IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
Reading the Epstein agreement with his accuser I now see the Big Picture.
She accepted $500K and agreed to "release Epstein's 'agent(s), attorney(s), predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s), administrator(s), assign(s) and/or employee(s)'"
In other words she cannot sue Epstein's estate..as his other accusers are.
The other 4 who appeared at Maxwell's trial are in line for $Millions. But alas, not Virginia. Very telling the prosecution didn't use her, the most vocal Maxwell critic..in Maxwell's trial.
Looks like she can't even sue Dershowitz as an Epstein lawyer. Or Maxwell as an Epstein employee.
She can't have it both ways..having accepted one signed agreement that was filed in a civil court but demand it is ignored in another civil matter.
I think the pertinent legal question is whether a contract draw up so widely and vaguely can have legal validity to those not central to the agreement and not named? Contract law (talking UK now) does not trump common law; and if a contract is not valid in common law here it can't be upheld. I know much less about US law!
I can't read this article from the Independent but it apparently says "She has also been mentioned numerous times on nearly every day to date of Ms Maxwell's trial." If the mentions were from the prosecution side, that sounds quite clever, ensuring she was involved but not opening her up to cross-examination.
Wyot wrote: I think the pertinent legal question is whether a contract draw up so widely and vaguely can have legal validity to those not central to the agreement and not named? Contract law (talking UK now) does not trump common law; and if a contract is not valid in common law here it can't be upheld. I know much less about US law!
pretty sure someone as rich as Epstein would have had a battery of lawyers work on such a settlement. The whole point of filing such agreements with courts is to establish legitimacy. Such agreements always have a facility for a court to release details as well. Basically all bases are covered.
But anything can happen in a court case and the entire Epstein /Maxwell one is ridden with unfairness and driven by the media.
## her jailing for instance is totally outrageous.
Bill Cosby's case..whatever the truth..was overturned because of a previous deal with a prosecutor. He should never have tried but he still did 2 years.
### I recall some years ago in Australia a ginormous firm lost a court case over compensation for deadly asbestos and agreed to set up a $500M fund for compensation.
A year later they re-incorporated in The Netherlands and sent their Australian firm bust and declared it bankrupt so..no $500M. The State government pursued them through a Netherlands court and won. It cost them far more in the end as the Dutch court ruled they were deliberately avoiding legal obligations.
I wonder if such agreements should be legal in the first place? If a crime has taken place why should just the direct parties involved be able to decide that it can be placed outside prosecution? Surely this encourages manipulation and abuse by the powerful? As well as malicious claims for pay offs? I struggle to see a way that it positively benefits society?
Wyot wrote: I wonder if such agreements should be legal in the first place? If a crime has taken place why should just the direct parties involved be able to decide that it can be placed outside prosecution? Surely this encourages manipulation and abuse by the powerful? As well as malicious claims for pay offs? I struggle to see a way that it positively benefits society?
again I refer to Germaine Greer who thinks women who accept a financial settlement ( Harvey Weinstein), and then remained silent are absolutely appalling women and no better than Weinstein himself..and they share blame for any crimes that came after.
This must apply to the ghastly money grubbing Roberts / Guiffe...she grabbed $700,000 and allowed Epstein to carry on years after she left his employ.
I believe her Andrew claims will end in tears for her..she plays too fast and loose with the truth.
Andrew's reputation is now too sullied and he'll just have to keep a low profile for the rest of his life but the fact she may think she'll be getting money from him is far fetched.
She'd have to sue him in a UK court.
If she loses Andrew could pursue her in an Australian court for costs. She better hope that $2M Perth house is in her husband's name
Virginia Giuffre: 0:59 "He denies that it ever happened and he's going to keep denying that it ever happened. But he knows the truth and I know the truth."
If he did it how does she know he's going to keep denying it? Is it because she knows it didn't happen? This seems to be an admission that she's not telling the truth.
Didn't he at one stage say she boasted of the money she made and how she introduced other young teens to Epstein?
