is financial compensation.

Ms. Giuffre’s legal team surely has the resources to make a good estimate of Andrew’s private fortune. I don’t think the team would be likely to make the rookie mistake of confusing private funds with family funds, or family funds vs the Crown Estate.

Andrew may not be the wealthiest man who was in Epstein’s social circle, but Giuffre’s team may think he’s in the sweet spot of being reasonably wealthy, reasonably well known to the public, and part of a family that needs to concern itself with public image more than people in that income bracket usually do. A random billionaire that no one has ever heard of could spend an unlimited amount of money, for however much time it took, to let this make its way through whatever process has to happen and ensure that, in the end, the woman in question got nothing.

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

If her primary motivation is monetary compensation why is she zeroing in on Andrew? I find it difficult to believe that he was the only wealthy male she had to be with during her time with Epstein.

Does Giuffre's civil suit target more than one person? Have the others already settled with her?

Ghislaine settled with her in a separate legal proceeding. I believe there was no admission of guilt. Ghislaine said that VG was lying, and VG went after her and got a settlement.

And now Ghislaine is making it known that she will speak up in defense of Prince Andrew. Can she do that despite settling?

As far as the other prominent men who Virginia has named previously, I think Andrew has more money and is younger than the others. The other very prominent men are in their twilight years or close to it. (The former career politicians and statesmen.) One of them, a lawyer, is best avoided. He's pretty wily. Andrew has the most at stake, especially when you take into account the effect on the monarchy.

And he's the only one in a photo with his arm around VG, with Ghislaine squarely in the frame.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

Ghislaine settled with her in a separate legal proceeding. I believe there was no admission of guilt. Ghislaine said that VG was lying, and VG went after her and got a settlement.

And now Ghislaine is making it known that she will speak up in defense of Prince Andrew. Can she do that despite settling?

As far as the other prominent men who Virginia has named previously, I think Andrew has more money and is younger than the others. The other very prominent men are in their twilight years or close to it. (The former career politicians and statesmen.) One of them, a lawyer, is best avoided. He's pretty wily. Andrew has the most at stake, especially when you take into account the effect on the monarchy.

And he's the only one in a photo with his arm around VG, with Ghislaine squarely in the frame.

I think this is a major point. It's actual evidence that Andrew had met and spent time with Virginia whereas he states he never met her or remembers her at all. Have there been pictures in the media of Virginia with any of the other men that reportedly hung around Epstein/Maxwell?

I think with this being a civil case, Maxwell may very well be able to testify on Andrew's behalf. I don't know and would be interested in knowing if Maxwell can testify as a witness in this case when she has her own criminal charges against her and can't even be released on bail before the trial.

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I think this is a major point. It's actual evidence that Andrew had met and spent time with Virginia whereas he states he never met her or remembers her at all. Have there been pictures in the media of Virginia with any of the other men that reportedly hung around Epstein/Maxwell?

I think with this being a civil case, Maxwell may very well be able to testify on Andrew's behalf. I don't know and would be interested in knowing if Maxwell can testify as a witness in this case when she has her own criminal charges against her and can't even be released on bail before the trial.

VG went to Paris and testified against Jean-Luc Brunel, the model agency man who supposedly supplied Epstein with many girls. No pictures of him with VG. Plenty with Ghislaine though!

Virginia's lawyer may be taking other possibilities into account -- like the fact Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah are uncontrollable loose cannons and could say anything at any time that could backfire. Also, neither one of them are exactly financial wizards and might not have adequately sheltered their money. Andrew operates independently of BP and is likely to have shrugged off what he would perceive as interfering with his finances.

Another thing is the Verbier chalet. It is unlikely HM will take ownership to shield it from a judgment. It's sitting out there as a big multi-million dollar target.

[Curryong]

Is the Verbier chalet now fully owned by Andrew and Sarah though? The last I heard about it was the threatened lawsuit last year by the previous owner due to Andrew and his ex not paying an amount they said they would to complete the purchase, though Fergie promised they would.

It’s possible that the money was raked up from somewhere because nothing more has been heard about the law suit this year, AFAIK, though the chalet is apparently listed on multiple sites for rent or sale. So far no takers, probably because Covid has prevented people from thinking of Swiss holidays, rentals.

[BriarRose]

Ghislaine Maxwell can testify in another civil case or criminal case. No civil settlement prevents any witness (U.S. law) from being subpoenaed to testify under oath facts outside the settlement agreement. (Any confidentiality limitations in Ghislaine's settlement agreement with Ms. Guiffre would contain language like "parties agree that the terms of this settlement are confidential, except as required by law ....")

