https://justthenews.com/nation..._campaign=newsletter

Prince Andrew has reached a legal agreement that include an undisclosed settlement with a woman who has accused him in court of sexually abusing her as a teen, according to news reports Tuesday.

The settlement with plaintiff Virginia Giuffre will reportedly lead to a dismissal in the case being brought in Manhattan federal court.

Giuffre and Andrew will file a stipulation to dismiss the case inside of the next month, according to court papers filed on Tuesday.

An unsigned letter included in the settlement filing acknowledged Giuffre has suffered for years as a result of being trafficked by the late Jeffrey Epstein, with whom Andrew consorted for years.

"It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years," the letter reads. "Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others.

"Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre’s character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks."

Epstein was found dead in a jail cell in Manhattan in summer 2020 as he waited federal trail in connection with the charge. Officials say Epstein died by hanging himself.

Giuffre has accused Andrew of sexually abusing her on several occasions during her teenage years, in London, New York, and the Virgin Islands, where Epstein kept a residence. Andrew has maintained his innocence throughout the public spectacle.

Last month, an attorney for Giuffre said he did not believe his client was interested in a purely financial settlement.

As a result of the lawsuit and renewed spotlight on his allegedly criminal history, Andrew was stripped of his royal patronages and military titles. Buckingham Palace, at the time, made it clear that Andrew is "defending this case as a private citizen."

I guess he actually met Ms. Gluffre after all...

In the end, it was all about getting the big check.
I don't doubt for a minute he deserved being put through the ringer but I would have liked to see it go to the end.

He met the shit out of her...

quote:

Originally posted by 2PAK:
I guess he actually met Ms. Gluffre after all...

And in 15 minutes no one will remember.

He settled to minimize the exposure, no doubt based on directives from the royal mum.

Too bad, it would have been good for this guy to suffer a bit. (yeah I am a vindictive SOB).

One result of the trial was that the pic she had as evidence they even met, became "misplaced." Yet as soon as that was announced, more pics surfaced that showed they were together. I'd never seen them on media before.

If you plan on conducting yourself in ways that would reflect badly on the family business, then pay attention to who openly is taking pictures. How hard is that? It appears that the man formerly known as a Prince didn't have his personal security or well being foremost in mind. Apparently something else was.

Bill Clinton made the same mistake. How do you conceal activities in a historic mansion where government work is conducted and expect no one will notice?

It's said that Epsteins Island had a complete video recording system in most of the rooms. Who's got the tapes now?

Since he raped the girl and now has paid her off to keep quiet, doesn't that make her a hooker now?

He should be in prison.

I can’t believe these women would rather take a check than see their sexual abusers thrown in prison.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I can’t believe these women would rather take a check than see their sexual abusers thrown in prison.

It’s a life changing, legacy generational, amount of money.

If it weren’t, I’m sure, she would. She most likely has what she needs…her own sense of validation that a wrong was done against her. And the knowledge that everyone else knows it too despite what the “agreement” says.

Just like Nicholas Sandmann and everyone else who takes the big settlement check.

Interesting though, I read from another source that the stated settlement reports that a large check is being written to her charity. The publicly released settlement doesn’t say whether she receives any money or not.

You guys see anything different ?

That’s how I take it also.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I can’t believe these women would rather take a check than see their sexual abusers thrown in prison.

It was a civil case, not criminal. No matter how the trial came out, there was no prospect of prison time. Likely any statute of limitations was expired.

Throw enough money at a problem to make it go away.

Would've liked to have seen it go to trail and have him exposed publicly in a court of law.

She never pursued a criminal complaint against Andrew. And, especially with Epstein dead, there would be a hard time proving rape, since money changed hands (and a substantial amount.)

As far as statutory rape issues, a quick search shows the age of consent in London is 16. She was 17.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I can’t believe these women would rather take a check than see their sexual abusers thrown in prison.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I can’t believe these women would rather take a check than see their sexual abusers thrown in prison.

He never would have gone to prison, she couldn't really prove anything without Epsteins tapes, wherever they may be. She did accomplish some things. He will be known as a sexual predator everywhere he goes. He is a social outcast that will never be allowed back into normal society. She also got a boatload of money. She can say it will go to her charity, which it will, but she can pay herself a pretty good annual salary since she controls the charity. Not too bad considering who she was fighting.

I think it is remarkable that the victim got ANY validation from her claims. The physical evidence is gone (and/or buried DEEP where nobody will find it for decades), the eyewitnesses are too smart to speak up, and she challenged the full weight of the British political/royal family mechanisms.

I doubt any of these powerful dirtbags will ever see a day in court (including the clintons). Sometimes, you fight on principle - fight whether you think you can win or not. Other times, a more pragmatic approach is necessary, and you have to pick the fights you have a chance to win.

I applaud her for getting the only type of victory possible under the circumstances.

Did this happen in the USA?

I thought the island was part of one of those shithole Caribbean "nations" but I honestly didn't pay attention.

I bring this up because the actual law may differ, depending on the 'where'

Perhaps he should be in prison, but there is a lot more to making that happen than a complaint or even the facts of the case. How many people should be in prison in this country due to the crimes they committed, and yet aren’t—very frequently because a prosecutor didn’t want to pursue it?

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
Did this happen in the USA?

I thought the island was part of one of those shithole Caribbean "nations" but I honestly didn't pay attention.

The island (Little St. James) was located in the United States Virgin Islands, a US territory.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I can’t believe these women would rather take a check than see their sexual abusers thrown in prison.

This wasn't a criminal case. It was a civil case. He was never facing prison time in this civil case, and such a civil settlement doesn't absolve him of responsibility in any criminal case, if there ever is any.

Epstein had previously paid Giuffre $500,000 as part of a similar 2009 civil settlement. Then still faced separate criminal charges.

The Prince and The Pauper, a novel by Mark Twain.

The book is a bit different to today’s situation, and I read Prince Andrew’s Wiki page and it seems he’s had some spending and budget problems over the years.

A few more lawsuits and setttlements and maybe he’d become the pauper. Poetic justice.
.

burden of proof is much different in criminal cases than civil cases and many times there may not be sufficient evidence to prosecute someone criminally but there is enough to win a case in civil court.