An American woman is suing Prince Andrew for money, claiming that when she was a teenager Prince Andrew sexually abused her while Jeffrey Epstein was using her for sexual purposes, letting her out to several men. The woman's name is Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Giuffre's attorney filed suit against Andrew for sexual abuse under the Child Victims Act in the U.S., although Prince Andrew's attorney questioned whether the woman now lives in Australia. Apparently Giuffre was already paid a settlement by Epstein in 2009, the details of which will soon be made public on January 3. (source: Prince Andrew: Jeffrey Epstein's 2009 settlement with Virginia Giuffre to be made public next week | UK News | Sky News ) Giuffre claims she lived on the streets at age 13 and then ended up getting abused by a 65-year-old sex trafficker, Ron Eppinger, in Miami, living with him for 6 months. Eppinger allegedly ran a front business for international sex trafficking and pled guilty to prostitution charges in connection to that. Giuffre went back to her father at the age of 14 and returned to live with him. Her father worked as a maintenance manager at the Mar-a-Lago resort owned by Donald Trump, and helped Giuffre obtain a job there. Giuffre says that in the summer of 2000, while working as a spa attendant, Ghislaine Maxwell (who was like Epstein's wife) offered her a job as a travelling massage therapist. Giuffre says they began grooming her to provide sexual services. I'm normally pretty skeptical of civil suits over alleged sex crimes. I've repeatedly stated in other threads that I do not believe women should ever be given money as compensation for sexual abuse. It will incentivize women to make false accusations. Nothing will incentivize false accusations more than the prospect of handing out large amounts of money. (I know some people will try to argue that potential punishment will dissuade false witnesses, but there are a lot of people who are so blinded by money, even relatively small amounts, that they can't see the risk of punishment) How can we really trust any witness when they stand to benefit from it with large amounts of money? I say we need to end this practice. Is putting the man away for years and years or even decades in prison not enough? A lot of people want a woman to be able to get her grubby little hands on some MONEY ! (and if the perpetrator does not happen to be rich, too bad for her, right?) Now, this particular woman's claims about what happened do seem plausible to me. This woman appears to have been rather stunningly attractive when she was a teen, but since then she has rapidly put on lots of weight, which is extraordinarily common among female former sexual abuse victims. However, isn't it just a little bit strange that she was supposedly sexually groomed twice, on two different separate occasions? Is there a lot of this type of thing that goes on in Miami? And couldn't it also be possible that this woman had always relied on her looks since she was a teen, and then maybe she didn't take very care of her body and lost that one asset she had, and now she is just trying to sue wealthy men for money by falsely claiming she is a sexual abuse victim? A lot of these accused men just pay out large amounts of money in settlements to their accusers, whether they are actually guilty or not, to try to prevent publicity, and to avoid the risk of being ordered by the court to pay a much larger sum of money.
We are discussing Andrew. Charles, his father, has nothing to do with this. One question I have for the OP...you state that Ms Guiffre went back to her father at the age of 14 and he got her a job. Giuffre went back to her father at the age of 14 and returned to live with him. Her father worked as a maintenance manager at the Mar-a-Lago resort owned by Donald Trump, and helped Giuffre obtain a job there. First that is illegal. If you mean later, it may be useful to know what she was doing for two or three years until she could legally leave school. It may well be that she and other abused children are now seeking financial compensation. Good for them. They were not only "handled" illegally but exploited by the very people who are acknowledged to be the products of successful and law abiding behaviour. The issue brings up many considerations but one is the impunity with which the rich and famous flaunt the very laws the rest of us assume as a given. I don't know if you appreciate the long term psychological damage inflicted on these girls who at the time were innocent children. If Andrew and anyone else, the adults in the room at the time and NOT innocent of the law, is found guilty of exploiting them, they deserve all the compensation they can get. I also don't find a mention of anyone's weight useful in making a case against them. That is just tawdry.
She accepted a seedy Job offer, it seems like. Of course it wasn't "rape" or "sexual assault", but in America this would be seen as "sexual abuse", since the young underage female would have been taken advantage of, especially given the situation where someone else is using her and has groomed her to have sex as part of a business. Obviously Prince Andrew, assuming these allegations are even true, would not have been the one to coerce or manipulate her. That would be Epstein and Ghislaine who would have done that. But Andrew would have been taking advantage of her in that situation. (If you have sex with a girl, is the girl really consenting if you are aware that someone else may very likely have coerced her into consenting to sex with you?) I don't believe we can truly know for certain how much this girl was coerced or manipulated. For all we know she did it on her own accord, and she was simply given an offer and tempted with money and a lifestyle which she voluntarily accepted. This raises the issue of the dividing line between consent and manipulation, seduction and rape. This dividing line has moved over historical time, and is still moving even to this day. For example, was Mary Queen of Scots raped or seduced by Lord Bothwell in 1567? At the time, that distinction did not exist, since women were then assumed to have no sexual agency of their own. Nowadays, that distinction does exist, in law and in social custom. Likewise, we seem to be seeing a new distinction appearing between 'consent' and 'coercion' if the girl or woman in question has been groomed or manipulated. Back in the 1970s, that distinction did not exist. Prince Andrew's problem was that he assumed that the values he grew up with in the 1970s still prevail today. Back in the '70s, Prince Andrew would have been regarded as entirely blameless; indeed, his reputation as "Randy Andy" earned him plaudits and popularity from his peers. But then the world changed around him, and he was too dim and having too good a time to take any notice.... Of course this is all assuming the woman is even telling the truth about having sex with him. A lot of people just assume a court can actually determine whether he is really guilty or not. But that is naive and wishful thinking. The court doesn't have magical powers to determine if someone is actually guilty or not. Nor do they always require "real evidence" all the time to make their decision. If the woman claims the man had sex with her, and the court is inclined to believe what she says, the court will act as if the man is guilty and the woman will get money. This probably will not actually have to do with whether the man is guilty or not, but revolves all around what the woman "claims". Yeah, doesn't exactly sound so fair now, does it?
