I have no more knowledge of the truth or lies of this woman than anyone else who relies on the (dodgy) media. But I do have experience of False Accusers. And of the change in society. This Roberts woman was an attractive girl who stumbled into an immensely profitable and enjoyable lifestyle involving lots of money in return for smiling sweetly and possibly allowing trivial and superficial physical activity.
But as she got older, fatter and less attractive it dawned on her that life spreading in front of her was as a dreary housewife and mother. Not as fun as travelling first class to exotic locations.
And she saw that media loves stories involving wealthy and preferably famous people.
There was a way she could make thousands. A bit of blackmail. perhaps.
And then, assisted by lawyers ready to believe every word in return for a chunk of any cash and media happy to print anything, especially photographs. And pay for them.
And if stories - true or false, exaggerated or invented or absolutely honest - could make her a fortune, why not?
But she failed to spot that sometimes a better story comes along. And that media can turn on a sixpence.
End of a trivial, unimportant tale - except as a morality example.
Opening eyes to reality.
Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

JK2006 wrote:
I have no more knowledge of the truth or lies of this woman than anyone else who relies on the (dodgy) media. But I do have experience of False Accusers. And of the change in society. This Roberts woman was an attractive girl who stumbled into an immensely profitable and enjoyable lifestyle involving lots of money in return for smiling sweetly and possibly allowing trivial and superficial physical activity.
But as she got older, fatter and less attractive it dawned on her that life spreading in front of her was as a dreary housewife and mother. Not as fun as travelling first class to exotic locations.
And she saw that media loves stories involving wealthy and preferably famous people.
There was a way she could make thousands. A bit of blackmail. perhaps.
And then, assisted by lawyers ready to believe every word in return for a chunk of any cash and media happy to print anything, especially photographs. And pay for them.
And if stories - true or false, exaggerated or invented or absolutely honest - could make her a fortune, why not?
But she failed to spot that sometimes a better story comes along. And that media can turn on a sixpence.
End of a trivial, unimportant tale - except as a morality example.
Opening eyes to reality.
Just my opinion. I could be wrong. Started to read a Telegraph story online about the 'bus crash'. I couldn't read it all as they demanded a sub, but from what I gather the witnesses and children on the bus tell a different story to Giuffre's. One witness claimed her recall of the event doesn't add up. Will have to find out more.

I suspect you're spot-on, JK.

Prince Andrew 'unsurprised' by accuser Virginia Giuffre's car crash claims, friends of Duke say

... One friend of Andrew told The Daily Beast: “There is no sense of satisfaction on the Duke’s part at Giuffre’s disgrace.

"If anything it has brought back the sadness the entire family feel that this woman, who he always maintained was a fantasist, was allowed to ruin his life.

"The whole family are completely unsurprised that her alarmist post turned out to be a fabrication.” ...

And Ross Munns, who was driving the bus that collided with Ms Giuffre’s car, insists the crash has been "blown out of proportion"....
Not sure when she wrote this "memoir" but if you put "Andrew" into the search box at the top, you'll find her gushing description of their supposed "encounter". www.documentcloud.org/documents/6251258-...inia-Roberts-Memoir/

According to this, she told a friend about it soon after her trip to London:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038031...uke-York-London.html

She has definitely not been straight about her interaction with Prince Andrew. She said she was "scared" and told 60 Minutes Australia (below at around 19 mins 10 secs, though the bit about Prince Andrew starts earlier) she was "absolutely disgusted" when supposedly told by Ghislaine Maxwell on the supposed trip back to Ghislaine's flat from Tramp that she'd have to do for Prince Andrew what she did for Jeffrey Epstein (no trace of such feelings in the "memoir"). Yet in the photo, which she said had been taken after they arrived back and (including earlier in that 60 Minutes video) just before he abused her, she has her arm round him, is leaning into him and is grinning from ear to ear. She doesn't look scared or disgusted at all.

She said the photo was a souvenir for her mum. "she asked Epstein to “snap a picture of me with the Prince”. “I wanted something to show my mom,” she said." www.independent.co.uk/news/world/america...-trial-b2015760.html Why on earth would anyone take a photo of an abuser to show their mum? I suspect getting a souvenir photo was true, and she decided to spin a story from it, maybe starting with impressing a friend, then writing the "memoir", then when she couldn't get it published trying to capitalise on it through the courts.

She also accused Alan Dershowitz (and others like George Mitchell and Bill Richardson, both of whom denied it). He vehemently denied it, saying he never met her. There are several videos on YouTube on this, including the one below. They got into a legal to-and-fro and eventually she conceded that she "may have made a mistake" and withdrew the allegations.

She's just not credible. The media seem to have swallowed her Prince Andrew story without question, but maybe they don't want to spoil it.