Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
40andlovelife · 01/04/2025 21:16

She’s a fantasist and an extortionist. I do believe she was groomed and used by Epstein but there was no solid evidence of her claims about PA. And she knew it.

samarrange · 01/04/2025 21:18

JohnKettleyIsAWeathermanAndSoIsMichaelFish · 01/04/2025 17:20

The car was being driven by her carer? Why does she have a carer?

It is of course possible that "she was in a road accident" and "she has renal failure after the accident" but that the accident didn't cause the renal failure.

She also has a publicist, who appears to be this person (named in the BBC story, unless there are two women with the same unimprovable name working in PR).

Dini von Mueffling - New York, New York, United States | Professional Profile | LinkedIn

Location: New York · 500+ connections on LinkedIn. View Dini von Mueffling’s profile on LinkedIn, a professional community of 1 billion members.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dini-von-mueffling/

Escaperoom · 01/04/2025 21:27

Is is actually possible to know with any degree of accuracy a life expectancy that specific? When my DDad was in hospital before he died we were told he wouldn't survive but they could only say he might survive a few days to a few weeks. In the event it was a few days but no-one could have told us that 4 days beforehand. It all sounds very odd.

LBFseBrom · 01/04/2025 21:29

She is recovering. She did have a road accident and it could have been far more serious but it is now not considered to be so, she's off the critical list.

Gingerkittykat · 01/04/2025 21:35

EdithBond · 01/04/2025 18:50

In the reports I’ve read, says she’s issued this statement:

Virginia thanks everyone for the outpouring of love and support. She is overwhelmed with gratitude.
Today she remains in serious condition while receiving medical care. On March 24, in rural Western Australia a school bus hit the car in which she was riding.
The police were called but said that there was no one available to come to the scene.
They asked if anyone was injured and suggested that if they were, they should make their way to the hospital.
The school bus driver had a bus full of distraught children and left the scene to get them back, saying he would file a police report, which he did later.
Virginia was banged up and bruised and returned home. Virginia's condition worsened and she was admitted to the hospital.
Concerning her Instagram post, Virginia thought that she had posted on her private Facebook page.
Virginia and her family thank everyone for their concern.’

It sounds like a minor accident if the bus had so little damage that it could have safely driven away carrying a bunch of kids.

How did she get to hospital? Did she call an ambulance or drive there?

Grammarnut · 01/04/2025 22:02

Bingbopboomboomboombopbam · 31/03/2025 23:27

@Grammarnut I would assume she accused Andrew because she had a photo to back up her presence, otherwise all he had to do was say he never heard of her.

It’s understandable she changed her accusation, it was probably due to legal advice. I would guess initially she assumed the age of consent was similar to the US.

Andrew should know better than to repeatedly hang out with someone like Epstein. He deserved the dragging and if anything, got away with it. Absolute scum.

I tend to agree. Did you imagine I thought Andrew anything other than a sleazeball?

Butchyrestingface · 01/04/2025 22:02

SuspiciousChipmunk · 01/04/2025 20:46

I’m starting to think Andrew really was in a Pizza Express in Woking.

Where do you stand on his claims not to sweat?

chubbychopsticks · 01/04/2025 22:15

Just as I was reading this, the news just announced that she was in a minor collision with a bus and no one attended hospital.

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 01/04/2025 22:23

Butchyrestingface · 01/04/2025 20:42

Yes, and OJ, Michael Jackson and Jeremy Bamber might be innocent “not guilty” too. After all, just like Andy, they claimed (at some length) they were stitched up too.

Maybe we should start a new thread for all these rich men being fitted up by women and/or the State.

Yeah go right ahead!

Difference being that OJ and Bamber were convicted. Jackson was found not guilty. Andrew was never prosecuted. By all means go compare apples with oranges.

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 01/04/2025 22:28

Crudd99 · 01/04/2025 21:02

Sounds like all the abuse has messed with her mental health as it would with most people. I believe her about Andrew. An innocent person who hadn't even met her wouldn't pay any money . He paid up to stop everything coming out. If he was innocent he'd of had his day in court as he'd have the best barristers. It's like how Britney spears has been used by everyone and now has mental health issues.

You don't seem to understand how and why settlements are reached. There may have been unsavoury evidence produced at hearing that would have further decimated his reputation even if it was ultimately proven that he was not guilty. Economic reasons too - it would probably have cost more to fight than settle. These things often do. It would also have caused an almighty scandal, in the Queen's Jubilee year.

