Okay, I understood that wrong. I thought the conservative businessman paid off the $6 million for him so he could sell the place. Your version makes more sense.
I still wonder why he was behind on the payments so much that the person he bought it from was in the process of suing him to get paid.
An “agreement in principle” has been reached. Money is to be paid, apologies are to be made.
I suspect the palace is behind this settlement.
Imho Andrew had a very good chance to beat this in court. The original photo is lost. It’s authenticity can’t be established.
But, the monarchy is jello and can’t risk one hint of scandel. A long battle in court isn’t acceptable in their world.
I’ve seen reports that Virginia Giuffre worked closely with Ghislaine Maxwell. Helping recruit and manage. I wanted to see that allegation explored in court.
Photo or no photo, I think the young woman could very easily be believed by jurors. Cases like this are hard to predict, so they often settle.
And, FYI a photo can be authenticated by the person appearing in it. “Yes, that’s me and Prince Andrew, and that photograph accurately depicts that event.”
The requirement that a photograph be authenticated means that someone familiar with what the photograph depicts must testify that the photograph accurately represents whatever it illustrates. This authenticator can be the photographer, but it can also be anyone at all, as long as he or she is familiar with the subject matter of the image. (See F.R.E. 901.)
If Andrew was a typical wealthy client, wouldn’t most attorneys advise fighting these allegations in court? Thats the only way to clear your name.
A settlement implies guilt.
Given what has transpired, a “not guilty” verdict would be interpreted by the public as “insufficient evidence to prove guilt”. It would not clear his name.
Unless of course he brought in Cochran with a killer defense like “No sweaty pits? You must acquit!”
A trial is front page news for weeks, or longer. A settlement will fade from the public consciousness in days.
Most attorneys wouldn’t recommend going to trial to “clear your name” unless the evidence against the defendant was very weak. A jury trial is a funny thing, and the results are very hard to predict. You can say “you’ll win this 8 out of 10 times,” which is quite favorable. But that’s little consolation if your client’s trial is one of the 2.
Not apologizing for Andrew, but this is what you get when you raise kids from birth to be privileged. When they aren’t allowed to pick out their own underwear each day. They learn from birth that The Help are there to serve them 100%, and they have no lives, no feelings of their own.
Yes, the whole reason behind this settlement is to put a stop to the news stories. This way Andrew can merrily go along in his private life telling people he’s really innocent and only settled to protect his family from further pain. I’m sure he doesn’t really care what the general public thinks, it’s not like he hangs out with any of them.
I will say I’m a bit surprised that Giuffre was willing to settle. I had the feeling she really wanted her day in court. I hope the amount was large enough so that Andrew had to run to his mom for help because the amount was larger than his current assets.
For the lawyers here: Are the amount of settlements like this ever written down somewhere, like paperwork in a lawyers office? Would Giuffre have signed paperwork with the amount on it? Since the money is going to a charity, are donation amounts publicly available? A multi million dollar donation in the next few weeks would stand out. It seems like other than guesses, amounts of settlements like this rarely leak to the public. I can’t think of any right off hand.
Yes, I think it’s very important that we check into what crimes were committed by people that were sexually trafficked. You know, the ones that were being controlled by the traffickers. I would spare no expense to make sure these victims were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Off with Giuffre’s head, I say!
Seriously dude, all that information is out there. Why would you possibly need more details? The rest of the world is trying to move on from blaming the victims of sex crimes. Why don’t you join us?
Maxwell is facing the rest of her life in prison. I’m pretty sure she had to be friendly with Jeffery’s horny buddies. She was also complict and tried for recruiting.
There are allegations Virginia was in a similar situation. I’m only saying that needs to be verified. Especially since she’s collected 3 settlements in 11 years.
I would assume just the opposite.
This was the main story on the front pages of all the UK newspapers this morning.
Estimates of the payout range from £10 - £12m ($13.5 - $16m). That includes legal fees, and they are saying £7.5m ($10m) will go to Virginia Giuffre herself.
