Split Thread Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

[Bob001]

There should be other women coming forward to say he sexually assaulted them.

Let's note that Giuffre is not alleging that he physically overpowered or abused her, only that she wasn't able, by virtue of her age and circumstances, to give consent. No one has claimed that Andrew was spending a lot of time with other teenage girls who were trafficked.

 

[Planigale]

Let's note that Giuffre is not alleging that he physically overpowered or abused her, only that she wasn't able, by virtue of her age and circumstances, to give consent. No one has claimed that Andrew was spending a lot of time with other teenage girls who were trafficked.

The issue is the civil case is heard under New York law where the age of consent is 17. There are three alleged sexual contacts (all when Giuffre was 17), London (age of consent 16), New York (age of consent 17) and VI (age of consent 18). The contact in the Virgin Islands differs from the first two in that Giuffre claims it was part of an orgy, rather than taking place in private with no third person witness. I wonder if less focus is being given to this because it would require Giuffre to present other witnesses* to the sex act (which there must have been if this was an orgy).

So I think the case will be she was coerced into sex by Epstein / Maxwell, and whether Windsor knew or should have known she was coerced, not that she was under the age of consent.

*It would certainly be interesting if she sought witness statements from those other persons present at the orgy.

 

[Samson]

The issue is the civil case is heard under New York law where the age of consent is 17. There are three alleged sexual contacts (all when Giuffre was 17), London (age of consent 16), New York (age of consent 17) and VI (age of consent 18). The contact in the Virgin Islands differs from the first two in that Giuffre claims it was part of an orgy, rather than taking place in private with no third person witness. I wonder if less focus is being given to this because it would require Giuffre to present other witnesses* to the sex act (which there must have been if this was an orgy).

So I think the case will be she was coerced into sex by Epstein / Maxwell, and whether Windsor knew or should have known she was coerced, not that she was under the age of consent.

*It would certainly be interesting if she sought witness statements from those other persons present at the orgy.

Surgical.
Death by a thousand cuts.

Did she boast she had sex with a prince?

 

[catsmate]

Surgical.
Death by a thousand cuts.

Did she boast she had sex with a prince?

 

[Bob001]

.....
So I think the case will be she was coerced into sex by Epstein / Maxwell, and whether Windsor knew or should have known she was coerced, not that she was under the age of consent.
.....

Her youth is one factor that made her subject to intimidation and coercion, even if she was old enough to consent legally.

 

[smartcooky]

Her youth is one factor that made her subject to intimidation and coercion, even if she was old enough to consent legally.

THIS!

Furthermore the intimidation and coercion has been taking place since she was 14. She was brainwashed and manipulated into a life where she was little more than a sex toy for Epstein and Maxwell, one that the two of them gave to perverts like Mr Windsor at al. Any reasonable person operating in that social circle must have known exactly what Epstein and Maxwell were doing.

 

[smartcooky]

Surgical.
Death by a thousand cuts.

Did she boast she had sex with a prince?

Your problem is that you think everyone else thinks cynically, like you do. You, and some others here, have utterly no idea about human weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

A person can live in a bad situation, say, with an abusive partner, or in a compromised lifestyle the way these girls did for years, especially when they are young, without ever complaining. They have been coerced into believing the conditions under which they are living are "normal". They can even appear to the outside observer, to be happy, and to be living a normal life. Having spent seven years of my life with an abusive, malignant narcissist for a partner, I can testify to this fact. I can tell you that when you are in that distorted version of "normality", nothing seems wrong - its only when you get out from under the narcissist's control that you can look back at it and see how you were being abused. All these years later, looking back at how I didn't see what was happening to me makes me feel like a fool - how could I not have seen it? Sometimes even thinking about it gives me the willies!

So yes, I could well believe that Giuffre could have boasted of sleeping with a prince and, in the distorted version of normality she had been coerced into believing, she might have even been happy about it. It does not mean she should not go after the bastard for the wrong he did her, and it does not mean what she says should be taken any less seriously.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

The idea that if someone never complained at the time, they must not be a "real" victim, is horrible victim-blaming at its finest.