However, her criminal case complicates things. If Ghislaine is subpoened, her lawyers will likely ask that her deposition be continued (put on hold) until her criminal case is resolved. (And to sum a complicated discussion: since Ghislaine is not a party in the Andrew civil case, she usually doesn't have an automatic right to a continuance of a lawfully subpoened deposition (depends which jurisdiction's laws applies); but typically judges will continue civil depositions for witnesses involved in criminal cases as Ghislaine saying "on the advice of counsel I will not be answering that question under my fifth amendment rights" over and over again is not very useful to anyone.)

Civil cases take a long time to go to trial. U.S. Courts are swamped with backlogs right now because of Covid. If this case is not dismissed for a legal technicality, or settled by the parties, I would think it could be 4 or 5 years before a trial.

Ms. Guiffre's lawyers likely could have an idea what Andrew's assets are, but it can't be said that they absolutely know for sure what his wealth is. They will be permitted to get this information through discovery.

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Is the Verbier chalet now fully owned by Andrew and Sarah though? The last I heard about it was the threatened lawsuit last year by the previous owner due to Andrew and his ex not paying an amount they said they would to complete the purchase, though Fergie promised they would.

It’s possible that the money was raked up from somewhere because nothing more has been heard about the law suit this year, AFAIK, though the chalet is apparently listed on multiple sites for rent or sale. So far no takers, probably because Covid has prevented people from thinking of Swiss holidays, rentals.

Fergie and Andrew are the ones who are offering it for sale, so, that might count as a big asset.

The chalet's pool area is way outdated regarding interior design. The updating of structures and mechanics there, that is a big financial nut. Hard to see how Andrew can maintain it in zenith top condition for a sale without American lawyers seeing where his money goes.

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Is the Verbier chalet now fully owned by Andrew and Sarah though? The last I heard about it was the threatened lawsuit last year by the previous owner due to Andrew and his ex not paying an amount they said they would to complete the purchase, though Fergie promised they would.

It’s possible that the money was raked up from somewhere because nothing more has been heard about the law suit this year, AFAIK, though the chalet is apparently listed on multiple sites for rent or sale. So far no takers, probably because Covid has prevented people from thinking of Swiss holidays, rentals.

True. The woman owed the money is not shy about going to the press.

[Moonmaiden23]

Ahh yes. The photo.

All Andrew had to do was admit that he knew the woman and had....SPENT TIME with her. He could have insisted that at no time did he have the impression that she was reluctant or under any kind of duress

The infamous photo certainly gives that impression, imo.

He then should have issued the most abject apology that he could muster and expressed complete revulsion for Epstein and empathy for his victims.

What an arrogant idiot Andrew is.

[Curryong]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-...ealed/12806036

Now
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-...arge/100377360

[Alison H]

If she's only after money, maybe she's thinking that going after Andrew will bring attention and maybe lead to book deals etc.


If she's genuinely trying to show that no-one, no matter how well-connected and powerful, can get away with what she says was done to her, then I suppose going after a prince makes more sense than going after a wealthy businessman who's not a household name.


Would she have to have some sort of reasonable evidence, for it to come to court? Obviously in a historic sex assault case there isn't going to be physical evidence, but would she need something, rather than just her account of what she says happened? Otherwise, presumably anyone could make allegations against anyone else, say an ex-partner against whom they'd got a grudge.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Alison H

If she's only after money, maybe she's thinking that going after Andrew will bring attention and maybe lead to book deals etc.


If she's genuinely trying to show that no-one, no matter how well-connected and powerful, can get away with what she says was done to her, then I suppose going after a prince makes more sense than going after a wealthy businessman who's not a household name.


Would she have to have some sort of reasonable evidence, for it to come to court? Obviously in a historic sex assault case there isn't going to be physical evidence, but would she need something, rather than just her account of what she says happened? Otherwise, presumably anyone could make allegations against anyone else, say an ex-partner against whom they'd got a grudge.

I think that she is primarily after money and I see nothing wrong with that. If her allegations are well-founded, she has every right to seek damages, and she can claim against any of the persons who wronged her and I imagine she will have selected the one against whom she considers she is most likely to succeed. There could be a number of advantages in going after the Queen's son. For one thing he is bound to have money and assets, and for another there are records of his travels on certain dates. Going after the private businessmen and politicians might be more difficult. I would think her lawyers have carried out extensive investigations and collected a lot of useful supporting material from the previous investigations.

Their he said, she said accounts will be tested by cross-examination and a skilled cross-examiner might be able to make minced-meat out of Andrew in the witness box. He is not a man who is used to being challenged and his arrogance and the fact he is not especially bright might prevent him from properly preparing beforehand and he might trip himself up. Of course Virginia is at risk of being discredited in cross-examination too, but she only has to satisfy the court of the veracity of her allegations on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

He is at risk and if he is refusing to enter negotiations at all I think he is being foolish.

