Ghislaine Maxwell

Germanshepherdsmum

You have a vivid imagination Iam64. I have not mentioned GM. However you are entirely correct that I have no respect for someone who, many years after alleged events, seeks to make money out of them.

She isn’t - she is seeking justice. The only way she is able to do so is to sue.

Every single one of those people who were children have a right to justice, as have all those young women who were sex trafficked.

How else do you suggest they seek justice?

Germanshepherdsmum

You have a vivid imagination Iam64. I have not mentioned GM. However you are entirely correct that I have no respect for someone who, many years after alleged events, seeks to make money out of them.

She isn’t - she is seeking justice. The only way she is able to do so is to sue.

Every single one of those people who were children have a right to justice, as have all those young women who were sex trafficked.

How else do you suggest they seek justice?

Did anyone see the Documentary on the 2 of them on Sky Documentaries last night?
It was obviously made before Epstein committed suicide or went to prison.
The 2 of them are/were unspeakable monsters.
I’m amazed that he even went to prison. The FBI ( this is documented) covered up for them for years.

MerylStreep

Did anyone see the Documentary on the 2 of them on Sky Documentaries last night?
It was obviously made before Epstein committed suicide or went to prison.
The 2 of them are/were unspeakable monsters.
I’m amazed that he even went to prison. The FBI ( this is documented) covered up for them for years.

No will watch it later.

I entirely agree nanna8. But the current proceedings are not criminal proceedings, they are civil proceedings brought by VG many years after the alleged events in an attempt to obtain yet more money, having already received ‘compensation’ from Epstein’s estate. Very different to someone taking years to go to the police, which is completely understandable.

Justice isn’t the same as extracting money wwm.

Who else is being sued?

Why does that matter?

I would like to know who else she is suing

I suppose it depends on who else she claims had sex with her.
Though of course, naming and shaming a prince would be a way to indicate that it was common practice by powerful, influential men.

Andrew is powerful !

Yes.
That's the point.
Powerful men allegedly using underage women for their own agenda, knowing that those women were trafficked.
Who better to illustrate that point than a prince, I would think.
It would highlight just how these things are covered up and smoothed over.
In that respect, andrew has played right into the hands of his accuser by not facing up to the allegations and proving them wrong.

Naming and shaming a Prince would, if she were successful, only indicate what one rich and well known person had done MissA. I haven’t heard that she’s suing anyone else. She may be out of time to do so, having left it to the eleventh hour with Prince A. And wouldn’t he be the best known not only in the US but throughout the developed world? What higher target could you hope for than a member of the British RF whose photo you kept all those years?

MissAdventure

I suppose it depends on who else she claims had sex with her.
Though of course, naming and shaming a prince would be a way to indicate that it was common practice by powerful, influential men.

On the program last night a book was shown ( that belonged to Ghislaine Maxwell) where the names of 1,500 of the great and the good ? from around the world. From presidents to nobel prize winners. Many were being blackmailed by Epstein and Maxwell.

I would think it is just as well she is being kept under lock and key, for her own safety.

I had a friend who was a conspiracy theorist, and she told me years ago about all this kind of stuff, and I was sceptical, to say the least....

I would think it is just as well she is being kept under lock and key, for her own safety.

I have though this a few times too, MissA.

Epstein wasn’t safe under lock and key , perhaps she has promised not to name certain people.

Perhaps so.
I wonder if they can trust each of the others allegedly involved, or whether they will all turn on eachother in an effort to save their own skins?

Rats and a sinking ship comes to mind

It certainly does, I agree.

I have often wondered if financial compensation was not offered would people actually still go ahead with reporting sexual crimes. I worry that the innocent can be named and shamed all for the sake of some money. Just look at that nasty piece of work that named Sir Leon Brittan whose final months were made horrendous by false allegations. I am not saying that everyone who makes accusations is wrong or vengeful but that a financial benefit is tempting to some. Prince Andrew’s reputation was poor even before these allegations came out and I think no one is prepared to think him innocent because of his reputation. I am not saying he is or isn’t just that we are already biased against him, just as we are biased in favour of Virginia Giuffre as the perceived victim. We don’t know whether she was a scheming girl or a victim of grooming. We will never know the truth of it, it is all a matter of he said she said.

When an injustice is done, usually the only way of moving on from it is if it is faced, head on.
Since the alleged perpetrators have kept avoiding the issue and hiding behind mummy's skirts; allegedly the only course of action left is the one being taken now.

It's often done by people as a means of clearing someone's name, or proving that a person was involved, in cases where there is no money involved whatsoever.

Someone who brings a civil action is always seeking a remedy MissA, and the only remedy in a case such as this is an award of damages, but money can never equal justice for sexual abuse. Who would want to go into all the details of what they allege happened, and have them plastered all over the media, years after the alleged event, for money? And unless the damages were given to charity (as VG may say she will do, doubtless she has started a 'Foundation'), what pleasure would anything purchased with the money ever give?

For the money to be awarded, there would have to be an admission of guilt.

If we are giving the benefit of the doubt to everyone else, then we can afford the same to Victoria.
We shall see if she donates the money, and there is no reason to believe otherwise as yet.