PRINCE ANDREW is Off The Hook - He Met Virginia Giuffre's Price For Her to Stay Silent.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I don't know.
I met him once. Seemed nice enough. He flew with us for a bit when I was in training. That was after the Falklands War. He was running around with some softcore porn star. Koo Stark was her name I think. My girlfriend at the time thought he was something else. He talked with her for a bit. To think about it Lisa looked quite a bit like Guiffre in that picture of her with him.

I don't know either. I think he became quite full of himself at some point, but I'm not convinced of the worst about him either. Especially because nothing in the Epstein saga is what it seems! It's not unreasonable to think that whoever Epstein was working for wanted Andrew put in compromising situations -- even seemingly compromising situations -- for blackmail purposes. But that's speculation.

What I do know is that if there is any proof whatsoever, the FBI has it from their investigation of Epstein.

a reply to: Boadicea

Why do you defend this creepy old perve?

He's a nonce.

She isn’t silenced… YET.

'Still free to tell her story!' Prince Andrew warned Virginia not silenced over settlement A LAWYER who represented the victims of Jeffrey Epstein said she would be "very surprised" if Virginia Giuffre agreed to a non-disclosure agreement preventing her from talking about her story and said she did not see "anything" so far preventing her from speaking publicly about it.

Source

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Boadicea

Why do you defend this creepy old perve?

He's a nonce.

I haven't defended him. At all. I won't condemn him either, because I don't know the whole truth, and I'm not convinced he's guilty. Not for this anyway. From all reports and appearances, he's a pompous, arrogant, abusive and self-absorbed manboy.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, he is!

Corrupt as Hell, too.

Allegedly.

To me, anytime anybody settles out of court it is an admission of guilt.

They will always say that the settlement amount does not mean they accept any liability or admit that the defendant was guilty.

These settlements come with strings attached to stop the original plaintiff from making any claims in the future or repeating any allegations.

If you were innocent of any allegations you would fight the charges, not pay to suppress evidence against you.

Pay a huge sum of money to shut somebody up looks like you're trying to hide something.

a reply to: nolabel

Indeed.

"I vigorously deny your claims and I want my day in Court.

Mind you, "without prejudice" how much do you want to make this go away"?

Yeah, right. What an arse.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: carewemust

It was a Civil Lawsuit. It was never about his going to jail. He just paid her to go away. It was all she wanted anyway.

She's probably still young enough to have decades of fun with the money...yes?

I suspect a car crash in a year or two

a reply to: rigel4

Maybe.

But for the Duke of Pork?

My money is on helicopter accident.

a reply to: carewemust

I wonder where the £12m came from, that's a fair chunk of change for a man who only declares an annual income of around £250,000.

What's the betting it's some convoluted scheme which sees the money come from tax payers after being thrown around and washed through various schemes and institutions.

I said at the start of this he would never see the inside of a courtroom, i would have loved to be proven wrong.

a reply to: Boadicea

He did that all by himself, even after knowing Epstein was a convicted paedophile and child trafficker he still went to meet personally with him several times.

The Royal family have many ties to high profile paedophiles, both past and present, i'm not surprised at all.

Also, that car crash video laden with inconsistencies, outrageous claims and outright lies pretty much sank any chance of him being an innocent victim of extortion.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Boadicea

He did that all by himself, even after knowing Epstein was a convicted paedophile and child trafficker he still went to meet personally with him several times.

Definitely! I have no sympathy for Andrew. Lay down with dogs and get fleas. He made his own choices, and in his arrogance and hubris, thought the rules of life were different for him. And he's right... just not the way he counted on.

The Royal family have many ties to high profile paedophiles, both past and present, i'm not surprised at all.

Yes... the Saville case was brutal. And Charles has shown some very questionable judgment in his associations. But it also has to be considered that the Royal family have many ties to many people, in high and low places, and everywhere in between. Association is not necessarily guilt. That just goes with their position and standing in the world.

