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

[Sunnystar]

What I'm seeing is that there was a settlement between Giuffre and Epstein and because it was an out of court settlement, The details of the settlement were not made public and both parties probably had to agree to a non disclosure stipulation along with the settlement.

This is just my supposition but should this document actually state that with the financial settlement she received, she was barred from taking action against anyone else. It seems to be the case that Dershovitz was able to use this settlement to his advantage. If it *is* pertinent to Andrew's case, it may be his ace in the hole.

I'm not a lawyer or anywhere close to one. I'm just surmising what may happen.

That's my understanding of what Dershowitz is saying as well. Whatever agreement Guiffre reached with Epstein in 2009 was supposed to shield basically all of the men who slept with her while she was under age from being sued by her at some point in the future.

 

[Roslyn]

I am having trouble understanding how an agreement she made with Epstein would prevent Guiffre from bringing civil proceedings against Dershovitz or Andrew.

 

[Osipi]

I'm understanding the wording of the settlement that Epstein paid off to Giuffre has explicit wording that states that the settlement covers *anything* that Epstein wanted her to do and did put a shield around the men Epstein wanted her to accommodate. This is just my impression as I've not read the settlement agreement itself.

 

[Leopoldine]

But if that settlement is binding, prosecutors seemed to jettison it when it came to Ghislaine Maxwell.

If it was not binding for Ghislaine, why would it ever apply to Andrew?

 

[Osipi]

But if that settlement is binding, prosecutors seemed to jettison it when it came to Ghislaine Maxwell.

If it was not binding for Ghislaine, why would it ever apply to Andrew?

I would think that Maxwell wouldn't even have been included in the settlement because she wasn't an actual "victim" of Epstein. Everything Maxwell did to aid and abet Epstein's "circle" was of her own free will and done without coercion or threats. Epstein probably knew he had Maxwell willingly to do as he wished hook, line and sinker.

Andrew was one of the men that is alleged to have had Giuffre "provided" for him as a "perk" of friendship or whatever else it was that they had between them. A whole different ball o' wax.

Besides, Giuffre has already had a case against Maxwell. Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation in federal court in New York in September 2015. After much legal confrontation, the case was settled under seal in June 2017 with Maxwell reportedly paying Giuffre "millions". This tells me that Giuffre isn't hurting for money and is able to afford "expensive" lawyers. ?

 

[Leopoldine]

But the secretive settlement was composed to shield the predators, not other victims.

 

[Alison H]

I think it's unseemly that because of all his hiding away the High Court has had to get involved in serving Andrew the papers. It's cringworthy.

I agree. Over the last few days, we've had Prince Andrew hiding away so he can't be served with papers, and now his lawyers saying that he can't be sued because of this settlement reached with someone else. I still don't think he's guilty, but, for someone who supposedly has nothing to hide, he's not exactly acting like an innocent man.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I agree. Over the last few days, we've had Prince Andrew hiding away so he can't be served with papers, and now his lawyers saying that he can't be sued because of this settlement reached with someone else. I still don't think he's guilty, but, for someone who supposedly has nothing to hide, he's not exactly acting like an innocent man.

To me it is all just tactics and his legal team simply does not want to roll out the red carpet for the likes of Ms Giuffre. It is a good right of anyone to fight with all means. I would do the same.

 

[VictoriaB]

But if that settlement is binding, prosecutors seemed to jettison it when it came to Ghislaine Maxwell.

If it was not binding for Ghislaine, why would it ever apply to Andrew?

A settlement agreement between Virginia and Epstein cannot bind the State who are the ones prosecuting Maxwell because they were not a party to it. It can only bind those who are parties to it i.e. impose obligations benefits and restrictions on those who made the agreement - Virginia and Epstein.

If Virginia wanted to sue Maxwell like she is suing Andrew the agreement might apply to prevent her depending on its wording. If the State of New York had the evidence to bring criminal proceedings against Andrew, Dershowitz or anyone else, an agreement between Virginia and Epstein cannot prevent them doing so.

 

[sophie25]

But the secretive settlement was composed to shield the predators, not other victims.

Yes that's what it looks like and if it is and Andrew can't get sued because of it then can you imagine the take on that in the media and by the public? ie Andrew escapes court case because of a deal his pal Epstein did to help his friends get out of trouble.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Yes that's what it looks like and if it is and Andrew can't get sued because of it then can you imagine the take on that in the media and by the public? ie Andrew escapes court case because of a deal his pal Epstein did to help his friends get out of trouble.