[Harald]

The date for the first court hearing in Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit against Prince Andrew has been set.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

He is at risk and if he is refusing to enter negotiations at all I think he is being foolish.

But wouldn't paying a settlement be perceived in the court of public opinion as tantamount to an admission of guilt (unfair as that may be to the many less privileged defendants who are forced to settle or be exposed to financial ruin from the costs of litigation fees, as HighGoalHighDreams pointed out)? The legal commentators certainly seem to believe so.

[sophie25]

I agree with Moonmaiden23 completely. He should have said that it did happen but that he at no point realised she was being forced into it as she seemed happy and relaxed as the picture appears to show. Rather than deny it's authenticity he could actually have made that picture work in his favour but the complete denial of the whole situation just makes it look like he knew he was involved in something underhand and is trying to distance himself from it. Outwith the trafficking situation he clearly feels ashamed that at 40-41 he had sex with a 17 year old but better to be seen as sleazy than to be seen as someone who knowingly had sex with a sex trafficking victim.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by lucien

I agree,the first part...

I don't think it's quite that simple. Epstein was clearly a terrible, depraved individual and did target young girls as sexual playthings for himself and his friends. If Virginia Roberts and others do get financial compensation I really don't grudge them it. Andrew has no one but himself to blame for befriending such an odious person as Jeffrey Epstein but then I would imagine you would need to be pretty odious yourself to want to be in the company of such scum.

[lucien]

Originally Posted by sophie25

I don't think it's quite that simple. Epstein was clearly a terrible, depraved individual and did target young girls as sexual playthings for himself and his friends. If Virginia Roberts and others do get financial compensation I really don't grudge them it. Andrew has no one but himself to blame for befriending such an odious person as Jeffrey Epstein but then I would imagine you would need to be pretty odious yourself to want to be in the company of such scum.

Having friends is a private business.But this went over private..
I do not comment on any of these characters involved in this charade
for all the world to see,I think it is vulgar in overdrive,from A to Z,all of them.
Poor poor mommy,that She has to witness all of this,really!

[sophie25]

I am sympathetic to the Queen but only up to a point. The stories about Andrew being an insufferable brat growing up are endless. Various members of staff have recalled how he made their lives miserable and was allowed to get away with it. You reap what you sow at the end of the day.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

But wouldn't paying a settlement be perceived in the court of public opinion as tantamount to an admission of guilt (unfair as that may be to the many less privileged defendants who are forced to settle or be exposed to financial ruin from the costs of litigation fees, as HighGoalHighDreams pointed out)? The legal commentators certainly seem to believe so.

I was speaking about the way this sort of civil litigation is conducted here. The parties are supposed to participate in settlement negotiations and if they do not they run the risk of being penalised as to costs. Most cases that get to court involve circumstances that may or may not give rise to liability on the part of the defendant and often a case is settled for commercial reasons because to run it can lead to the incurring of very large amounts of legal costs and the possibility you won't win in the end anyway. And terms of settlement are usually expressed to be "by consent and without admission of liability", and they are confidential. So all people would know is that the matter was settled, not the terms.

Andrew doesn't seem to want to participate in settlement talks and that's his right. Only he and Virginia know what really happened. But if she is right and satisfies the judge of her case he will be a lot worse off than if he settles because the reasons for judgment will be a matter of public record. Though maybe it will be a jury trial, I don't know.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by sophie25

I agree with Moonmaiden23 completely. He should have said that it did happen but that he at no point realised she was being forced into it as she seemed happy and relaxed as the picture appears to show. Rather than deny it's authenticity he could actually have made that picture work in his favour but the complete denial of the whole situation just makes it look like he knew he was involved in something underhand and is trying to distance himself from it. Outwith the trafficking situation he clearly feels ashamed that at 40-41 he had sex with a 17 year old but better to be seen as sleazy than to be seen as someone who knowingly had sex with a sex trafficking victim.

I am still shocked that he is flat out denying having had sex with VG or having any recollection of that fact when there seems to be material evidence to the contrary. The easiest way out for a defendant in this case would have been to say that they had consensual sex and that he was not aware that she was a minor under US law or a sex trafficking victim, which would be a plausible version of the events and would have to be disproven by the plaintiff.



The fact that he chose to deny everything altogether means that either he is indeed innocent and VG is lying, or he is being badly advised or was overconfident about being above the law. Honestly I don't think he expected to be sued in the US as, being a British prince, he grew up with the Crown immunity mentality, even though it applies technically only to the Queen and not to her children.