American woman sues former Prince Andrew for rape - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15205539
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.
Last edited by noemon on 13 Jan 2022 19:08, edited 2 times in total. Reason: former added on title
#15205557
Well, of course she's going to sue for money. What else would she sue him for?

If he's guilty I hope he suffers for it, although I doubt he will, since the rich very rarely suffer for their crimes, or even see justice for them. The most she can probably hope for is some money, since he'd never see prison, even if he did the crime.
#15205566
Igor Antunov wrote:She accepted a seedy Job offer from the sounds of that article. Not my problem.


She was young and naieve, accepted the "massage" job without understanding her employers were master manipulators, friends of Weinstein (and other such people) and into pederasty. Plus her previous experience at the earlier age affected her psychologically making it easier for her to be abused again.

Still a victim regardless, and she still deserves justice.

Finally found an Aussie dude the same age in Queensland who told her "this shit's not normal, come stay with me instead".

Pufferfish wrote: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?


Nope, that frequently happens. The psychological grooming behaviour can impact their views on what's sexually normal, and they can be more easily abused again. Not to mention be "passed around"(Trafficked) from abuser to abuser.
#15205569
I don't understand how this works if he fucked her in London. Isn't the age of consent there 16. What law was broken? Prostitution itself isn't illegal in England. Pimping yes, keeping a brothel too, but sex for money in a private residence? I don't think so.


:?:
#15205570
ingliz wrote:I don't understand how this works if he fucked her in London. Isn't the age of consent there 16. What law was broken? Prostitution itself isn't illegal in England. Pimping yes, keeping a brothel too, but sex for money in a private residence? I don't think so.


:?:

That was probably Prince Andrew's line of reasoning too, which is why he's in such hot water now. Lol.
#15205571
Potemkin wrote:hot water

How was it a sexual assault, though? She said that she presented herself to him as a fully willing partner and that he wasn’t in any way unpleasant to her. The sex on the face of it was consensual.


:?:
#15205572
ingliz wrote:How was it a sexual assault, though? She said that she presented herself to him as a fully willing partner and that he wasn’t in any way unpleasant to her. The sex on the face of it was consensual.


:?:

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....
#15205575
Potemkin wrote:blameless

The Metropolitan police are taking no further action, which would suggest that, legally, he is entirely blameless in the UK.


:lol:
#15205578
ingliz wrote:The Metropolitan police are taking no further action, which would suggest that, legally, he is entirely blameless in the UK.


:lol:

:lol:

Nevertheless, in the court of public opinion he has been charged, convicted and sent down. Lol. ;)
#15205581
colliric wrote:She was young and naieve, accepted the "massage" job without understanding her employers were master manipulators, friends of Weinstein (and other such people) and into pederasty. Plus her previous experience at the earlier age affected her psychologically making it easier for her to be abused again.

Still a victim regardless, and she still deserves justice.

Finally found an Aussie dude the same age in Queensland who told her "this shit's not normal, come stay with me instead".



Nope, that frequently happens. The psychological grooming behaviour can impact their views on what's sexually normal, and they can be more easily abused again. Not to mention be "passed around"(Trafficked) from abuser to abuser.


From what I've read she accepted a prostitution gig, and was at most common age for high society prostitute - just reached fresh meat age of consent - when commencing work in the place she worked at. Now she wants more money from billionaire that fucked her by launching a frivolous lawsuit? Ok. Whatever. Good luck to her.

If no laws were broken then this holds no water though. Regretting you former occupation is not grounds enough for a lawsuit.
#15205584
We find out if her case has merit on Tuesday. That's when her 2009 settlement with Epstein gets disclosed.

She was abused by Epstein and Maxwell, but I guess we have to wait for the details with Andrew. She's accusing him of Statutory rape from the looks of it.

We all know he had sex with her, I mean we all know he partook of their services.
#15205600
Potemkin wrote:Prince Andrew's problem was that he assumed that the values he grew up with in the 1970s still prevail today.


If Prince Andrew actually had sex with Giuffre, then I will have to disagree with this statement.

Instead, I will claim that Prince Andrew's problem was that he didn't realize that he's a person with status, and therefore his actions would not merely be representing himself.

Also, regardless of one's social status, liking to party (the "Randy Andy" thing) is very different from fucking whoever you meet on parties you attend.
#15205614
Patrickov wrote:If Prince Andrew actually had sex with Giuffre, then I will have to disagree with this statement.

Instead, I will claim that Prince Andrew's problem was that he didn't realize that he's a person with status, and therefore his actions would not merely be representing himself.

You think Prince Andrew has ever given a flying fuck about anyone or anything besides himself? Well, maybe he cares about Fergie and his daughters, but that's it. Most people in Britain have never had much respect for him. His personal character became clear as early as the 1970s.

Also, regardless of one's social status, liking to party (the "Randy Andy" thing) is very different from fucking whoever you meet on parties you attend.

Not for Randy Andy it isn't. Lol.
#15205627
Godstud wrote:If he's guilty I hope he suffers for it

You say that as if you believe the court can actually determine whether he is really guilty or not.

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?
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

which was a bluff, of course Famous last words. […]

The Death of Luxury Brands

TK Maxx Fun fact, in the US these stores are ca[…]

We have to get to the bottom of this...

You make 'private commercial bank licenses' sound[…]

@Pants-of-dog I already provided you with all th[…]