Re: A frivolous original case?
Yes, I agree. People do pay "go away" money in many cases like this, and the lower figure now being cited makes it all the more plausible that that is what happened in this case. We actually know nothing about the evidence and the settlement at this point except for the fact that Prince Andrew made some kind of settlement and that both sides paid their own legal costs. No figures were disclosed officially. For what it's worth, Andrew's ex-girlfriend Lady Victoria Hervey has been doing interviews saying that the Palace forced him to settle, and that she knows the infamous photo was photo-shopped. And journalist Charles Moore (a somewhat more serious figure than Lady Victoria) wrote today in the Daily Telegraph that he thinks Andrew may be innocent, offering three reasons: "The first was just the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty”, central to civilisation but now gravely threatened by the fashion for denunciation. The second was the nature of American legal proceedings, in which the “shakedown” is treated almost as an article of the US Constitution. It seems wise, in such a culture, to question many claims made. The third was that I could not believe that the Duke of York, though not the brightest tool in the royal shed, could have been so stupid as to lie on television about such a serious matter. It was easy to agree he had behaved foolishly, perhaps seedily, in his association with Jeffrey Epstein, but it stretched credulity that he could have dared borrow Buckingham Palace and give his ill-judged BBC interview to Emily Maitlis if he had committed the crimes of which he was accused. From her prison cell – a setting which, admittedly, may make her words less valuable – Ghislaine Maxwell questions the reliability of Ms Giuffre’s evidence and supports the Duke’s claim that the photograph of him with his arm round Ms Giuffre may not be genuine." Since Ms. Giuffre is said to have lost the original photo, efforts to determine whether or not it is a fake of some kind have to be based on the copy that we have seen so much of. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/24/dont-assume-prince-andrew-wrong/
On the contrary, people do pay "go away" money all the time. It's known as a "nuisance suit", and again not any "admission of guilt", which is exactly why he's walking around scot-free. Nothing happened on UK soil. Is anyone else among the many many people that visited the Epstein locations over many years, aside from Epstein and his procurer, actually in prison at the moment? And with more evidence or facts now coming to light, that's possibly what Andrew's lawyers may be planning to allege next - along with opening a new counter-suit if necessary.
No one pays £3 million or £12 million, to someone they never met, for something they did not do, at some place they have never been, if they were 100% innocent.
Ms. Giuffre may have ferocious lawyers, but let's be real - it's not like Andrew got his lawyers from an ad on a bus bench. You think his indulgent mother did not have the best team of lawyers that royal money could hire to defend him? This settlement was the best they could do for him.
The bottom line is that Andrew was friends with a convicted pedophile rapist (even AFTER his conviction and imprisonment) and a (now jailed) madam accused of child trafficking. Andrew's idiot, always broke ex-wife borrowed money from this same convicted pedophile and considered the madam child trafficker a friend.
At best, Andrew showed incredibly poor judgment. At worst, he ignored or participated in the trafficking of young women. He was NOT sorry for these associations, as he himself said he got lots of business contacts from it.
Andrew does not belong in any public role or civil society again. He is an arrogant fool who deserves to be shunned. He should count his blessings every day that he is not in a prison cell, like his deplorable friends.
Message Thread | This response ↓|