The man formerly known as Prince can fall no further....

Galaxy

I would without doubt have taken that settlement rather than go through a court case which based on conviction statistics I would not win.

Absolutely. I don't blame her in the slightest. And the fact that she was paid such a mind-blowing sum of money for it not to go to court speaks volumes, doesn't it?

The presumption of innocence means that she would have had to prove her allegations, rather than Andrew having to disprove them, so if he had been telling the truth that would have been impossible for her to do, or at least incredibly difficult to persuade a jury on the balance of probability. That makes the fact that she was paid £12m very suggestive indeed.

Who advised her to take the offer rather than press on through the courts?

Possibly because the alternative was much too frightening?

Caleo Well said.

I would without doubt have taken that settlement rather than go through a court case which based on conviction statistics I would not win.

That is exactly my take on it, Caleo.

The principle that people are considered innocent until proved guilty is massively compromised by the fact that payoffs are allowed to happen.

Also, if someone is told by their lawyers that there is little chance of a conviction, but is offered a significant sum to settle out of court, it would make sense to take the money, as the fact that is is offered absolutely suggests that the accusations are true - who has ever paid £12m in hush money to a woman he has never met?

I'm not sure that it makes her complicit in his being 'innocent' (as he has not been proven guilty). Complicit in the flawed legal system, maybe, but that is a very different thing.

Smileless2012

Whatever we may think, VG accepted the out of court settlement of 12 million £'s so she was just as complicit by accepting the offer as Andrew with Queen Elizabeth's backing, were for offering it.

So in this particular case, the only reason that Andrew was able to buy a presumption of innocence is because VG accepted the deal.

It appears that her family which includes the 'tearful' brother and sister in law who have given interviews, are seeking to be beneficiaries of VG's estate which includes a £1.2 million beach side property in Perth Australia, because she died intestate; without a will.

Virginia's actions are neither here nor there.

The principle that the powerful should adhere to is to protect and honour those less powerful than themselves.

Virginia was poor, pathetically young, and unprotected by her father.

Smileless
Whatever we may think, VG accepted the out of court settlement of 12 million £'s so she was just as complicit by accepting the offer as Andrew with Queen Elizabeth's backing, were for offering it.

Accepting it implies further details could ensue.
Who advised her to take the offer rather than press on through the courts?

IOMGran

After the Queen died I think we should have become a republic. Get rid of all the hangers on and sycophants, put the royal lands into public ownership and solved a lot of our debt problem at a stroke.

It is not the title or the function of the monarch that causes the rot. No inscrutable elite can be trusted to work for the common good.

We are fortunate in the personalities of King Charles and William his son. In their elevated positions they could be a lot worse than simply too rich.

Whatever we may think, VG accepted the out of court settlement of 12 million £'s so she was just as complicit by accepting the offer as Andrew with Queen Elizabeth's backing, were for offering it.

So in this particular case, the only reason that Andrew was able to buy a presumption of innocence is because VG accepted the deal.

It appears that her family which includes the 'tearful' brother and sister in law who have given interviews, are seeking to be beneficiaries of VG's estate which includes a £1.2 million beach side property in Perth Australia, because she died intestate; without a will.

Eye witness testimony can lead to conviction and yet a victim statement may not. Had Epstein himself given evidence against these men, they could have been convicted. It is a strange legal system at times.

Yes I can believe that statistic but a man can’t be convicted of committing any sexual assault or rape on the word of a woman

Not strictly true.
If the woman is below the age of consent in that country she cannot be deemed to have consented so it automatically becomes rape.
Yes Giuffre was 17 but I understand she was below the age of consent in her home state .,so at best it looks like a grey area.

Andrew was so rich and so well connected he was able to pay off Virginia Guiffre to make her accusations go away and avoid court, this should never have been allowed to happen and should never happen again.
I agree. It has led to the situation where people can say that he has not been charged or found guilty, so must be presumed innocent. I know that is the principle that underpins our legal system, but that is corrupted when people are able to buy a presumption of innocence.

