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

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

It would still have been hushed up in the UK, even today. Andrew's downfall was to have a civil lawsuit brought against him in the US and in New York of all places.

New York, "of all places?" Why say that?

I'm not being adversarial, just curious. Do you think a NYC jury would be more harmful for the DoY, or is it about the tabloid press element?

In my little corner of NYC, people respect military service and are fond of HM.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

New York, "of all places?" Why say that?

I'm not being adversarial, just curious. Do you think a NYC jury would be more harmful for the DoY, or is it about the tabloid press element?

I can't say that for sure, because I wouldn't be able to back it with hard evidence, but, yes, I feel American juries in general and a NYC jury in particular would be more biased against someone like Andrew in a case like Virginia Giuffre's case. Without passing any judgment on Andrew's guilt or innocence, I share the feeling of some other posters that there is a high probability of Prince Andrew being scapegoated in this case to take the fall for all influential men who were connected with Epstein and Maxwell, regardless of the merits of the case.

When I said, on the other hand, that it would have been hushed up in the UK, I didn't mean that the British tabloid press would let it go, but rather that I don't think VG would be able to successfully initiate a civil lawsuit against Andrew in the UK. That is not a legal or technical opinion though. It is just my personal impression and I may be wrong.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

It's true that many- and surely the most vocal- people would crow from the rooftops that a settlement is Andrew admitting guilt. I would posit, though, that those same people have already decided he is guilty and will say the same about any outcome. If he is found not guilty after a full and fair trial, this same vocal group will be insufferable saying that it was somehow rigged, decided on a technicality, etc.

We can probably count on one hand the number of people waiting for a verdict, or to see the evidence, to decide whether they think Andrew is guilty. Yes, people will say he is guilty if he takes a settlement, but those people already think it.

I am not so sure. Seemingly just about every article in the British newspapers analyzing the prince's options remarks that a settlement would be broadly perceived in Britain as an admission of guilt, even though that is not really accurate in the American context where most such cases end in settlement.

Originally Posted by victor1319

Well, the case wont be dismissed because of the settlement between the now deceased Mr. Epstein and Mrs. Virginia Giuffre. That is clear by now:
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/...022%200900.pdf

A lot of complicated American-English in the text above, but it basically says in my humble understanding, the settlement was not about Prince Andrew. [...]

Judge Kaplan says that he expresses no view on the meaning of the agreement: "nothing in this opinion or previously in these proceedings properly may be construed as indicating a view with respect to the truth of the charges or countercharges or as to the intention of the parties in entering into the 2009 Agreement" (pg. 44).

He concludes that the agreement is ambiguous because there is more than one reasonable interpretation. Under Florida law (which governs the agreement), the interpretation of ambiguous language is the prerogative of the trier of fact, in this case the jury when the case goes to trial (pg. 13). Therefore (assuming Judge Kaplan's decision stands) it will be the jury who decides whether the agreement is about Prince Andrew or not.

[Tatiana Maria]

Virginia Giuffre's lawyer suggests she would be open to a financial settlement out of court, but only if it was accompanied by something which "vindicates the claim she has made". I assume he implies some form of apology and admission of wrongdoing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59977517

[David Boies] said: "I think it's very important to Virginia Giuffre that this matter be resolved in a way that vindicates her and vindicates the other victims. I don't think she has a firm view as to exactly what a solution should be.

"But I think what's going to be important is that this resolution vindicates her and vindicates the claim she has made."

[...]

Asked if Ms Giuffre would be open to a settlement, her lawyer said he did not want to "pre-judge that", adding there had been "no suggestion of settlement discussions at this point".

"A purely financial statement is not anything I think she is interested in," he said.

[Denville]

I'd say that Andrew is in a very difficult position.. I honestly dont think he knew she was being traffickced... or that she was not wholly willing to have sex with him. And after he has said that he did not have sex with her, its a bit difficult for him now to offer money and an apology.... for whatever wrongs he did.

[Alisa]

I am predicting a settlement- a more than generous settlement that alsocomes with a clause that Virginia can no longer mention Andrew's name for the rest of her life.

Also Andrew will go on public television very briefly (no interview) and publicly apologize for his actions (or lack of), apologize to the Queen and the royal family, and apologize to people of Britain and the Commonwealth for sullying and tarnishing the legacy of their Queen.

[Moonmaiden23]

Despite all of VRG's recent pronouncements that she isn't in it for $$ and won't settle, I think that is precisely why she launched this civil suit to begin with. And I do believe she and especially her lawyers would prefer to settle...especially in light of Carolyn Capriano's recent claim that VRG was sort of Santa's helper to Maxwell and Epstein.