All hearsay but the USA's "freedumb of speech" is a nightmare and the endless negative media must influence jurors.
And now look at the latest..one juror yapping to the media sudden;y causes chaos.
There's an awful feeling the legal establishment wants Maxwell's scalp no matter what.
### tabloids are so vicious..look at how the Mail is boasting they only have to pay Meghan Markle £1 in damages and ignoring they have to pay theirs and her legal costs estimated at £7M.
A defence attorney interviewed here says that if the juror answered the question in the pre-selection questionnaire about sexual abuse to say that he had been abused and the defence team missed it, it's tough luck for them.
Jo wrote: Virginia Giuffre: 0:59 "He denies that it ever happened and he's going to keep denying that it ever happened. But he knows the truth and I know the truth."
If he did it how does she know he's going to keep denying it? Is it because she knows it didn't happen? This seems to be an admission that she's not telling the truth.
Not convinced by this argument Jo. It may as well just be an observation on his character as much as anything else; rightly or wrongly judged.
I am starting to wonder what the public are going to make of Andrew's legal bill when it is published, which must be into seven figures and rising fast?
I understand it is being paid by The Queen. That is, by us. Quite a gamble this with tax payers money; especially as we don't know what else may come out of this.
I have a feeling that this with H&M and the passing of The Queen will start the slow process (it will take a couple of decades) of the end of the Monarchy.
Not an outcome I want; but it is hard to see such an anachronism as The Royals surving the modern gaze when they are not just bring revealed as "normal" as us; but actually significantly more dysfunctional...
Did the Epstein's only have one friend?
Apart from the fact that Prince Andrew is a bigger fish, and therefore worth more finance compensation, why is he being so targeted?
If these claims against Andrew fall flat, will we see more names being added in an attempt to destroy more lives?
Thank goodness it appears The Queen is after all not paying Andy's bill...and so should not get dragged into what may well be an almighty fall out from this situation..
If it's true that the Queen isn't paying the bill, I wonder if that has been made public partly in an attempt to thwart the accuser.
The latest edition of Newsnight has a segment about the Prince Andrew allegations, including an interview with Harvey Proctor, saying that it's important to be completely up-front in these situations. Perhaps that's what Prince Andrew thought he was doing with the Newsnight interview but it seems to have backfired.
… Today Mrs Andriano bravely waives her legal right to anonymity to tell the full story about her horrific ordeal in Epstein's 'House of Sin' in Palm Beach, Florida – when she was aged 14 to 17 – and her then friendship with Miss Roberts, who she says, recruited her into Epstein and 60-year-old Maxwell's sexual abuse 'pyramid scheme'. …
Mrs Andriano's astonishing interview with the Daily Mail – for which she is not being paid – comes in the week that Andrew's lawyers made a desperate courtroom bid to get Miss Roberts' rape lawsuit against him in the US thrown out. …
In her interview with the Mail, Mrs Andriona says she believes what Miss Roberts told her in 2001 – ten years before the teen sex accuser first told her story in a Sunday newspaper. …
Mrs Andriona said: 'I asked her if she'd been to the palace. And she said 'I got to sleep with him'. I said "What? You're f****** with me" and she said "no, I got to sleep with him". She didn't seem upset about it. She thought it was pretty cool.' …
In the intervening years, [Adriano's] worked as a stripper and escort, spent 52 days in prison for fraud, been addicted to drugs and drink, and suffered mental health issues. She takes a cocktail of medication just to get through the day….
Curiously, however, when it comes to what allegedly happened between Virginia and Prince Andrew, she has little sympathy for her former friend. 'I don't think she [Virginia] deserves any compensation. I don't think she was coerced into doing anything.'
Although she believed her friend's account at the time, Carolyn adds: 'I don't think Virginia deserves anything less than what Maxwell is getting because she trafficked me into a world of spiralling downward slopes and it has taken my husband John 12 long years to get me to love myself again.' ...
Just noticed this bit: "'I said, "bulls**t". I was calling her out on it, but she swore [it was true]. She said she was going to see if she could get a picture.'"