InRainbows

Oreo

Women can’t be believed without some evidence, it may be a problem for them if they only come forward much later but a man can’t be convicted merely by another’s word on the matter.Where several women come forward it helps of course.
Any rape victim, female or male must go straight to the police where the evidence can be seen and the trail is hot.It’s really important.

This is why women are afraid to come forward

Yet it is known women rarely lie about things like this.

If you understand that the highest estimate is 8% of women (potentially) not telling the truth when reporting this kind of thing and you factor in the huge amount of women who never report it, then the amount who are potentially lying is negligible.

Yes I can believe that statistic but a man can’t be convicted of committing any sexual assault or rape on the word of a woman.
It may well be true but it may not, the courts need more than words.
It does take some backbone for women to report these crimes and it’s in their interest to do it straight away where it happens.

Mollygo

Sorry, StripeyGran I meant “presumably you mean this” not “you knew this”.

Thanks Molly. I wish a lot of this stuff wasn't in my head right now.
Must make better choices about how I spend my time.

Mollygo

StripeyGran

Does anybpdy have a link to fottage of the family gloating please?

Thanks

Presumably you knew this. It was on the news tonight.
youtu.be/DM-rxvgxvx0?si=wNWXWLeCoE06aSWc

I wouldn’t personally call it gloating but it certainly shows they didn’t know VG or their family if they refer to them as normal.
Unless that behaviour is normal in the USA?

I think they use "normal family" in comparison to the wealth and status of the "royal family".
Charles' actions towards Andrew is cause of celebration for the many, many victims of abuse and those who support them.
Andrew was so rich and so well connected he was able to pay off Virginia Guiffre to make her accusations go away and avoid court, this should never have been allowed to happen and should never happen again.
I

Sorry, StripeyGran I meant “presumably you mean this” not “you knew this”.

Mollygo

StripeyGran

Does anybpdy have a link to fottage of the family gloating please?

Thanks

Presumably you knew this. It was on the news tonight.
youtu.be/DM-rxvgxvx0?si=wNWXWLeCoE06aSWc

I wouldn’t personally call it gloating but it certainly shows they didn’t know VG or their family if they refer to them as normal.
Unless that behaviour is normal in the USA?

I didn't know because I don't watch the news and I find it hard to comprehend that a family would gloat.

Awful sordid business.

Oreo

Women can’t be believed without some evidence, it may be a problem for them if they only come forward much later but a man can’t be convicted merely by another’s word on the matter.Where several women come forward it helps of course.
Any rape victim, female or male must go straight to the police where the evidence can be seen and the trail is hot.It’s really important.

This is why women are afraid to come forward

Yet it is known women rarely lie about things like this.

If you understand that the highest estimate is 8% of women (potentially) not telling the truth when reporting this kind of thing and you factor in the huge amount of women who never report it, then the amount who are potentially lying is negligible.

StripeyGran

Does anybpdy have a link to fottage of the family gloating please?

Thanks

Presumably you knew this. It was on the news tonight.
youtu.be/DM-rxvgxvx0?si=wNWXWLeCoE06aSWc

I wouldn’t personally call it gloating but it certainly shows they didn’t know VG or their family if they refer to them as normal.
Unless that behaviour is normal in the USA?

The Epstein Files are probably going to be released soon.

Does anybpdy have a link to fottage of the family gloating please?

Thanks

Usually the Ghost works with the material gleaned from the subject.
The actual methods, eg interviews, recordings can vary from book to book.

The reason for ghost writing and any form of writing is to make money. No secret there.
Why does MSM use clickbait headlines? To draw you in.

My DH seems to think that the ghost writer wrote a fictionalised account. The book comes up as non fiction but I don’t know if there’s a true distinction? The ghost writer was not present at the time of the alleged sexual abuse so from that point of view it’s unconfirmed?

Facebook again, so perhaps not accurate, there was a post claiming that Ian Maxwell had copies of the videos etc