 

[Planigale]

Her youth is one factor that made her subject to intimidation and coercion, even if she was old enough to consent legally.

I would term this immaturity rather than focussing on age of consent, and would need to be individually assessed. I would take the view that you could have an intellectually and emotionally immature 19 year old who under social pressures was less able to freely consent than a confident and intelligent 17 year old. I don't think that one can argue that suddenly at the age of eighteen Giuffre becomes entirely responsible for trafficking young teens to Epstein. If Giuffre was coerced she was coerced regardless of age. This has to be assessed taking into account her individual circumstances. No one argues that Maxwell despite being in a similar situation to Giuffre and committing similar crimes was coerced by Epstein, even though Epstein started his relationship with Maxwell when she was emotionally vulnerable (and financially dependent) after the death of her father.

Giuffre's youth and consequent maturity, her social support, and finances are all important in making an assessment as to her independence and vulnerability thus consequent susceptibility to coercion.

 

[Planigale]

Your problem is that you think everyone else thinks cynically, like you do. You, and some others here, have utterly no idea about human weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

A person can live in a bad situation, say, with an abusive partner, or in a compromised lifestyle the way these girls did for years, especially when they are young, without ever complaining. They have been coerced into believing the conditions under which they are living are "normal". They can even appear to the outside observer, to be happy, and to be living a normal life. Having spent seven years of my life with an abusive, malignant narcissist for a partner, I can testify to this fact. I can tell you that when you are in that distorted version of "normality", nothing seems wrong - its only when you get out from under the narcissist's control that you can look back at it and see how you were being abused. All these years later, looking back at how I didn't see what was happening to me makes me feel like a fool - how could I not have seen it? Sometimes even thinking about it gives me the willies!

So yes, I could well believe that Giuffre could have boasted of sleeping with a prince and, in the distorted version of normality she had been coerced into believing, she might have even been happy about it. It does not mean she should not go after the bastard for the wrong he did her, and it does not mean what she says should be taken any less seriously.

This is an important insight. Thank you for sharing.

I assume that you were over eighteen? This reinforces that it is not simply age that makes one vulnerable when in a particular social situation. This is what is called normalisation of deviancy. The assessment has to be individual. You have made it for Maxwell, who you have declared must be a criminal conspirator when in a relationship with Epstein, but Giuffre must be a victim. I do not see thing as black and white as you do. I think we are looking at a world of greys.

 

[Bob001]

I would term this immaturity rather than focussing on age of consent, and would need to be individually assessed. I would take the view that you could have an intellectually and emotionally immature 19 year old who under social pressures was less able to freely consent than a confident and intelligent 17 year old. I don't think that one can argue that suddenly at the age of eighteen Giuffre becomes entirely responsible for trafficking young teens to Epstein. If Giuffre was coerced she was coerced regardless of age. This has to be assessed taking into account her individual circumstances. No one argues that Maxwell despite being in a similar situation to Giuffre and committing similar crimes was coerced by Epstein, even though Epstein started his relationship with Maxwell when she was emotionally vulnerable (and financially dependent) after the death of her father.

Giuffre's youth and consequent maturity, her social support, and finances are all important in making an assessment as to her independence and vulnerability thus consequent susceptibility to coercion.

What can this possibly mean? Are you comparing Giuffre and Maxwell in any way? Maxwell grew up in fabulous wealth and graduated from Oxford. She was a London socialite before she even met Epstein at around age 30. Giuffre was living on the streets and trafficked for sex at age 14. Do you think Maxwell was coerced and Giuffre was not? Or that Maxwell had no more autonomy than Giuffre? Or that Giuffre was as free to make her own choices as Maxwell? Do you think anything justifies what happened to Giuffre? What is your point?

 

[smartcooky]

This is an important insight. Thank you for sharing.

I assume that you were over eighteen?

Yes, I was in my late 30s and I should have seen what she was like. But I do not regard myself as a victim, I regard myself as an idiot for not seeing the signs and getting the hell out of there when I had the chance. I did eventually come to my senses.