I agree. Andrew personally has nothing whatsoever to lose by refusing to settle and incurring a default judgment. He cannot be forced to give a deposition. He cannot be extradited.

His reputation and future cannot possibly be more damaged...both are in fact dead as could be.

The only way he might be compelled to settle is by Charles and the queen at this point but I still fail to see what the advantage is at this point.

[padams2359]

Andrew could be selling the house for legal fees, although 17 million pounds does seem like a lot for just legal fees at this point, or anticipation of paying a settlement.

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by Denville

I'd say that Andrew is in a very difficult position.. I honestly dont think he knew she was being traffickced... or that she was not wholly willing to have sex with him. And after he has said that he did not have sex with her, its a bit difficult for him now to offer money and an apology.... for whatever wrongs he did.

I don't either. I think that Andrew, who was very handsome when he was younger, and a naval hero, on top of being a senior Royal, is used to women falling at his feet, and, if anything did happen between him and Virginia Giuffre, I think he would have assumed that she was willing, and indeed probably that she was flattered that the great wonderful Andrew was honouring her with his attentions.

If he settles out of court, it will look like an admission of guilt. If he goes to court, he'll probably have to answer all sorts of extremely intimate and embarrassing questions, and undergo physical examinations, and it's going to be very humiliating for the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family.

[Denville]

I think he will have to try and avoid court, but if shes not willing ot accept a settlment with some kind of gag agreement, it is difficult. Im sure he thought that she was provided for him but that she was a wiling particpant, not half reluctant....

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Denville

I think he will have to try and avoid court, but if shes not willing ot accept a settlment with some kind of gag agreement, it is difficult. Im sure he thought that she was provided for him but that she was a wiling particpant, not half reluctant....

She bragged about it afterwards to one of the younger girls (whom she recruited), so that doesn't sound reluctant at all. So, either she's had second thoughts while coming to terms with her teenage years or she figured that accusing Andrew would be an interesting path to pursue (because: why only Andrew out of all the men?!).

[Sunnystar]

Just saw this on IG https://www.instagram.com/p/CYrZSA6s...dium=copy_link

"With The Queen's approval and agreement, The Duke of York's military affiliations and Royal patronage have been returned to The Queen.

The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen."

[padams2359]

It’s hitting the fan now.

[xenobia]

Just saw the same statement. But I don't understand if it means that he will loose his HRH permanently? Or is he just going to argue this particular case as a civilian?

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by Sunnystar

"With The Queen's approval and agreement, The Duke of York's military affiliations and Royal patronage have been returned to The Queen.
."

An odd way to formulate it.

[Sunnystar]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

An odd way to formulate it.

How so? HM is taking away the last of what he has that she CAN take away short of an Act of Parliament stripping him of his peerage. I suppose that she could state that he will also no longer be styled HRH but that's small potatoes given he won't be doing ANYTHING for the BRF and he is losing his military appointments, which apparently meant a tremendous amount to him.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by xenobia

Just saw the same statement. But I don't understand if it means that he will loose his HRH permanently? Or is he just going to argue this particular case as a civilian?

My impression is he can’t use it period. But I may have mis interpreted that.

[GraceOMalleysGhost]

Originally Posted by Somebody

She bragged about it afterwards to one of the younger girls (whom she recruited), so that doesn't sound reluctant at all. So, either she's had second thoughts while coming to terms with her teenage years or she figured that accusing Andrew would be an interesting path to pursue (because: why only Andrew out of all the men?!).

Why does it matter if she was reluctant or not? By the time she met Andrew she was fully indoctrinated into the immoral world of Epstein & company. I find it pitiful that she bragged about sleeping with Andrew. I can imagine a girl her age bragging to her friends about sleeping with the high school football star in the same manner, that she is bragging about Andrew this way shows just how sick she was at the time.

She was underage just like the other girls, the fact that she was older than the other girl is irrelevant. The fact is they were both victims. Just because Virginia had been recruited into the system and fully indoctrinated at a young age, by the time she met the other victim she was no longer able to think whether what she was doing was morally right.

Why Andrew? Low-hanging fruit. The political names have much more protection than Andrew. Plus she's building publicity for when/if she does decide to go after others, especially if her case against Andrew is successful.

[Claire]

yep - they are saying that Andrew voluntarily returned the positions. I was also interested in the last bit. "will be defending this case as a private citizen:
No mention of which case - the this case can be viewed as too strong. But it is not as if we saw him defending any case as the colonel general of the Grenadier Guards.
The whole wording is very concerning.

[ACO]

So basically they were shamed into finally "stripping" him though their wording makes it seem like it was more voluntary. It never should have taken this long and for military leaders penning letter demanding him cut ties. It needed to be done a while ago. Glad HM finally realized it even it it seems she needed a major push --- probably from Charles and William.