You know as well as I do, that the legal system, is a showcase for laywers, and if justice occasionally comes out of it, we are lucky.
1 Like
I think 99 percent of these cases in the US are settled out of court, it’s almost inevitable. Even if it went to Court a guilty verdict would be against a lighter evidence base than required for a criminal prosecution.
He’s fucked for life, that’ll do this side of a criminal prosecution.
The real disgrace is the lack of criminal prosecutions for the vast majority of sexual abuse and rape cases, in the US and here, but that’s a whole other debate.
1 Like
Exactly.
This is just a cash cow for an industry of lawyers and paper editors.
The truth ends up being a distraction. What is wrong with just wanting an outcome that apportions blame after a proper factual analysis?
Both sides win some and lose some by this. I don’t like getting shot down for pointing out the obvious flaw in this. It is an indictment on the system that allows it.
It’s been a while since I’ve read such a load of ludicrous nonsense. What should the plaintiff do in your view? Would you have advised her to come out and say that she has no intention of going to trial and intends to settle for the maximum amount of money possible? Grow up.
The case has destroyed Andrew’s finances, ruined what was left of his reputation, taken his position in society and all without NDAs etc being imposed on the plaintiff. I doubt rehabilitation is ever possible for Andrew, which is a good thing.
If she wanted damages then say it?
Saying you don’t want money you want resolution gave me some hope we would have a trial.
That’s all. I feel short changed. Reading more into it seems to distort the point I was trying to make.
Badly, it seems!
I think you got shot down because in expressing your disappointment that this didn’t go to trial you chose to focus on the victims financial motive and ‘lies’ when there’s a greater liability on both those counts on Andrew’s side.
If you’re going to accuse either party of lies then it’s odd not to look at Andrew first who said he’d never met her (oops that photo); didn’t sweat (err show us the medical records), couldn’t be him as he was at pizza express at the time (cool story) and that he wanted his day in court, to prove his innocence (and then promptly settled).
If you want to talk about financial motivation then why not focus on the fact it was Andrew who chose to be friends with Jeffry Epstein because he and his wife were flat broke and up to their eyes in debt. Or maybe he just liked the fact that his buddy could supply young girls to sleep with him under co-ercion.
It’s where you put your emphasis that attracted derision I’m afraid.
5 Likes
Have to agree on this. Bang out of order.
1 Like
How come this is her fault?
Both parties need to agree, If PA was convinced of his innocence why would he not want it to go to trial? What better way to salvage his reputation than a not guilty verdict
1 Like
Again, making the point her legal team said she wasn’t in this for just money, then she takes the money, in no way detracts from the whole story and the issue of the accused’s conduct.
I didn’t make the point to support Andy. I made the point because it’s a valid point: she didn’t end up forcing a day in court. She could have taken this to court. Everyone (both of them) wanted it to go to court based on their legal teams statements. I did.
What you take from this sits with you. It’s the fault of her team to suggest it’s not about just money… they could have pushed to is to court.
That’s an isolated use of the word fault. Saying it’s her fault she took the money isn’t saying she is at fault in her claim. There is a massive distinction in how we are both applying logic here.
Conflating arguments is the issue.
As to the above: the pay off is not vindication, and in NO WAY accepts guilt. It’s a win, but it without prejudice.
It may imply guilt, the fall out may ruin reputation and bank balances, but just isn’t legally any acceptance of blame. I’m sure the lawyers will suggest it was to spare his mum the distraction.
You can claim it’s a sign of guilt, it may be, but you would be wrong to say it proves it.
You don’t start negotiations from the end point though do you?
I think you are being a bit naive in thinking that nothing would move her from this course.
Look how things changed, she went from having her case dismissed out of hand and being slut shamed by PA, to him losing income, honorifics, ranks, status and reputation. Everything about the case changed. ignoring the money she got everything she wanted, why go to court?
The settlement on top is just the cream on top of the cake, she won her case because he chose not to defend it
Disappointed.
Not naïve as I am not in the slightest but surprised.
Just annoyed it means there isn’t a real resolution.
It’s victory for her, but it wasn’t the outcome I had hoped for. I thought genuinely that this would go the whole way and be a very public airing of the facts.
You’re not the complainant though, she was the one who brought this and it’s entirely up to her satisfaction not yours.
If you’re disappointed that the case and the facts didn’t go to trial then you need to look at Andrew, not her. He’s the one who’s lawyers looked at discovery and decided fuck that. Anything before that is just standard posturing. It’s was Andrew who had the most to lose by the facts being aired so he settled - so aim your frustration at him not the woman with the actual grievance of being coerced into sex against her will.
Also it’s a civil case in the US, if you’re disappointed about it being settled then your own expectations were the cause of this, not the standard pre-trial brinksmanship.
Tldr:
I refer you back to the BBC article and the simple observation that it is disappointing this didn’t go further than just the money.
That’s it.
Maybe saying it was a lie was extreme, but it certainly ended up being about just the money. How you perceive that is your choice, but don’t read into my thoughts as I didn’t make any comment on guilt !
I think it’s gone a long way past the money. She hasn’t signed an NDA so while she may have to be quiet for a while (ie until after the Jubilee celebrations) it’s not indefinite. If she wants to write a book about this or participate in a future documentary about it, she’ll be free to do that. Andrew has also had to agree to never again deny that he raped her.
The FBI would still like to interview Andrew about Epstein so, unless he goes along with that, he’ll be somewhat limited as to where he can travel.
I should imagine somewhat limited to the most remote estate the Queen owns, in the UK.
Travel back from is more the point.
Someone else disappointed-
I am disappointed that Maitlis hasn’t been on Newsnight so far this year.
She has apparantly been working on a 10 part American political documentary for BBC
Fuck it. What really boils my fucking piss is when cunts that have no fucking idea about life judge people who have experienced some really horrible shit.
I am speaking from experience.
Fair play; the plaintif in the Civil Case mentioned had been awarded damages. Good.
These damages- regardless how significant they seem to be- will never be enough to undo the damage done.
I was once asked if- quote: […]was it all worth it[…] and the answer was no. My reasons as follows:
Feeling the pain of fire. No. Experiencing the pain disappearing along with nerve endings. No. Making decisions re: covering eyes with hands. No. Experiencing the lack of oxygen in hot air and having to breathe harder whilst on fire? No.
And that was just the beginning of the fucking journey.
And just over twenty fucking five years later, this shit still has significant effects.
Scarring is more than skin deep. Obviously.
So my thoughts are with Virginia and anyone else who has the guts to stand up to the system. Because it is most certainly not weighted in their favour. She will have had a really tough time. Really tough.
And as an aside, one cannot necessarily rely on one’s family; I was asked (told; coerced) into paying a significant proportion of compensation to (the*) parents. The justification appeared to be down to the father’s TU Membership and Legal Representation. And expenditure related to sundries like furniture, etc…
There is probably a four letter word for people like this. I’ll not allow myself the luxury of it’s use online.
I’m only still here due to the love, understanding and support of my family** and friends.
*Biological.
**Soul Family
9 Likes
Dude… I… Um…
For once a post that actually really does merit its own thread.
Seems like there’s one hell of an untold story there…