This reinforces that it is not simply age that makes one vulnerable when in a particular social situation. This is what is called normalisation of deviancy. The assessment has to be individual. You have made it for Maxwell, who you have declared must be a criminal conspirator when in a relationship with Epstein, but Giuffre must be a victim. I do not see thing as black and white as you do. I think we are looking at a world of greys.

I disagree. She was in her early 30's when she first started dating Epstein. As far as we know he never abused her. She was an adult who joined his depraved scheme willingly, took an active part in it, and profited from it too. On top of that, after they were no longer a romantic couple, she had the opportunity to get away from his influence. She chose to stay. She chose to continue participating in his perfidy. She was not a victim - at no point did she come to her senses and get out.

However, Giuffre was a victim because she was groomed and coerced into her distorted reality from the age of 14, an age where adult decision making was a skill she would not have possessed.


NOTE: You have misused the term "Normalisation of Deviance".

Diane Vaughan, who first coined the term, used it to explain the sociological causes of the Challenger and Columbia disasters' She was describing a process in a business or corporation where clearly dangerous occurrences come to be considered normal if they do not immediately cause a catastrophe. She stated it as taking place over "a long incubation period [before a final disaster] with early warning signs that were either misinterpreted, ignored or missed completely". Normalisation of Deviance has nothing whatsoever to do with grooming and coercing children for sex trafficking.

 

[Planigale]

Yes, I was in my late 30s and I should have seen what she was like. But I do not regard myself as a victim, I regard myself as an idiot for not seeing the signs and getting the hell out of there when I had the chance. I did eventually come to my senses.



I disagree. She was in her early 30's when she first started dating Epstein. As far as we know he never abused her. She was an adult who joined his depraved scheme willingly, took an active part in it, and profited from it too. On top of that, after they were no longer a romantic couple, she had the opportunity to get away from his influence. She chose to stay. She chose to continue participating in his perfidy. She was not a victim - at no point did she come to her senses and get out.

However, Giuffre was a victim because she was groomed and coerced into her distorted reality from the age of 14, an age where adult decision making was a skill she would not have possessed.


NOTE: You have misused the term "Normalisation of Deviance".

Diane Vaughan, who first coined the term, used it to explain the sociological causes of the Challenger and Columbia disasters' She was describing a process in a business or corporation where clearly dangerous occurrences come to be considered normal if they do not immediately cause a catastrophe. She stated it as taking place over "a long incubation period [before a final disaster] with early warning signs that were either misinterpreted, ignored or missed completely". Normalisation of Deviance has nothing whatsoever to do with grooming and coercing children for sex trafficking.

Thank you.

Giuffre was criminally sexually exploited at 14 by a 65 yr old sex trafficker who made her his live in girl friend. She escaped, she went back to living with her father. She got a job a Mar-a-Lago as a spa attendant where her father also worked. At age seventeen she left home to become the live in masseuse to Epstein. Subsequently she actively recruited girls as young as fourteen to be the sexual partner of Epstein, and participated in sex acts with them.

Maxwell lived a sheltered life, with a dominating wealthy father, it is not clear that she had been in a relationship with any man prior to Epstein. At 31? she had just moved to New York when her father died. Everyone says she was very close to her father. She was socially isolated, bereaved, in a financial crisis, when she began a relationship with Epstein. She was put out of her luxury apartment and had to find a studio to live in. She became financially dependent on Epstein. She was with him for about ten years but she did move on. There is no suggestion that after parting from Epstein Maxwell continued to be involved in the criminal exploitation of young women.

Like you Maxwell does not see herself as a victim, having entered into a relationship in her thirties with an expoitative narcissistic psychopathic sexual abusive paedophile. (To be clear I am not implying your narcissist was a sexually abusive psychopath nor a paedophile.)

Perhaps Maxwell is not as clear thinking or insightful as you, perhaps she was too dependent on a father figure emotionally and financially. But she never did the right thing and condemn him.

Maxwell was rightly convicted of her participation in Epstein's sexual exploitation of young women. She was a participant in criminal sexual abuse. She should be punished. That does not meant that she cannot also have been exploited and manipulated herself.