But the alleged victim got something in return by this Agreement ... People used to the Continental system of justice will never understand the idea that persons can settle even an alleged rape or abuse "just" with $$$$.

But Ms Giuffre (and her legal team!) knew exactly what they signed for back then. And Alan Dershowitz is a juridical pitbull. Mr Dershowitz and Ms Giuffre have sued each other, and Giuffre’s suit against Dershowitz was dismissed earlier this year, which Dershowitz contends was in response to his bringing up this Agreement.

Mr Dershowitz and his lawyers wrote in requesting to share the Epstein Agreement that there is no doubt that Ms Giuffre was aware of her alleged claims against Prince Andrew before she agreed.

 

[sophie25]

But the alleged victim got something in return by this Agreement ... People used to the Continental system of justice will never understand the idea that persons can settle even an alleged rape or abuse "just" with $$$$.

But Ms Giuffre (and her legal team!) knew exactly what they signed for back then. And Alan Dershowitz is a juridical pitbull. Mr Dershowitz and Ms Giuffre have sued each other, and Giuffre’s suit against Dershowitz was dismissed earlier this year, which Dershowitz contends was in response to his bringing up this Agreement.

Mr Dershowitz and his lawyers wrote in requesting to share the Epstein Agreement that there is no doubt that Ms Giuffre was aware of her alleged claims against Prince Andrew before she agreed.

It doesn't matter, the optics will be that Andrew got off because of a legal deal done by, yep there's that man again, Epstein. It won't help him at all. The only thing that will help him is if he is cleared in court and he's trying to avoid getting involved in that at all costs.

 

[padams2359]

It could have something to do with the location that the crimes occurred.

 

[Excalibur]

It doesn't matter, the optics will be that Andrew got off because of a legal deal done by, yep there's that man again, Epstein. It won't help him at all. The only thing that will help him is if he is cleared in court and he's trying to avoid getting involved in that at all costs.

The ONLY thing that will help Andrew at this point is for Virginia to stand up in court and testify that Andrew did absolutely nothing wrong, that he was a true gentleman in every way, and that the photo is a fake. And the odds of all this happening anytime soon are exactly nil.

I believe Andrew's goal is to remain under the radar for the rest of his life. Avoid the lawsuit at all costs, or better yet get it thrown out, so he can go back to his life as a recluse at Royal Lodge. If optics are everything, then he is focusing on getting rid of the optics and hoping that time will purge the ill will of the British people.

JMHO

 

[Erin9]

The ONLY thing that will help Andrew at this point is for Virginia to stand up in court and testify that Andrew did absolutely nothing wrong, that he was a true gentleman in every way, and that the photo is a fake. And the odds of all this happening anytime soon are exactly nil.



I believe Andrew's goal is to remain under the radar for the rest of his life. Avoid the lawsuit at all costs, or better yet get it thrown out, so he can go back to his life as a recluse at Royal Lodge. If optics are everything, then he is focusing on getting rid of the optics and hoping that time will purge the ill will of the British people.



JMHO

Agreed. Short of Virginia recanting- I don’t see how anything he does or doesn’t do will fix things for him optically. Damage is done.

His lawyers are pursuing all strategies available to them- which is their job.

 

[Leopoldine]

That photo of him angrily pointing at a photographer is not good optics.

And that reaction from him makes me question his ability to lay low and stay under the radar. IMHO, it takes a lot of character and fortitude to withdraw from an indulgent public life of prominence and be Mr. Him Indoors. If he can immerse himself in literary, creative, historical etc. types of interests, or any kind of self-improvement, it might be ok. He never struck me as a big reader or person capable of an extended period of concentration. His closest companion does not seem inclined in those areas either.

And I agree about his lawyers doing their job and exploring every avenue for their client. I would want the same diligence from my attorney.

 

[Osipi]

Actually, I think Andrew has been doing a good job of laying low and out of sight and out of the papers *except* when it pertains to the Epstein controversy. Most we've seen posted about him here, and usually if *anything* happens it's reported here, are reports of Andrew being "spotted" riding on the Windsor estate or driving his car.

 

[Leopoldine]

Osipi, it has only been a year or two. With his life expectancy as a pampered wealthy man, he could live another 30 years. His whole life has been about parading his privilege. IMO there is no way he retreats into the background and stays there, given his instincts.




God bless his daughters and what they have had to endure. And how absolutely cracking is the fact that they both married lovely men!

 

[MARG]

( . . . ) If the State of New York had the evidence to bring criminal proceedings against Andrew, Dershowitz or anyone else, an agreement between Virginia and Epstein cannot prevent them doing so.

