Split Thread Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

[Matthew Best]

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.

Not just A charity, Giuffre's charity. Presumably her charity pays her a salary?

 

[Bob001]

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.
.....

The stories explicitly say that the terms will not be disclosed. But:

Prince Andrew has settled the lawsuit filed against him by Virginia Giuffre, who says she was forced to have sex with the British royal while she was a minor and under the control of his longtime friend, former financier Jeffrey Epstein.

"Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew have reached an out of court settlement," Giuffre's attorney David Boies said in a letter filed Tuesday in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. "The parties will file a stipulated dismissal upon Ms. Giuffre’s receipt of the settlement (the sum of which is not being disclosed)."

The letter said that the Duke of York "intends to make a substantial donation to Ms. Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights."

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-settlement

Sounds to me like she's getting money and the charity is getting money. "Donation" implies that it's not a payment for damages. I also doubt that she's on the hook for any costs, unless it comes out of her settlement. Andrew was on the ropes. He didn't want to testify under oath. I can't imagine why she would settle for "a draw."

 

[smartcooky]

Windsor has gone from "Prince Andrew hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted in the complaint, to "accepting that she suffered as an established victim of abuse". That is a massive climbdown. Settling under these conditions is tantamount to an admission.

This is not a draw at all, in any way, shape or form. Windsor has caved under pressure because he did not want to have to testify under oath in court. I wonder why that is?

He has tried character assassination and calling her a liar. He has tried pretending he doesn't remember her, but with the photo and witness testimony, that claim was never going to fly.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

This certainly can't be viewed as a draw. Does fall a bit short on the "apology" side though.

 

[smartcooky]

Comment from Anna Rothwell, a lawyer at leading London based law firm Corker Binning

"It is not surprising that Prince Andrew has settled Ms Giuffre’s civil claim in light of his disastrous Newsnight interview. That interview alone would have given Ms Giuffre’s lawyers a wealth of material to use in cross examination. It would have proven a painful deposition for the Prince, and this time his cross examination would have been under oath."


He was screwed every way from Sunday, and he knew it. A deposition and court appearance would have been an utter disaster for him.

 

[Darat]

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.


…snip….

Where have you got that from?

 

[smartcooky]

This certainly can't be viewed as a draw. Does fall a bit short on the "apology" side though.

Agree. Not a draw in the sense of like two players finishing with an equal score, more like a draw in cricket where Windsor's batting side are 9 down, 250 runs short of winning with No. 10 and No. 11 at the wicket at stumps on the final day.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Comment from Anna Rothwell, a lawyer at leading London based law firm Corker Binning

"It is not surprising that Prince Andrew has settled Ms Giuffre’s civil claim in light of his disastrous Newsnight interview. That interview alone would have given Ms Giuffre’s lawyers a wealth of material to use in cross examination. It would have proven a painful deposition for the Prince, and this time his cross examination would have been under oath."


He was screwed every way from Sunday, and he knew it. A deposition and court appearance would have been an utter disaster for him.

I would assume Andrew paid out a fat sum. Not having to sit in a deposition and describe in detail his adventures with Epstein was probably worth a lot of money for our probably pedophile prince.

Who knows if Andrew could have prevailed in a long legal fight, but his reputation was only damaged more the longer this dragged out in public.

 

[Bob001]

Agree. Not a draw in the sense of like two players finishing with an equal score, more like a draw in cricket where Windsor's batting side are 9 down, 250 runs short of winning with No. 10 and No. 11 at the wicket at stumps on the final day.

And for those of us who live where QEII is not our sovereign, what does this mean?

 

[theprestige]

I would assume Andrew paid out a fat sum. Not having to sit in a deposition and describe in detail his adventures with Epstein was probably worth a lot of money for our probably pedophile prince.

No dissent on the main points, but two quibbles:

One, "our" prince?

Two, if he's a pedophile, how is he getting it on with post-pubescent girls?

 

[smartcooky]

And for those of us who live where QEII is not our sovereign, what does this mean?

