Split Thread Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

[Bob001]

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).

It's hard to believe that she would have settled without a big check. Commentators think a NY jury would have given her multiple millions.

There is a continuing dispute about whether "pedophile" is the right word for someone who preys on teens, as opposed to young children. There are also "hebephilia" (ages 11 to 14) and "ephebophilia" (age 15 and up). But there don't seem to be any other public accusations that Andrew was having sex with other underage girls.

 

[Lothian]

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.

If you want a sporting analogy

Imagine a basketball match with one side winning 100-10 when a backboard shatters with 2 mins left on the clock in the 4th quarter and the game is abandoned as a draw.

 

[Brainster]

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.

So words mean what you want them to mean, not what the actual dictionary definitions say they mean? That does explain a lot.

 

[Bob001]

If you want a sporting analogy

Imagine a basketball match with one side winning 100-10 when a backboard shatters with 2 mins left on the clock in the 4th quarter and the game is abandoned as a draw.

Sounds like a fat lawsuit against the backboard maker, whoever installed it, whoever maintained it, and the facility that failed to provide a safe workplace.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So words mean what you want them to mean, not what the actual dictionary definitions say they mean? That does explain a lot.

The law is silent on the matter of the various rankings of pedophilia.

This lawsuit, if allowed to continued, would have had lots of very embarrassing debate about whether a middle aged man having sex with a 17 year old girl counted as some form of criminal sexual conduct with a minor.

that's my whole point. "Well actually it's ephebophilia/age of consent in xyz jurisdiction" type defenses are exactly the kind of thing a high profile individual does not want to be entering into the public record.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Yep, especially a stalemate in which one player is way ahead in material, but has trapped the king (the prince?) without actually putting it into check.

 

[smartcooky]

The law is silent on the matter of the various rankings of pedophilia.

This. The separation of paedophilia as only counting pre-pubescent/very young children to be victims is nothing more than a convention. If you are 40, and you are having sex with girls under the age of consent, you're a paedofile in my book... that's my convention.

This lawsuit, if allowed to continued, would have had lots of very embarrassing debate about whether a middle aged man having sex with a 17 year old girl counted as some form of criminal sexual conduct with a minor.

that's my whole point. "Well actually it's ephebophilia/age of consent in xyz jurisdiction" type defenses are exactly the kind of thing a high profile individual does not want to be entering into the public record.

This too. The last thing Windsor wants is to be publicly splitting hairs over ages of consent when he was 23 years older than a young girl who has been trafficked to him. Under those circumstances, even if he were to win in court, he loses outside of it. Even now, he will always have the taint of being a sex pest who ****** under-aged girls

I wonder who was first to offer the settlement?

 

[Brainster]

The law is silent on the matter of the various rankings of pedophilia.

This lawsuit, if allowed to continued, would have had lots of very embarrassing debate about whether a middle aged man having sex with a 17 year old girl counted as some form of criminal sexual conduct with a minor.

that's my whole point. "Well actually it's ephebophilia/age of consent in xyz jurisdiction" type defenses are exactly the kind of thing a high profile individual does not want to be entering into the public record.

Oh, I certainly agree (not to mention the embarrassment of having to admit lying about it for years). It's just that your comment and Smart Cooky's seemed to indicate that there were other, younger girls involved with Andrew.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh, I certainly agree (not to mention the embarrassment of having to admit lying about it for years). It's just that your comment and Smart Cooky's seemed to indicate that there were other, younger girls involved with Andrew.

There is no indication of that, but Giuffre did claim that this was not just a oncer, She accused him of having sex with her against her will at Maxwell’s London home, at Epstein’s mansion in Manhattan, and during a visit to Epstein’s private island, Little St James.

 

[jimbob]

There is no indication of that, but Giuffre did claim that this was not just a oncer, She accused him of having sex with her against her will at Maxwell’s London home, at Epstein’s mansion in Manhattan, and during a visit to Epstein’s private island, Little St James.

In several cases, when discussing about particular cases and whether a child is able to consent, they're missing the fact that they certainly can refuse. That would still have been rape if she was the same age as him.

 

[Samson]

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.



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.

Not a draw though. From NYT

The amount that Andrew, 61, will pay Ms. Giuffre is confidential, the parties said in a joint statement attached to the filing.

Andrew also “intends to make a substantial donation” to a charity “in support of victims’ rights,” the statement says.

Every cloud has a silver lining Giuffre may be reflecting.

 

[jimbob]

https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1493642488459968516

Rosie Holt@RosieisaHolt
Thrilled for Prince Andrew who has justly paid to be innocent.
5:44 PM · Feb 15, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

 

[Lothian]

Was settling clever or nonce sense?

 

[theprestige]

Anyway, I'm sure this settlement will taken as a vindication by the "Maybe Windsor didn't do anything wrong" set.

 

[Bob001]

This. The separation of paedophilia as only counting pre-pubescent/very young children to be victims is nothing more than a convention. If you are 40, and you are having sex with girls under the age of consent, you're a paedofile in my book... that's my convention.
.....

I just note that the distinctions are psychiatric terms referring to specific categories of disorder. They don't have anything to do with criminal responsibility for rape and assault. If Andrew (or Epstein or anybody else) stood up in court and said "I'm no pedophile. I'm a "ephebophile!," the response would still be "Great! 25 years for you!"

 

[Bob001]

Anyway, I'm sure this settlement will taken as a vindication by the "Maybe Windsor didn't do anything wrong" set.

Maybe if he had settled earlier, but not after demanding a trial to prove his innocence. I doubt he has a lot of supporters.

 

[Lothian]

Maybe if he had settled earlier, but not after demanding a trial to prove his innocence. I doubt he has a lot of supporters.

And not if the £12,000,000 settlement reported in the Mirror gets widespread publicity.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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

Cricket is the second most watched sport in the World (after soccer). "Football" is ninth.

See: https://www.ballerstatus.com/2021/01/06/top-10-most-watched-sports-in-the-world-today/

 

[Matthew Best]

And not if the £12,000,000 settlement reported in the Mirror gets widespread publicity.

I hadn't seen that. If those figures are accurate (£10 million to Giuffre, £2 million to her charity), I'm not surprised she settled.

 

[LondonJohn]

I (don't) hate to say ITYS, but.....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13704774#post13704774

In that post, which I wrote on January 16th, I even predicted that settlement would come "within a month or so". And everything else was on point as well.

(Mixture of decent sources and a decent understanding of civil law)