The Daily Mail claims that the reason he settled is that Ghislaine Maxwell verified in a 2015 email to Alan Dershowitz that the photo was genuine.
I’m pretty sure she didn’t. For one thing, she was rich and had no need to do anything for Epstein she didn’t want to. Secondly, she wasn’t in the right age group.
Again, this has been known for years. Giuffre herself has said she recruited young girls. How much more verification do you need? Do you really want her prosecuted for things she did while she was being trafficked?
Is there any reason to believe these amounts are accurate? The ones I’ve seen are all just estimates from lawyers not involved in the case. I was thinking the amount would be closer to $20 million+. At least I got my wish that Andrew had to run to mommy for enough money to pay off the settlement. Not that it will change his lifestyle at all.
I would still like to know who would have access to the actual settlement amount. Other than Andrew, Giuffre and presumably at least one lawyer on each side, who would know? Does the law require that nobody involved reveal the amount to anyone at all, or just from making public statements about it?
Can news organizations in the US/UK publish the info if someone were to leak it to them?
Presumably it all depends on the terms of the agreement, and the applicable law the law of contract. If both parties in a civil suit agree not to pursue the matter in a court, then the courts have no independent standing in the matter, surely? And the parties to such an agreement can agree to keep whatever details of the agreement as confidential as they wish.
If someone leaks such information then there would be questions about what the leaker was bound to by contract. The rights and obligations of the person receiving leaked information would probably vary between jurisdictions, according to how privacy weighs against the public interest.
Absolutely. There would be no other way to do it. She would have to sign off on the final distribution paperwork, that would show gross settlement, less fees and costs, and net to her. The settlement agreement with Prince Andrew would have the gross settlement amount, and the confidentiality terms. (and a whole lot of other paragraphs on all sorts of things. Our “routine” settlement agreements are often 5 or 6 pages long.)
Thanks for the answers. I’m just trying to figure out why the amount of so few of these settlements are ever leaked. They seem to have better security than any government agency or business in the world, which leak like sieves. Is it simply that there is nothing to gain by either side by leaking the info? Is it because so few people are aware of the actual number? Giuffre and Andrew must be able to tell people privately, right? They must be able to tell their family members without being in violation of the agreement. I can’t imagine that Giuffre would tell her husband it’s none of his business.
Well, y’know, one night in Bangkok and the world’s your oyster…
(I’m sorry, couldn’t resist, no patty-whack on botty-bottom tonight please…)
It’s because confidentiality is both a professional responsibility, and good business practice, for law firms.
A lawyer is required by professional standards to keep the client’s affairs confidential. That professional responsibility extends to everyone in the firm. A lawyer who blabs their client’s affairs can be in trouble with their professional regulator. They can also be on the hook vicariously if their staff break confidentiality. Lawyers have to respect their client’s confidentiality.
It’s also good business practice. In addition to being good at settling claims, lawyers who have high profile clients make money by guaranteeing confidentiality, so the client’s affairs don’t leak. A lawyer needs to have a reputation for confidentiality and discretion to attract that kind of client — and they get paid handsomely to keep their client’s secrets. The lawyers in turn drill confidentiality into all the support staff in the office. They too get paid handsomely if the firm attracts high-paying clients, and they can be out on their ear if they blab the client’s affairs.
In politics, leaking is part of the game. Everyone leaks, often strategically, or to get someone else in trouble, or to float a trial balloon. As Hacker said, « The ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top ». There isn’t the culture of confidentiality.
Same with a lot of businesses. There isn’t the same culture of confidentiality as there is with a high-priced law firm that specializes in tidying up the messes of their wealthy clients.
Thanks, @Northern_Piper . That makes sense. I wonder if the richer you are, the fewer people that know details, the tighter the security.
It’s not like I have an emotional investment in this, but I wouldn’t mind if Andrew spends the rest of his life hidden away as a disgraced, bitter, lonely old man. Hopefully his family will see to it that he isn’t jetting around the world, preying on underage women anymore.