Andriano's version that Giuffre said she'd had sex with Prince Andrew and would try to get a photo reverses Giuffre's story about the order in which the photo/sex took place. Giuffre claims the photo was taken just before they had sex.
Jo wrote: Just noticed this bit: "'I said, "bulls**t". I was calling her out on it, but she swore [it was true]. She said she was going to see if she could get a picture.'"
Andriano's version that Giuffre said she'd had sex with Prince Andrew and would try to get a photo reverses Giuffre's story about the order in which the photo/sex took place. Giuffre claims the photo was taken just before they had sex.
Exactly, Jo. And if the quote from her is correct, "I got to sleep with him" sounds like a positive thing, and not the horrific forced sex she gave the impression of, and the photo was previously said to be for her mother, not her friend. (Shouldn't her mother have the original? What mother would chuck out a picture of her child with royalty? )
My point is not that she was "willing" because if you are a minor it is irrelevant, but that she has given different accounts of the same event.
It does sound as if she framed it as an opportunity. But I'm still not convinced. It could have been a fantasy to impress her friends (or possibly even as bait to recruit impressionable young girls?), reactivated years later for money.
Maybe she kept the original photo rather than gave it to her mum if it was just something to show her mum:
I agree with you about her willingness being irrelevant if she was a minor.
Just realised I was wrong to assume that Andriano's story reversed Giuffre's order of events about the photo/sex.
'She said, "I'm in London with Jeffrey and Maxwell and Prince Andrew",' Carolyn recalls. 'She said they were going to have dinner. I kind of didn't believe her, but I had no reason not to. I thought it was far-fetched but, then again, she knew wealthy people and had been to fancy parties and stuff like that.
'I said, "bulls**t". I was calling her out on it, but she swore [it was true]. She said she was going to see if she could get a picture.'
...
The image – Carolyn feels like it was on a mobile phone, although camera phones weren't universally available in 2001 and memories fade, so it might have been a digital or disposable snap – is one most people will be familiar with.
It shows Virginia grinning, with Prince Andrew at her side, his hand around her waist, and Ghislaine looking on proudly in the background.
Carolyn was duly impressed. But there was more. Much more.
Carolyn was full of questions: 'I asked her if she'd been to the Palace. And she said, "I got to sleep with him". I said, "What? You're f****** with me", and she said "no, I got to sleep with him". She didn't seem upset about it. She thought it was pretty cool.'
Jo wrote: It does sound as if she framed it as an opportunity. But I'm still not convinced. It could have been a fantasy to impress her friends (or possibly even as bait to recruit impressionable young girls?), reactivated years later for money.
Maybe she kept the original photo rather than gave it to her mum if it was just something to show her mum:
I agree with you about her willingness being irrelevant if she was a minor.
Just realised I was wrong to assume that Andriano's story reversed Giuffre's order of events about the photo/sex.
'She said, "I'm in London with Jeffrey and Maxwell and Prince Andrew",' Carolyn recalls. 'She said they were going to have dinner. I kind of didn't believe her, but I had no reason not to. I thought it was far-fetched but, then again, she knew wealthy people and had been to fancy parties and stuff like that.
'I said, "bulls**t". I was calling her out on it, but she swore [it was true]. She said she was going to see if she could get a picture.'
...
The image – Carolyn feels like it was on a mobile phone, although camera phones weren't universally available in 2001 and memories fade, so it might have been a digital or disposable snap – is one most people will be familiar with.
It shows Virginia grinning, with Prince Andrew at her side, his hand around her waist, and Ghislaine looking on proudly in the background.
Carolyn was duly impressed. But there was more. Much more.
Carolyn was full of questions: 'I asked her if she'd been to the Palace. And she said, "I got to sleep with him". I said, "What? You're f****** with me", and she said "no, I got to sleep with him". She didn't seem upset about it. She thought it was pretty cool.'
Did people say "you're effing with me" that long ago?
Maybe I just know more genteel people?
Forums 
