Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Andrew and Virginia

32 replies

viques · 03/01/2022 17:39

If Andrew claims the agreement Virginia signed with Epstein saying she can’t prosecute future potential defendants absolves him from anything , then isn’t that admitting that he is a potential defendant............

OP posts:
CormoranStrike · 03/01/2022 17:44

That’s a very interesting legal conundrum.

jeepersdeepers · 03/01/2022 17:45

Yes it's a bit of an own goal.

pussycatunpickingcrossesagain · 03/01/2022 17:47

One also wonders how Andrew new of the contents of this document...or even that it existed...

jeepersdeepers · 03/01/2022 17:52

yep

Ketchupman · 03/01/2022 18:02

I don't think so. In interpreted it as she cannot bring action against any of Epstein's associates, which he is using a defence as he is a known associate, rather than admitting liability (he is already a defendant not a potential one). NB. I don't think he's innocent by the way but she shouldn't have signed a settlement agreement and then contravened its terms.

dubyalass · 03/01/2022 18:04

I was thinking the same when I heard it on the news just now. Haven't his lawyers also failed to provide the proof of his inability to sweat?

Revolting man.

jeepersdeepers · 03/01/2022 18:06

i thought they were hoping it mentioned the word royalty.

Invasionofthegutsnatchers · 03/01/2022 18:06

Sleazy fucker

heldinadream · 03/01/2022 18:13

NDAs are reverse blackmail and should be treated as such.

pussycatunpickingcrossesagain · 03/01/2022 18:13

I bet he's sweating now...

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz · 03/01/2022 18:17

When did she sign it? Surely if it was at the time she was "hired" then it's null and void as coercion was used.

bubbleblower85 · 03/01/2022 18:17

@Ketchupman

I don't think so. In interpreted it as she cannot bring action against any of Epstein's associates, which he is using a defence as he is a known associate, rather than admitting liability (he is already a defendant not a potential one). NB. I don't think he's innocent by the way but she shouldn't have signed a settlement agreement and then contravened its terms.
WTAH, "she should not have signed"....are you being serious! These poor girls had no real choice in these matters, they were trafficked and abused over many years, if you think they had any agency or real clarity of mind when these things happened then I don't know what to say.

Also these types of NDA's should be made illegal, the thought these sick bastards can commit crimes and gag their victims at the same time is absolutely reprehensible!

elbea · 03/01/2022 18:23

Quite often in these situations people don’t have a choice but to sign. I was in a situation where if I didn’t sign an NDA I’d have been homeless the next day, was there really a choice there?

Viviennemary · 03/01/2022 18:39

I think the case sill bd thrown out.

Bessica1970 · 03/01/2022 18:57

The document was signed years later when she sued Epstein, not when she was still part of the situation.
I believe she’s spent the payout and wants more money (not that I think Andrew is innocent).
I think she’ll struggle with that wording though.

Motherdare · 03/01/2022 19:02

What evidence would be required that A. Sex took place. B. VG was forced into it. C. PA knew she had been trafficked?

I am not condoning him having sex with a teenager. He is sleezy and arrogant.

I just don’t see what the case against him is without evidence?

Motherdare · 03/01/2022 19:03

I suppose they would need a third-party witness?

DrWhoNowww · 03/01/2022 19:07

It now makes more sense why the royals haven’t paid her to quietly go away doesn’t it?

They already tried that and it only bought them a decade.

No ones is going to come out of this well.

Ihopeyourcakeisshit · 03/01/2022 19:09

So he's off the hook then.

KittenCatcher · 03/01/2022 19:22

I am confused too about the age of consent, I thought it was 16 in UK and 17 in NY. Its all so sleazy and deceitful.

RB68 · 03/01/2022 19:28

defendant does not mean quilty, they are just defending themselves against claims by another party (usually via a prosecution service of some sort) rather than the individual themselves. I think the issue here is that it is the woman herself bringing the case - but the US court system is a bit of a mystery in my view

StarShapedWindow · 03/01/2022 19:40

I thought I’d read that she’d said she could provide a third party witness but whether that person would also be off the hook because of the NDA she signed I’m not sure. I don’t think this case will go anywhere but I do think it’s opened the door to others coming forward. I really wish PA would get taken to court to defend himself - the arrogance of certain people who have money and power is disgusting. I hope Guislane going to prison makes people think twice in future. Scum bags.

howdiditcometothis666 · 03/01/2022 19:52

@pussycatunpickingcrossesagain

One also wonders how Andrew new of the contents of this document...or even that it existed...
Because VG brought a case against Epstein's old lawyer which appears to now be dropped. He is now in return suing VG for defamation and he knew about that document . I think that is the gist of it.
Dodgyveneers · 03/01/2022 19:57

Wow to some of these posts.

SunshineOnKeith · 03/01/2022 20:07

@KittenCatcher

I am confused too about the age of consent, I thought it was 16 in UK and 17 in NY. Its all so sleazy and deceitful.
18 in NY

Though irrelevant to this case as victims of sex trafficking by definition don't consent to their slavery