But Andrew took it way further than simple association to willful socialization! His own actions and choices in continued and regular socializing with Epstein raise reasonable cause for further inquiry and investigation. And when the legal authorities and resources fail, then it's left to the court of public opinion, where there is plenty of reasonable suspicion. He'll never get past this.

Also, that car crash video laden with inconsistencies, outrageous claims and outright lies pretty much sank any chance of him being an innocent victim of extortion.

Yeah, he'll never get past that either! But I gotta say, it didn't convince me he's guilty of anything except being way too pompous and full of himself to find his way out of a paper bag. Whatever he's guilty of, I really don't think he thinks he's done anything wrong...

originally posted by: nolabel
To me, anytime anybody settles out of court it is an admission of guilt.

Really? With all of the hype and bias over this? Stupid question. What's he guilty of? He admitted having sex with her. She admits that he didn't force her and that she was of legal age at the time. Where's the crime?

I'm not defending him or her. Apparently she's perfectly free to comment on what happened, so the settlement isn't to shut her up.

I design industrial machinery. Several years ago a man was using one of the machines that I helped design. He had an accident and severed four fingers on his left hand. They were able to reattach them and he got quite a bit of use out of them, but, the sugary and rehabilitation was long and expensive. The insurance company that paid for it sued both the Company that he worked for and the Company that I worked for. We found out that the man's company paid a bonus for over production. The man found out that if he removed two guards and disabled two safety switches he could get six cycles per hour instead of five. Any one of the guards or switches would have prevented the accident. When it came time for the Trial, OUR Insurance Company settled out of Court. Not because we were guilty, but, because they couldn't take the chance of a Jury.

It's the same thing here. There's no crime. How do you prove innocents? There's people who call him guilty just because of who he is. Throw in the media circus, where do you find unbiased jurors?

There's a term for what Giuffre and her lawyers did here. It's called extortion and they got away with it.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Queen ‘ordered Prince Andrew to settle as alibi would’ve been torn aside at trial’, blasts ex-royal cop

......Among the many bombshells from the letter, Andrew expressed remorse over his previous relationship with paedo financier Jeffrey Epstein and stated that Roberts had been unfairly smeared.

Chatting with The Solar On-line, former Royal safety officer Paul Web page, who has beforehand railed towards Prince Andrew’s behaviour in direction of employees and the police, claimed Andrew’s dramatic U-turn settlement would have been his mom’s determination, not his personal.

“This wasn’t his determination, this was the Queen‘s,” he stated.

He added that Andrew was “f****d” from the second he set out his defence.......

a reply to: MetalThunder

Mom's footing the bill.
www.foxbusiness.com...

News just in:


newsthump.com...

He is another perv just like his mother and rest of family. Sadly you would think she would have refused to allow the trial to proceed. However money talks.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, he is!

Corrupt as Hell, too.

Allegedly.

a reply to: carewemust

All it took was $12 million pounds.. 10 million to her and 2 million to a group that helps people in her situation.

While he may have gotten out of it, its far from over back in the UK. He has been stripped of almost al his tiles and the Queen to his HRH status away from him. From what ive read in british media Andrew has been told to find a quiet place and that he wont be able to show his face in pubic ever again (which tells me he really pissed the Queen off).

The other issue now in the UK was all his claims of being innocent and attacking his accuser. A lot of people are saying if he were innocent like he claimed then he should have fought to clear his name. People now see him as guilty for the payoff. An MP in parliament that represent York (iirc) is essentially demanded that royal title be removed from him.

His trouble are are from over.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Clear his name. That's a good one. He's already been found guilty in the Court of Public Opinion. No way he can win that.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Xcathdra

Clear his name. That's a good one. He's already been found guilty in the Court of Public Opinion. No way he can win that.

It's the UK and the Monarchy and they are held to a different standard (why I will never understand). It was the Queen that intervened and told Andrew he would be settling the case.