Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty

[yellowcard]

By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.

In the court of public opinion it absolutely is. Legally though it may not be. Settlements are often made with no admission of liability. There are tactical reasons for making them such as saving on stress, costs etc. Whether winning would really assist I mean the damage to his reputation is probably already done regardless of what way the trial would have gone. I just think it will Be interesting to see how Andrew addressees these issues over the coming days

If it was me, and I was innocent, and I had a bottomless pit of money, I would 100% settle without admission, to avoid the stress, publicity, etc. And because the courts don't always get it right!

Not that I think Andy boy is innocent!

Can't agree with that. Paying somebody a bucket load of money for something that you didn't do! It is not even up to Andrew to prove that he is innocent if faced with trial. It is down to the prosecution to prove that he is guilty. So the odds would be massively stacked in his favour given his access to the best lawyers money could buy. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the permanent damage to his reputation, I would definitely be going to trial and then suing for defamation afterwards if innocent.   

[Keyser soze]

A few people straying dangerously close to victim blaming here. 

[GiveItToTheShooters]

By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.

She was brave enough to go public and take on a Big Wig. Begrudging her the money is unfair. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell picked these girls because they had no solid background for a reason. They thought there was little or no chance of later come back. I'm sure there were many other girls.

Yes brave enough to go public and take him on, though only as far as getting a few quid, not to have him punished.

[seafoid]

The big picture is interesting. It was like the run up to a boxing match

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/11/30/duke-york-avoiding-confronting-misconduct-blaming-victim-accusers/
New court documents filed on behalf of Virginia Roberts Giuffre condemn Prince Andrew, 61, for launching a "baseless, defamatory" attack on her credibility, character and motives.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family//11/30/duke-york-avoiding-confronting-misconduct-blaming-victim-accusers/a

In a  bid to get the case thrown out, the Duke's lawyers last month launched a furious rebuttal of her "threadbare" complaint, accusing her of trying to secure "another payday at his expense".



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/01/02/prince-andrew-could-face-legal-action-despite-agreement-virginia/

The remote hearing currently represents the Duke's only chance to have the case dismissed. Should he fail, he faces the prospect of a lengthy discovery and deposition process, which could involve close members of the family and his police protection officers, ahead of a trial in the autumn.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59871514
Prince Andrew *can* be sued by Virgina Guiffre, the woman who accuses him of4 sexually assaulting her. His lawyers have failed to persuade a judge in New York to throw the civil case out. He denies her allegations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/01/12/prince-andrew-faces-long-road-clear-name-civil-sex-abuse-trial/



On the face of it, Judge Lewis Kaplan's refusal to dismiss Virginia Roberts Giuffre's civil sex assault case against the Duke of York appears a catastrophic blow to the already beleaguered prince.

Effectively defenestrated from the monarchy, the Queen's son now potentially faces the ignominy of a warts-and-all trial that will make his car crash Newsnight interview feel like a Q&A on Mumsnet.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/28/virginia-roberts-giuffres-lawyer-will-accept-settlement-holds/

In his calm Midwestern tones, he goes on: "But we tried to avoid this, even in the face of his denials and avoidance last year before we brought the lawsuit. We tried to avoid litigation; we suggested a mediation.


But to say 'I never met her' is so contrary to all the other evidence that's out there. Evidence that is so strong: testimonies from uninvolved people, photographs, things it's hard to explain away."

Boies is adamant that for Giuffre this isn't about the money. "What's important for Virginia is to vindicate herself and the other victims. Not to let someone escape responsibility, just because of their wealth and power.


He pauses, inclines his head to the left, then to the right. "That said, "if you had a settlement that was large enough to be, in effect, a vindication, then it's something we would obviously look at."  

She got what she wanted.  Game, set and match

[NAG1]

A few people straying dangerously close to victim blaming here.

I think people are entitled to their opinion as soon as the victim accepts wads of cash.

By not having the definitive verdict in court leaves this open ended forever, regardless of what we already know or the opinions we have about Andrew, Maxwell and Epstein.

[Ethan Tremblay]

By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.

Damage limitation at its finest.  His reputation is in taters already, but imagine what else would have come out during the course of the trial, innocent or not.  If the lack of trail helps him salvage his relationship with his family, then what is x amount of million to a guy that done nothing to earn it. 

[seafoid]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/15/queen-help-pay-12m-prince-andrew-settlement/The terms of the deal prevent either side from discussing the case or the settlement itself in public.

However, The Telegraph understands the total amount that will go to Ms Giuffre and her charity exceeds £12 million.

[Milltown Row2]

Did she take money from a previous case?

[quit yo jibbajabba]

12 mill is some lift/hit. It was said Andrew wasnt "that" wealthy so would be v interesting to see how its being paid.

And that not able to discuss the terms shizzle really grinds my gears...but ill leave it here lol

[Jeepers Creepers]

He recently sold his chalet in the Alps for 16 million of which 6 million was mortgaged. Taxpayers have paid the rest.

[thebigfella]

Andy is fcuked. He's up to his neck in it and how many more civil cases can he afford to settle?

[johnnycool]

Andy is fcuked. He's up to his neck in it and how many more civil cases can he afford to settle?

You reckon there's more coming down the track for "handy" Andy???

They'd be better welcoming Harry back into the fold at this juncture.

[Saffrongael]

Did she take money from a previous case?

Think she took $500k from Epstein back in the day

[Capt Pat]

Andy is fcuked. He's up to his neck in it and how many more civil cases can he afford to settle?

You reckon there's more coming down the track for "handy" Andy???

They'd be better welcoming Harry back into the fold at this juncture.

The tabloids called him "Randy Andy". I imagine they wouldn't have given that nick name to a member of the royal family if he didn't earn it.

[David McKeown]

By settling it out of court that's automatically admitting liability. If he was so innocent why would he not want to have his court case to clear his name, helped by the top legal representation no doubt. But he knows rightly, and she's all to shameless to take the payout.

In the court of public opinion it absolutely is. Legally though it may not be. Settlements are often made with no admission of liability. There are tactical reasons for making them such as saving on stress, costs etc. Whether winning would really assist I mean the damage to his reputation is probably already done regardless of what way the trial would have gone. I just think it will Be interesting to see how Andrew addressees these issues over the coming days

If it was me, and I was innocent, and I had a bottomless pit of money, I would 100% settle without admission, to avoid the stress, publicity, etc. And because the courts don't always get it right!

Not that I think Andy boy is innocent!

Can't agree with that. Paying somebody a bucket load of money for something that you didn't do! It is not even up to Andrew to prove that he is innocent if faced with trial. It is down to the prosecution to prove that he is guilty. So the odds would be massively stacked in his favour given his access to the best lawyers money could buy. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the permanent damage to his reputation, I would definitely be going to trial and then suing for defamation afterwards if innocent.

This was a civil suit though so no prosecution as such and a much lower standard of proof.  You also have to factor in juries and how unpredictable they can be.  Also anything said in court is protected speech so a subsequent defamation campaign would be highly unlikely and ultimately just a complete waste of money