I do wish that people would realise that settling does not imply guilt!

Your statement is factually incorrect.

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 01/04/2025 22:30

I think you are missing out on the irony?!

Butchyrestingface · 01/04/2025 22:40

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 01/04/2025 22:23

Yeah go right ahead!

Difference being that OJ and Bamber were convicted. Jackson was found not guilty. Andrew was never prosecuted. By all means go compare apples with oranges.

OJ was not convicted in a criminal court of the crimes I’m referring to.

As for Andrew never being prosecuted, neither was Jimmy Saville. In Andrew’s case, a massive pay-off saw to that.

Can’t believe there are Prince Andrew apologists even on here. A lid for every pot, indeed.

Weefox · 01/04/2025 23:08

No one would be able to wear jewellery in intensive care. Def fake news.

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 01/04/2025 23:21

Butchyrestingface · 01/04/2025 22:40

OJ was not convicted in a criminal court of the crimes I’m referring to.

As for Andrew never being prosecuted, neither was Jimmy Saville. In Andrew’s case, a massive pay-off saw to that.

Can’t believe there are Prince Andrew apologists even on here. A lid for every pot, indeed.

Don't split hairs. I'm not an apologist for anyone (and I am not one bit bothered by your insults, so carry on!) but I deal facts not speculation.

The "massive pay-off" was a settlement. If you're not familiar with civil cases and employment tribunals, they're common and there is no admission of liability. Can't believe there are people who don't know that.

Savile, not Saville btw. And the weight of evidence against him was so overwhelming that the lack of a conviction wasn't even a consideration. Had Savile lived, he would have been prosecuted when the extent of his crimes had come out.

Butchyrestingface · 01/04/2025 23:31

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 01/04/2025 23:21

Don't split hairs. I'm not an apologist for anyone (and I am not one bit bothered by your insults, so carry on!) but I deal facts not speculation.

The "massive pay-off" was a settlement. If you're not familiar with civil cases and employment tribunals, they're common and there is no admission of liability. Can't believe there are people who don't know that.

Savile, not Saville btw. And the weight of evidence against him was so overwhelming that the lack of a conviction wasn't even a consideration. Had Savile lived, he would have been prosecuted when the extent of his crimes had come out.

How am I "splitting hairs"? OJ was absolutely NOT convincted of murder in a criminal court. To accuse someone of splitting hairs for pointing that out is so ludicrous it's hard to believe you are posting in good faith.

I haven't suggested that Andrew has admitted liability. I know he has not. But the fact remains that he did not seek to fight his case in court and went down the settlement/pay-off route. People are free to draw whatever conclusion they wish from that. The major factor for me in arriving at a belief in his guilt however has nothing to do VG's credibility or even the fact he went for a settlement. It is to do with the interview he gave Emily Maitlis of his own volition and the things he said and did during said interview. He was hoisted by his own petard.

As for Saville, it is possible that had Andrew been prosecuted, a lot would have come out in the wash about him. Which naturally, he wouldn't want.

EdithBond · 01/04/2025 23:36

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 01/04/2025 22:28

You don't seem to understand how and why settlements are reached. There may have been unsavoury evidence produced at hearing that would have further decimated his reputation even if it was ultimately proven that he was not guilty. Economic reasons too - it would probably have cost more to fight than settle. These things often do. It would also have caused an almighty scandal, in the Queen's Jubilee year.

I do wish that people would realise that settling does not imply guilt!

Your statement is factually incorrect.

Though, the risk with settling a case is the optics. It leads people to believe the person has, at very least, behaved in an unsavoury manner, even if not unlawfully. This suggests poor judgement, perhaps driven by feeling untouchable due to arrogance, privilege and/or wealth.

rollon22now · 01/04/2025 23:38

This is so weird. Whatever the background/story… she’s sort of lost some credibility here.

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 01/04/2025 23:42

EdithBond · 01/04/2025 23:36

Though, the risk with settling a case is the optics. It leads people to believe the person has, at very least, behaved in an unsavoury manner, even if not unlawfully. This suggests poor judgement, perhaps driven by feeling untouchable due to arrogance, privilege and/or wealth.