To me that is the crux of the whole matter. It is one thing to be charged in a Court of Law by a Prosecutor and quite another to be sued for a sum of money by a claimant who has already been paid a sum of money as Dershowitz stated.

To me, it seems that the intent is to try Prince Andrew in the Court of Public Opinion because it is plain to see there is no Criminal Case to answer. It is not what he is accused of doing but rather who he is and, I am sure they thought it would all be settled out of court for a goodly sum.

Don't get me wrong, Andrew is no angel and has made many public mistakes but he has categorically denied that he is a Serial Rapist! The NY Prosecutor found no case to answer so now it seems they are working on the premise that if they throw enough dirt at him he'll settle will out of court just to make it all go away but, the BRF does not play that way.

 

[Osipi]

Osipi, it has only been a year or two. With his life expectancy as a pampered wealthy man, he could live another 30 years. His whole life has been about parading his privilege. IMO there is no way he retreats into the background and stays there, given his instincts.




God bless his daughters and what they have had to endure. And how absolutely cracking is the fact that they both married lovely men!

Andrew is perfectly free to choose to follow whatever endeavor he wants to in the private sector. He is not condemned to Dantes third circle of hell or is placed under house arrest at Royal Lodge. He has been barred from representing the Queen and the monarchy in a public capacity. If he wants to go into business designing and teaching at golf courses, more power to him. He could even train sheep dogs if he chooses to. His public life has ended. His private life has not. ?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[....] His whole life has been about parading his privilege. [....]

That is an absolutely unfair and unjust blame to the Duke of York. Until this affair he was just a working member of the Royal Firm, he has been a Green Beret, a naval pilot and one of the scarce royals whom have experienced real warfare. How is that "his whole life has been about parading his privilege".

Of course the Duke of York is an immensely privileged gentleman. So are his siblings Charles, Anne and Edward. But none of them have been the jet-setting type of royals spending their days in Marbella or Monte-Carlo, exploiting their privileges to the maximum. No one of them has even been close to the lifestyle of their aunt Princess Margaret, endulging her days on a paradise-like island, surrounded by flatterers and ermine fleas.

 

[Granada]

Agreed that it is curious that Virginia is ONLY targeting Andrew. And none of the other men she was allegedly trafficked to.
It could be as simple though as She has photographic evidence in this case only. The damning picture of Her, Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell. This inspite of Andrew claiming he can't remember ever meeting her.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Agreed that it is curious that Virginia is ONLY targeting Andrew. And none of the other men she was allegedly trafficked to.
It could be as simple though as She has photographic evidence in this case only. The damning picture of Her, Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell. This inspite of Andrew claiming he can't remember ever meeting her.

That is not correct. Andrew did not deny meeting her. He just has no recollection of that. One needs to be precize here, especially in juridical matters.

And we all experience that. I possibly sat next to a Mr Smith in a KLM flight. For two hours next to each other. Do not ask me, I have no recollection whatsoever who sat next to me one month ago, but I can not deny it possibly was Mr Smith.

Let alone a royal who meets thousands of people a year.

Added to this: a picture of the Duke next to Ms Giuffre is no proof of abuse or rape.

 

[Osipi]

To me that is the crux of the whole matter. It is one thing to be charged in a Court of Law by a Prosecutor and quite another to be sued for a sum of money by a claimant who has already been paid a sum of money as Dershowitz stated.

To me, it seems that the intent is to try Prince Andrew in the Court of Public Opinion because it is plain to see there is no Criminal Case to answer. It is not what he is accused of doing but rather who he is and, I am sure they thought it would all be settled out of court for a goodly sum.

Don't get me wrong, Andrew is no angel and has made many public mistakes but he has categorically denied that he is a Serial Rapist! The NY Prosecutor found no case to answer so now it seems they are working on the premise that if they throw enough dirt at him he'll settle will out of court just to make it all go away but, the BRF does not play that way.

Looking at Giuffre's track record, we are now aware of two settlements she's received and not by court order. Settlements agreed on and sealed paid money to Giuffre from *both* Epstein and Maxwell on two different occasions. This does lead me to come to a somewhat logical conclusion that a settlement from Andrew is what she's aiming for as you have postulated, Marg.

I do believe there is no monetary compensation to "make up" for all that she had endured under Epstein and Maxwell but there comes a point where she does come across as taking advantage of a situation for monetary gain and publicity. I believe that the settlement from Epstein was probably one that had the intent of closing that chapter of her life (on both sides). I also think Andrew would be making a *big* mistake to settle with this woman out of court to just make it "go away".

