Prince Andrew - Airmiles Andy - Randy Andy - The Toxic Prince

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Entire thing is shady as hell from Epsteins death to out of court settlements. Its dark! Despite everything that has been written and filmed about this I don't think we know everything.
Andrew is just one of many men who were using Epstein's call girls. Strange how they've all seemingly got away with it. There's a big cover up going on and we'll never know the full truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13
He got away with it, same as BJ will get away with lying and deceiving the people he is meant to lead, and that vile footballer will get away with abusing animals and will carry on abusing them for ever more for a laugh. What a dreadful world we live in.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Heart
Reactions: 15
She says she's not out to settle, but that sounds more like a way to extract as much cash as possible. As much as I'd like this to get juciy I can't see it happening. She'll take the cash
Knew this would be the outcome. Was still hoping in vain for a case though.

She must have got millions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
Knew this would be the outcome. Was still hoping in vain for a case though.

She must have got millions.
I thought she wanted a verdict. Andrew has probably made some kind of a "I neither confirm nor deny any wrongdoing" statement. It's all a bit ambiguous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I think that that the settlement shows that it was only ever about the money for her - Andrew is an odious creep, but without a guilty verdict (and without an admission of guilt in the statement) he actually hasn't come off as badly as he could have.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Angry
Reactions: 10
If he was going to settle, why the hell didn't he do it years ago and prevent the years of further damage to his reputation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
If he was going to settle, why the hell didn't he do it years ago and prevent the years of further damage to his reputation?
Because he is an arrogant, entitled, delusional man, who was surrounded by people who would only say yes to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 17
If he was going to settle, why the hell didn't he do it years ago and prevent the years of further damage to his reputation?
Because he thought his mum/Jeffrey/Maxwell would sort it out somehow
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
Knew it was going in his favour when she said she couldn't find the photo of them both. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I had a civil case against a company. The lawyers would have charged me 50% plus VAT of anything I’d got awarded if it went to court. Settling meant their fees were 25% plus VAT. I didn’t want particularly to settle but the offers went up and up until it was unlikely I’d get any more at the hearing. They had gone past the previous highest award for the same thing. I’d have spent a lot more in fees if it had gone further. At that point it became pointless continuing so I settled.

My case was pretty cut and dried, though you never know what your award might be if you get a “grumpy judge” (my lawyer’s actual words).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9
I thought Virginia Giuffre was supposedly not interested in the money, only her day in court to get Andrew to admit to, or prove he was guilty??

Taking the money and running is somewhat letting Andrew off the hook, and a rather disappointing, if not hypocritical outcome - on her part.

Many of us here wanted Andrew to stand trial, so we could see exactly what kind of a person we have been wrongfully financially subsidising for all these years.
Andrew will never stand trial because no criminal charges were brought against him, nor will there ever be charges against him. This was a civil dispute. Giuffre did well to settle it so that she can get on with her life. Tis was not a trial for jail time. She was gonna win it anyway, e jury would have awarded her some exorbitant amount of money, he would have appealed the sentence to bring down the price during negotiations. Right now, she got the most she could, which is great, plus he is going to pay an organization for victims of abuse, which the trial would have never ordered him to do. To avoid trial, he therefore paid extra, something he wouldn’t have been as eager to do upon appeal, not to mention that he doesn’t have assets in the US she could seize if he didn’t pay up. The trial would have never forced him, as it is impossible, to basically admit that he knew about the abuse and Epstein’s activities and charges against him, which he was now forced to admit. The trial would have never turn him into a convicted felon, just a person who was found liable. This is how the American system works.

Knew it was going in his favour when she said she couldn't find the photo of them both. :rolleyes:
Wrong. She has said, and I heard her say so, that the photo is in the possession of the FBI, which asked for it. He was going to lose, not her. There have also been studies of this photo by experts who determine that it is genuine. You can also watch this video by a body language expert who analyzes it:



I had a civil case against a company. The lawyers would have charged me 50% plus VAT of anything I’d got awarded if it went to court. Settling meant their fees were 25% plus VAT. I didn’t want particularly to settle but the offers went up and up until it was unlikely I’d get any more at the hearing. They had gone past the previous highest award for the same thing. I’d have spent a lot more in fees if it had gone further. At that point it became pointless continuing so I settled.

My case was pretty cut and dried, though you never know what your award might be if you get a “grumpy judge” (my lawyer’s actual words).
In the US it works as follows: the lawyer gets one third, and that’s that. No taxes on settlements because they are considered restitution. I think Trump tried to change the law about sexual assault liability suits, but I don’t know what happened with that one. So if, say, she were to get $30 mil, the lawyers would get $10 mil of that. She would get to keep the rest.

It is important to note here Andrew’s lawyers changed the tune about Giuffre whom they were blaming. This was a loser case for their client.

If he was going to settle, why the hell didn't he do it years ago and prevent the years of further damage to his reputation?
His reputation was gonna be damaged anyway. If it hadn’t been for the Me Too movement, which allowed journalists to do their job without interference, Epstein wouldn’t have been caught for a second time, the scandal of the cover-up wouldn’t have broken out, and Andrew would have gotten away with it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 10
Re the photo - initially it was said to be with her lawyer, I believe yesterday she said she had misplaced it, I saw it on Tv last night and read it online this morning - see link below

Andrew will never stand trial because no criminal charges were brought against him, nor will there ever be charges against him. This was a civil dispute. Giuffre did well to settle it so that she can get on with her life. Tis was not a trial for jail time. She was gonna win it anyway, e jury would have awarded her some exorbitant amount of money, he would have appealed the sentence to bring down the price during negotiations. Right now, she got the most she could, which is great, plus he is going to pay an organization for victims of abuse, which the trial would have never ordered him to do. To avoid trial, he therefore paid extra, something he wouldn’t have been as eager to do upon appeal, not to mention that he doesn’t have assets in the US she could seize if he didn’t pay up. The trial would have never forced him, as it is impossible, to basically admit that he knew about the abuse and Epstein’s activities and charges against him, which he was now forced to admit. The trial would have never turn him into a convicted felon, just a person who was found liable. This is how the American system works.





Wrong. She has said, and I heard her say so, that the photo is in the possession of the FBI, which asked for it. He was going to lose, not her. There have also been studies of this photo by experts who determine that it is genuine. You can also watch this video by a body language expert who analyzes it:





In the US it works as follows: the lawyer gets one third, and that’s that. No taxes on settlements because they are considered restitution. I think Trump tried to change the law about sexual assault liability suits, but I don’t know what happened with that one. So if, say, she were to get $30 mil, the lawyers would get $10 mil of that. She would get to keep the rest.

It is important to note here Andrew’s lawyers changed the tune about Giuffre whom they were blaming. This was a loser case for their client.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Re the photo - initially it was said to be with her lawyer, I believe yesterday she said she had misplaced it, I saw it on Tv last night and read it online this morning

I‘ve heard her with my own ears say it is with the FBI. Regardless, there is testimony from another victim that Giuffre had sent her the photo at the time, and this person was going to testify. Plus there are experts that state that it is genuine. This is also why Andrew has said he doesn’t remember the photo ever been taken.

The Times article refers to a report that says she misplaced the photo. This photo has been circulating for years, and, despite the vague report, I have heard Giuffre say it is with the FBI. Given American laws on such cases, it is impossible the FBI wouldn’t have come for it anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
I think this story about the photo being lost in The Times is probably royal staff leaked propaganda as part of the palace’s new mission to get Andrew back into the fold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.