That's only among people who don't understand how settlements work. The risk is balanced between running and settling and economics plays a huge part. ITs make me really cross professionally when they settle when I know there is a watertight case, but the decision from on high is that there's too much expenditure in running them. Even some union reps think this means their member has 'won'. They really haven't.

The perception here is that Giuffre 'won'. She didn't. We will never know what the truth of the matter is.

Butchyrestingface · 01/04/2025 23:43

rollon22now · 01/04/2025 23:38

This is so weird. Whatever the background/story… she’s sort of lost some credibility here.

I was slightly 🙄at the statement supposedly from her family saying she hadn't realised she was posting to Insta and thought she was posting to her private FB account.

Was she trying to scam people on there instead?

The whole story folded like a deck of cards on the lightest of digging so not actually difficult to believe she did think she was posting to a very select audience as opposed to the World Wide Web.

CodyCat · 01/04/2025 23:48

Kidney failure can be related to a disease process. It could also the beginning of organ failure secondary to traumatic event of motor vehicle accident.

Pippyls67 · 02/04/2025 00:09

Has anyone read the comments by Andrews friend Victoria Hervey? They are eye watering apparently!!

ChessorBuckaroo · 02/04/2025 01:09

40andlovelife · 01/04/2025 21:16

She’s a fantasist and an extortionist. I do believe she was groomed and used by Epstein but there was no solid evidence of her claims about PA. And she knew it.

Tend to agree.

I'm very wary of american women making allegations generally. They have an entitled worldview (where the Karen trope comes from, the entitled white woman which extends back more than two centuries there), combine that with an extremely litigious culture where suing someone at the drop of a hat is part and parcel of society as much as gun culture is, that's a deadly cocktail. This was always a joke about america, "touch me and I'll sue". Lawyers are also famous there, with the like of Gloria Allred just desperate for the next case to create.

We got that clash of cultures with Meghan Markle, and its rubbed off on Harry as he was never this whiny/entitled. The UK is a far more relaxed and less accusatory society, far less litigious (although its increased) and there is no Karen equivalent. That is what made Markle so unlikeable, that self absorbed, 'me me me' outlook ('the celebrations in South Africa when I married Harry were comparable to when Mandela was released'), zero self awareness, introspection or humility, that is a part of the culture she grew up in. Their most beloved book (per a vote) is To Kill a Mockingbird, a story about racism, yet the hero is? A white man, while the black characters are relegated to the background. A 'white saviour' story (which by definition is self absorbed). They somehow manage to make a story about racism, a form of self congratulation. Only they could.

When you grow up in a self absorbed society, with little self awareness, you become entitled, and this is a recipe for litigation at every turn. The subject of this thread changed her story when the original one didn't fit.

AquaPeer · 02/04/2025 01:17

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 01/04/2025 23:42

That's only among people who don't understand how settlements work. The risk is balanced between running and settling and economics plays a huge part. ITs make me really cross professionally when they settle when I know there is a watertight case, but the decision from on high is that there's too much expenditure in running them. Even some union reps think this means their member has 'won'. They really haven't.

The perception here is that Giuffre 'won'. She didn't. We will never know what the truth of the matter is.

Whilst all this is true you can’t deny there is a difference between a business taking an economic decision to settle (coupled with the risk of bad publicity by going to court) vs a private individual with a huge amount of personal financing choosing not going to court to clear their name, despite the personal and repetitional damage settling will bring.

PA doesn’t have a board or shareholders to answer to re his decision and he could’ve chosen to sink the money into defending his name.

And at £8-12m cost plus legal fees, we all know he could’ve afforded to defend himself for quite some time before settling was the cheaper option.

it’s not always as simple as your experiences.

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 02/04/2025 01:42

AquaPeer · 02/04/2025 01:17

Whilst all this is true you can’t deny there is a difference between a business taking an economic decision to settle (coupled with the risk of bad publicity by going to court) vs a private individual with a huge amount of personal financing choosing not going to court to clear their name, despite the personal and repetitional damage settling will bring.

PA doesn’t have a board or shareholders to answer to re his decision and he could’ve chosen to sink the money into defending his name.

And at £8-12m cost plus legal fees, we all know he could’ve afforded to defend himself for quite some time before settling was the cheaper option.

it’s not always as simple as your experiences.

I'm not speaking from my "experiences". I'm speaking from general knowledge.

AquaPeer · 02/04/2025 01:47

Ok then it’s not always as simple as your general knowledge