I also believe that there could have been a time in her association with Epstein and Maxwell where she very well could have said "no" and walked away. Part of me tends to think that perhaps Giuffre assented to a lot of what went down over that time because of the "perks" and the gains that lifestyle with this couple afforded her. There are many times that I've read of Giuffre traveling to London, to the private island and such where opportunity did probably exist that she could have "gotten away" but didn't happen. She wasn't held in bondage and locked away under lock and key. Of course, being a minor at the time, the law sees things differently and rightly so but I can't help but feel now seeing the settlements she's won that even back then, she took advantage of what was in it all for her and capitalized on it. Now that Epstein made world wide news with his arrest and subsequent suicide(?) and Maxwell is in a cell waiting trial, opportunity shone in Giuffre's eyes once again and she's taking advantage of that to the max. Andrew is the perfect target. Wealthy, titled, son of one of the most prominent Queens of the world and most definitely from a family that constantly are being reported on.

These are just my thoughts and opinions. I could be totally wrong as I do not know Giuffre personally and see things as an outsider looking in but I do believe there's more than meets the eye here. ?

 

[sophie25]

That is not correct. Andrew did not deny meeting her. He just has no recollection of that. One needs to be precize here, especially in juridical matters.

And we all experience that. I possibly sat next to a Mr Smith in a KLM flight. For two hours next to each other. Do not ask me, I have no recollection whatsoever who sat next to me one month ago, but I can not deny it possibly was Mr Smith.

Let alone a royal who meets thousands of people a year.

Added to this: a picture of the Duke next to Ms Giuffre is no proof of abuse or rape.

He did deny meeting her, dancing with her and having sex with her and that was where he contradicted himself significantly in the Newsnight interview. He initially said no recollection but after around 27 minutes in he categorically says "It never happened" more than once when Maitlis repeats the same allegations. He either can't remember the situation or is sure it didn't happen but it can't obviously be both.

 

[Osipi]

He did deny meeting her, dancing with her and having sex with her and that was where he contradicted himself significantly in the Newsnight interview. He initially said no recollection but after around 27 minutes in he categorically says "It never happened" more than once when Maitlis repeats the same allegations. He either can't remember the situation or is sure it didn't happen but it can't obviously be both.

Weird thing that crossed my mind was there was no doubt in Andrew's mind of the events of that specific day. He remembers vividly going to Pizza Express (or whatever that place's name was) with his daughter for a party but the rest of the night was a blur? The man was consistently contradicting himself in a whole lot of places. That's why his interview was such a disaster.

 

[Mbruno]

Apparently the NY judge has ruled that the papers can be served on Prince Andrew's US lawyer. So, unless the case is thrown out as Mr Dershowitz believes it should be, it has now moved closer to an actual courtroom showdown.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58593836

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

He did deny meeting her, dancing with her and having sex with her and that was where he contradicted himself significantly in the Newsnight interview. He initially said no recollection but after around 27 minutes in he categorically says "It never happened" more than once when Maitlis repeats the same allegations. He either can't remember the situation or is sure it didn't happen but it can't obviously be both.

Where is the contradiction? If someone has no recollection of meeting a person, logically it can never have happen that there was a meeting with a dance and even sex.

 

[Gawin]

Where is the contradiction? If someone has no recollection of meeting a person, logically it can never have happen that there was a meeting with a dance and even sex.

I agree, I don't see a contradiction. Andrew said he doesn't remember meeting her (meaning in general) but even if he had, he knows the events of the specific night in question did not happen (at least in his words).

Once in a while I run into someone who thinks we've met before, which I don't remember. But I do know I've never had sex with them. That I would remember. ?

 

[Gawin]

To me that is the crux of the whole matter. It is one thing to be charged in a Court of Law by a Prosecutor and quite another to be sued for a sum of money by a claimant who has already been paid a sum of money as Dershowitz stated.

To me, it seems that the intent is to try Prince Andrew in the Court of Public Opinion because it is plain to see there is no Criminal Case to answer. It is not what he is accused of doing but rather who he is and, I am sure they thought it would all be settled out of court for a goodly sum.

Don't get me wrong, Andrew is no angel and has made many public mistakes but he has categorically denied that he is a Serial Rapist! The NY Prosecutor found no case to answer so now it seems they are working on the premise that if they throw enough dirt at him he'll settle will out of court just to make it all go away but, the BRF does not play that way.

And Giuffre's lawyers know that Andrew can't sling mud at her or do anything that might be construed as besmirching her character, as Dershowitz has done. That would further indict him in the Court of Public Opinion. Andrew and his lawyers must tread VERY carefully.