And yet the title referred to Prince Charles, and the first paragraph mentioned both he and Andrew in the opening sentence.
Kazenatsu...the charge against Andrew is about having sex with underaged girls, not that he exploited them.
Does anyone else find it a little bit odd that a young teen, who sold her body for money (illegally), can later come to a court of law and argue that she was not paid enough money (at the time), and should be given more money? Just another perspective on this. I don't think money is the proper way to address past wrongs in sexual abuse cases, all the more so and especially in this situation.
The adults in the room were Epstein, Maxwell and Andrew. If they broke multiple laws then IMO they can be sued for multiple crimes. Further I don't know if she "sold her body for money"...I understood the value went to Epstein, largely in satisfying his corruptive habits but also to silence influential men if necessary. I don't know if the left a tenner on the bedside table... You may as well ask if they got a settlement, should they then not be able to write a book or be interviewed because they already got a payout. What do you think proper redress should be? And why is this situation different from any other trafficked sex worker other than she was exploited by wealthy men and not your average married man. In a perfect world every trafficked girl enticed to travel to a promised job to feed her family and ends up realising the job is not cleaning houses, should be able to sue the pants off the trafficker. I hope this case acts as a precedent for any case brought against those who shamelessly exploit children. Unfortunately it now rests on an interpretation of a "legal document" which IMO effectively considers freedom of speech to have a financial value when in fact it is a fundamental human right. It doesn't feel "right" to me.
Like a typical progressive, you seem to believe she is entitled to compensation. "Justice" usually implies that the perpetrator be appropriately punished. She would get the satisfaction of seeing the one who wronged her punished. Okay, fine, but only pay her the going wages of a hooker. If you want to argue she was denied fair wages for the type of service she was made to provide, fine. In this case I think the teen girl did this voluntarily of her own accord, and got to enjoy an exuberant lifestyle as part of the perks, even though she may have been groomed and taken advantage of.
I am not able to decide whether she is entitled to compensation or not. If you have some information I don't have, please share it. VG says she was inappropriately used at the age of 17. I am not familiar with the specifics of the law abut underage sex in the locations where he was supposed to have had sex with her. Are you? Sh says she was "forced" to have sex with the men Epstein and/or Maxwell decided. I can only assume they thought it was some entertaining way to pass the time and offer "services to the rich and famous" for fun. Kind of perverse but the ones who suffered were the girls. Nor do I know how the girls were compensated. Perhaps you might tell us, if you know. Nor do I know what Epstein and Maxwell had over them to convince them that they should stay instead of run away. That could be just a comfortable life and the lure of establishing a meaningful relationship with someone wealthy. I find it best no to judge someone on flimsy unknown guesswork designed to blame OTHER THAN the two who set up the entire situation and who are proven to be guilty.
She already agreed to settle for $500 000, which Epstein paid her, so she might not have a case. It is a sex crime though, so maybe prior agreements with the victim don't carry much weight. Sex with underage person is consider rape in Florida. There is a Romeo & Juliet Law, which allows two minors to have sex with each other, but when an adult does it with an underage person, it's always rape. Age of consent in Florida is 18.
In UK law someone under the age of consent (16) is deemed unable to give consent. Having sex with a minor is always rape.
My first question would be, given that this woman lives in a different country, and the alleged crime occurred outside of the united states, what idiot judge gave this suit standing?
Something else to keep in mind, in Britain, where Prince Andrew comes from, the age of consent is 16. So even though the alleged event happened in Miami where that is not the case, this could likely say something about Andrew's likely state of mind. He doesn't really have any money of his own. The Queen will be paying. (and yes, she would totally do that to try to protect the reputation of the royal family)
How did she allow herself to be "groomed" for this service in the firs place?? Impaired judgement of a teenager?? Where were the adults in her life that should have protected her?? A young teen does not make (is not capable of ......making adult decisions. They are also easily manipulated ........(and "seduced " into ideas and actions this is tragic on many levels........and an example of a sick element of society......... that would exploit young teens. Pr Andrew denies knowing her...........( or has done so in a recent interview ). But then his credibility is highly questionable........... There are photos of them together (as shown on BBC).........where the two seem rather happy in each others company. Interesting that Mara Lago, Epstein, , his partner , and Andrew are all part of this scenario. Lifestyles and networks of the rich and shameless.
You don't think $45 million is enough to cover it? https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/royals/prince-andrew-duke-york-net-worth/
The issue is where the incident(s) took place. Andrew as most members of the Royal Family have businesses of their own. Your perception of the Monarchy is 50 years out of date.
Her childhood is pretty grim. Best to do some research...I don't have the details but it involves her father. The Epstein circle was apparently quite wide...I imagine some are keeping their heads very low.