Essentially, cricket has two possibilities where neither side wins, a Tie and a Draw. A tie is where both teams finish with the same score (very rare). A draw (more common) is where neither side is able to beat the other within the time allowed. A team with a lot of runs to get and few or no wickets (outs) in hand is said to have "escaped with a draw"

I'll put a baseball style explanation in a spoiler so as not to hijack

Imagine if baseball had a rule that the game must end after a specific amount of time had elapsed, say three hours. The game ends regardless of the state of play (first pitch at 7pm, so game must end on the stroke of 10pm). Team A is leading 4-1, and Team B is two down in the 9th inning when time runs out. Even though Team A leads on the scoreboard, its a draw because you can't be sure that the last batter would have been out. He could have made a base hit and got to first base, and subsequent batters could load the bases. Then the last batter hits a walk off homer to win the game. Of course the most likely scenario is that Team A will win, but the other possibility cannot be ruled out.

In this case, the Guiffres (Team A) are fielding, the Windsors are at bat, and they are on the ropes. If the game is played to the end, the Guiffres are almost certain to win

 

[smartcooky]

No dissent on the main points, but two quibbles:

One, "our" prince?

Please tell me you actually do understand the context in which ST used the word "our"

ETA: this might help if you don't
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/281640/is-our-friends-being-used-sarcastically-here

Two, if he's a pedophile, how is he getting it on with post-pubescent girls?

I guess there is no subtle way to say this

The same way that any other kiddie fiddler still gets it on with adult women. For example, it is not unknown for a scumbag father who is fiddling with his own daughter to still be bonking his wife.

 

[Brainster]

I would assume Andrew paid out a fat sum. Not having to sit in a deposition and describe in detail his adventures with Epstein was probably worth a lot of money for our probably pedophile prince.

Yes, I am sure Virginia is walking away with a big check. A deposition under oath would have been very problematic for Andrew; lie and he runs the risk of committing perjury, tell the truth and he has to concede he's been lying for years.

ETA: On the pedophile bit, are there other accusations involving substantially younger girls? Giuffre was 17 at the time; that's above the age of consent in quite a few places (although not in New York).

 

[Bob001]

Essentially, cricket has two possibilities where neither side wins, a Tie and a Draw. A tie is where both teams finish with the same score (very rare). A draw (more common) is where neither side is able to beat the other within the time allowed. A team with a lot of runs to get and few or no wickets (outs) in hand is said to have "escaped with a draw"
.....

Must be an English thing. In the U.S. football has "sudden death," baseball has extra innings, and basketball has overtime. We like to win.

 

[smartcooky]

Must be an English thing.

Not exclusively

In the U.S. football has "sudden death," baseball has extra innings, and basketball has overtime. We like to win.

I guess you didn't bother reading the spoiler or trying to understand the context of my original comment

 

[theprestige]

Prince Andrew: Giuffre is a lying grifter.

Also Prince Andrew: Giuffre is brave for standing up for herself.

 

[Vixen]

Prince Andrew's entire defence was ill-advised. What was he thinking being interviewed by Emily Maitliss? She ran rings around him. Then loudly stating that Giuffre was just a gold-digger looking for a pay day: <face palm> Nooooooo! You might think that but you can't say it!

It has shown up Andrew as the thoroughly spoilt pompous brat that his is: used to bullying people around to get his own way.

Pity Giuffre settled as now we'll never get to eat all that popcorn.

 

[Bob001]

Not exclusively

I guess you didn't bother reading the spoiler or trying to understand the context of my original comment

Sure I read the spoiler, and I understand your analogy. And I understand that a settlement spares both sides the risk of losing at trial, even if the risk might be greater for one side than the other. I just observe that most American sports play until somebody wins or loses. What you're describing sounds a little like a draw in chess.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

ETA: On the pedophile bit, are there other accusations involving substantially younger girls? Giuffre was 17 at the time; that's above the age of consent in quite a few places (although not in New York).

Quibbling about the exact definition of pedophile in a case of a 40 year old man and a sex trafficked teenager is exactly the kind of reputation damage that Andrew was probably wanting to avoid, even if technical legal defenses may have prevailed.

 

[theprestige]

Quibbling about the exact definition of pedophile in a case of a 40 year old man and a sex trafficked teenager is exactly the kind of reputation damage that Andrew was probably wanting to avoid, even if technical legal defenses may have prevailed.

I know I called it a quibble earlier, but I don't actually think it's a quibble. I think it's an important distinction that should be preserved in popular culture. It looks like it's already being lost, but we here don't have to contribute to that loss.