Giuffre is plainly not stupid even though she did not go to Oxford. She is obviously an emotionally strong person to have survived living on the streets and moved on from the abusive relationships she was in when a young teenager. She was in an emotionally secure relationship with her father and working for Donald Trump when she decided to move on to work for Epstein as an untrained personal masseuse. She was then criminally abused and exploited by Epstein, and by Maxwell I am sure. That does not mean I think she should be given a pass for recruiting fourteen year old girls to have sex with Epstein. The right place for her responsibility for her criminal acts to be decided is in a court. Not behind closed doors, the result of some secret deal. It maybe true she lacked all autonomy when she went back to her old school, and recruited young women to become child prostitutes, but we do her victims no service by denying them a chance of justice.

So I am prepared to say I do not see things in black and white. I do not say that because Giuffre was a victim she cannot be an abuser. That because Maxwell was an abuser she cannot have been a victim.

When Smartcooky says that at 30 he should have seen 'what she was like'. I am there with him. I understand how emotional needs blind us to reality, how we can be trapped into an abusive co-dependant relationship. I can see how Giuffre was trapped into complying with Epstein's perverted criminal desires, and conspiring with Epstein to provide young women for sex. Whether 17 or 30 we are all fallible humans and vulnerable to exploitation by those who seek to exploit us.

 

[Planigale]

NOTE: You have misused the term "Normalisation of Deviance".

Diane Vaughan, who first coined the term, used it to explain the sociological causes of the Challenger and Columbia disasters' She was describing a process in a business or corporation where clearly dangerous occurrences come to be considered normal if they do not immediately cause a catastrophe. She stated it as taking place over "a long incubation period [before a final disaster] with early warning signs that were either misinterpreted, ignored or missed completely". Normalisation of Deviance has nothing whatsoever to do with grooming and coercing children for sex trafficking.

Yes, I accept I am extending the term from a commercial to a sociological scenario. I think the principle that abnormal behaviour is normalised by familiarity will not be a shock to anyone. Epstein created an environment where the exploitation of young vulnerable women for sex by older rich men was seen as normal, and and by all accounts people participated as if it was normal.

This is going to be I think the crux of the question. Did Windsor think it was normal for a young attractive woman to want to have sex with a (insert adjectives) man such as him? I think that he cannot have been so stupid, could he? Well he is pretty stupid. Could he really have believed she wanted to have sex with him? Was he turning a Nelsonian blind eye to the fact that she must have been paid or other wise 'encouraged' to have shagged him?

FWIW I think he probably did have sex at least once with her. I am in two minds about whether he thought she really wanted to do so, or secretly knew she was paid / coerced by Epstein/Maxwell. The arrogance of men is astounding.

 

[Bob001]

.....
This is going to be I think the crux of the question. Did Windsor think it was normal for a young attractive woman to want to have sex with a (insert adjectives) man such as him? I think that he cannot have been so stupid, could he? Well he is pretty stupid. Could he really have believed she wanted to have sex with him? Was he turning a Nelsonian blind eye to the fact that she must have been paid or other wise 'encouraged' to have shagged him?
.....

I don't have any trouble believing that any always-in-the-news celebrity, let alone a Prince, attracts groupies. I have no doubt that Andy had numerous encounters with willing young adult women. He was, after all, called Randy Andy for a reason. That doesn't excuse his failure to recognize Giuffre's tragic circumstances.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, I accept I am extending the term from a commercial to a sociological scenario. I think the principle that abnormal behaviour is normalised by familiarity will not be a shock to anyone. Epstein created an environment where the exploitation of young vulnerable women for sex by older rich men was seen as normal, and and by all accounts people participated as if it was normal.

This is going to be I think the crux of the question. Did Windsor think it was normal for a young attractive woman to want to have sex with a (insert adjectives) man such as him? I think that he cannot have been so stupid, could he? Well he is pretty stupid. Could he really have believed she wanted to have sex with him? Was he turning a Nelsonian blind eye to the fact that she must have been paid or other wise 'encouraged' to have shagged him?

FWIW I think he probably did have sex at least once with her. I am in two minds about whether he thought she really wanted to do so, or secretly knew she was paid / coerced by Epstein/Maxwell. The arrogance of men is astounding.

Epstein's proclivities have been well known since the mid-1990's. He simply got away with what he did because he was rich and powerful (in the same way that Trump has managed to dodge taxes his entire life). Even when he was finally brought to book in 2005, he and his powerful friends (with the help of a US Attorney who was either corrupt or naive beyond belief) managed to get him a sweetheart deal that involved (on paper) 18 months jail, but which in reality, allowed him 12 hours day-release six days per week to go to his office and continue to conduct his "financial business" (and any other business he felt like conducting). It was what we would call a "Claytons" jail sentence (probably only Kiwis and Aussies will understand what I mean by that).

There is no ******* way on Earth that Windsor didn't know exactly who and what Epstein was, and what he was doing, and what the status was of the girls that were being served up to him.

 

[Planigale]

Epstein's proclivities have been well known since the mid-1990's. He simply got away with what he did because he was rich and powerful (in the same way that Trump has managed to dodge taxes his entire life). Even when he was finally brought to book in 2005, he and his powerful friends (with the help of a US Attorney who was either corrupt or naive beyond belief) managed to get him a sweetheart deal that involved (on paper) 18 months jail, but which in reality, allowed him 12 hours day-release six days per week to go to his office and continue to conduct his "financial business" (and any other business he felt like conducting). It was what we would call a "Claytons" jail sentence (probably only Kiwis and Aussies will understand what I mean by that).

There is no ******* way on Earth that Windsor didn't know exactly who and what Epstein was, and what he was doing, and what the status was of the girls that were being served up to him.

I think you are probably right.

But, Windsor is stupid and arrogant. He could probably have fooled himself to believe that the young women who hung out with his rich, powerful and corrupt 'friends' genuinely wanted to sleep with a prince. E.g. colonel Gaddafi and Kazahk 'business' men. His (ex) wife was the au pair / ski bunny become girlfriend of a much older millionaire for several years before she took up with Windsor. So that in the circles he moved in relatively cash poor young women becoming the girl friends of wealthy older men was not unknown.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

News alert says a settlement has been reached. Will include an apology about statements he as made against her. No word about whether he admits to any abuse. Also he will donate to her charity.

ETA: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/us/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre/index.html

 

[Matthew Best]

"Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew have reached an out of court
settlement. The parties will file a stipulated dismissal upon Ms. Giuffre’s
receipt of the settlement (the sum of which is not being disclosed). Prince
Andrew intends to make a substantial donation to Ms. Giuffre’s charity in
support of victims’ rights. 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. It is known that Jeffrey
Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years. Prince Andrew
regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre
and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others. He pledges to
demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein by supporting the fight
against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims."

I'm not really seeing an apology there.

 

[Planigale]

News alert says a settlement has been reached. Will include an apology about statements he as made against her. No word about whether he admits to any abuse. Also he will donate to her charity.

ETA: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/us/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre/index.html

So a draw. Giuffre gets no money and presumably has to cover her costs (though these may not be substantial as pro bono). Despite the earlier claims about how she just wanted to see her abusers held to account this has not happened - no admission of guilt or even of having had sexual relations with Giuffre has been required of Windsor.

Windsor has had to pay out some (substantial) money to a charity to demonstrate his support for the victims of sex trafficking and make a well meaning statement, not quite apologising for the bad things he said about Giuffre.

Prince Andrew had "never intended to malign Ms Giuffre's character" and he recognised she had "suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks".

The duke also pledged to "demonstrate his regret for his association" with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by supporting the "fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims".

He also commended the "bravery of Ms Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others".

Far short of an admission of wrong doing, short of being an apology to Giuffre. He emerges tainted but not actually stained. Certainly not stained enough to damage the royal family.

It will be interesting to see if Giuffre has had to agree to not saying anything more about Windsor abusing her. If she has been silenced then this may be more of a win for Windsor than her.