Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
angsty · 02/04/2025 14:09

That's not what @AquaPeer is saying at all, just the opposite as I read it.

AquaPeer · 02/04/2025 14:35

Bingbopboomboomboombopbam · 02/04/2025 12:51

So because you listened to podcasts about two women, that now invalidates all women? Jesus wept.

However if you like podcasts I would highly suggest The Mysterious Mr Epstein by Wondery. It’s long but very good.

Show quote history

Yes as @angsty has mentioned I think you’ve read my post backwards.

there is clearly a market and expertise for exposing women who have lied and deceived yet no one has managed to expose VG. Rather indicates there is nothing to expose her for

AquaPeer · 02/04/2025 14:38

Firethehorse · 02/04/2025 10:00

This is an interesting one because I remember there being lots of women saying this too. Multiple victims apparently said she was worse than Maxwell at recruiting and forcing them into sordid situations.
I’m actually really shocked at Lady Hervey’s comments. Surely she could be sued if they are not true and saying the FBI are about to arrest her is quite the revelation.
Maybe finally more will come out now. It was always odd Prince Andrew was singled out but not lots of high profile American businessmen allegedly in the Epstein party set.

Show quote history

I don’t think it’s in the interests of most legal systems to prosecute victims of grooming and modern slavery for grooming others as part of their ordeal.

we didn’t, for example, prosecute the girls in the Rochdale etc grooming gangs who did

Crudd99 · 02/04/2025 15:11

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.

Show quote history

I truly believe he slept with her and as you say more "unsavoury evidence produced" . If he lived on a council estate he'd of been in court. He's got away with it because of who he is. He stayed friends with a known pedophile no doubt because he was worried about what would come out. If innocent he would of gone to court and cleared his name. He's been hidden away by the establishment for a reason. Pedophilia and sexual exploitation of young people goes high up and its covered up . The rich and powerful get away with it time and time again as recent history shows. It's covered up until they die. The victims never get justice. They ruin their victims lives and smear their reputations so they're never believed. It's a sinister world and it makes me sick there's so many gullible and deliberately enablers for these predators.

Tomatotater · 02/04/2025 15:40

He was a middle aged man from a privileged background. Why the fuck did he not ask what these kids were doing there drinking and partying?
I'll tell you why he didn't ask.. coz he didn't care. He probably knew what epstein was doing and he just didn't really care.
He basically said as much in his interview That they were just there, and 'people like him' just don't notice the staff. So they were there to service him and his needs. Whether that was drinks or other things, we'll never know. I suspect he didn't give a damn who they were or how old they were or why they were there because they weren't Royal, or rich, or Aristo's.

TENSsion · 02/04/2025 16:40

Crudd99 · 02/04/2025 15:11

I truly believe he slept with her and as you say more "unsavoury evidence produced" . If he lived on a council estate he'd of been in court. He's got away with it because of who he is. He stayed friends with a known pedophile no doubt because he was worried about what would come out. If innocent he would of gone to court and cleared his name. He's been hidden away by the establishment for a reason. Pedophilia and sexual exploitation of young people goes high up and its covered up . The rich and powerful get away with it time and time again as recent history shows. It's covered up until they die. The victims never get justice. They ruin their victims lives and smear their reputations so they're never believed. It's a sinister world and it makes me sick there's so many gullible and deliberately enablers for these predators.

Show quote history

“If he lived on a council estate he'd of been in court”

Hard disagree

Bingbopboomboomboombopbam · 02/04/2025 16:41

@Tomatotater did he have an habit of taking photos with the rest of the help then? He surely was familiar enough with her for a photo with her and Ghislaine to be produced.

Tomatotater · 02/04/2025 17:06

Bingbopboomboomboombopbam · 02/04/2025 16:41

@Tomatotater did he have an habit of taking photos with the rest of the help then? He surely was familiar enough with her for a photo with her and Ghislaine to be produced.

Yes that is true. he noticed her well enough when he had his (mercifully non sweaty) hands on her bare waist.
I was just saying that when he was asked by Emily Maitliss if he noticed anything during the many times he was at Epsteins houses, he said basically 'people like us don't notice things like that'. they were all servants to him.

Bingbopboomboomboombopbam · 02/04/2025 17:19

@Tomatotater I wouldn’t be surprised if they see people sourced to have sex with as the help still. Officially she was a masseuse, iirc.

lizzyBennet08 · 02/04/2025 18:33

Agree with below. He was a handsome privileged wealthy prince of England . It’s certainly possible he knew her story but it’s also possible given his status that he thought she was just another groupie keen to sleep with a Royal. Don’t think we will ever know for sure as both are plausible and there is not proof either way.

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 02/04/2025 18:36

Crudd99 · 02/04/2025 15:11

I truly believe he slept with her and as you say more "unsavoury evidence produced" . If he lived on a council estate he'd of been in court. He's got away with it because of who he is. He stayed friends with a known pedophile no doubt because he was worried about what would come out. If innocent he would of gone to court and cleared his name. He's been hidden away by the establishment for a reason. Pedophilia and sexual exploitation of young people goes high up and its covered up . The rich and powerful get away with it time and time again as recent history shows. It's covered up until they die. The victims never get justice. They ruin their victims lives and smear their reputations so they're never believed. It's a sinister world and it makes me sick there's so many gullible and deliberately enablers for these predators.

Show quote history

You can believe all you want. Everyone can. Without evidence, it matters not one damn what you or anyone else thinks. Would have been the same if he lived on a council estate. No evidence, no crime!

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 02/04/2025 18:38

Bingbopboomboomboombopbam · 02/04/2025 16:41

@Tomatotater did he have an habit of taking photos with the rest of the help then? He surely was familiar enough with her for a photo with her and Ghislaine to be produced.

Maybe she wanted a photo with a royal prince? Would have been a selfie nowadays. You don't have to be "familiar" with the person at all.

Bingbopboomboomboombopbam · 02/04/2025 18:43

@wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting if so he could easily have said he takes photos with several “help”, as evidenced by [shows multiple photos with different help across the years]

pollyglot · 02/04/2025 19:16

Interesting the Virginia chose to name and shame the one man that would give her maximum publicity and the most $$$. There were plenty of others apparently not worth the effort to pursue.

AquaPeer · 02/04/2025 19:32

pollyglot · 02/04/2025 19:16

Interesting the Virginia chose to name and shame the one man that would give her maximum publicity and the most $$$. There were plenty of others apparently not worth the effort to pursue.

I think PA would be considered relatively poor by Epstein standards. However VG has sued, and named and shamed, Epstein, maxwell and Alan Dershowitz, off the top of my head.

Crudd99 · 02/04/2025 20:43

lizzyBennet08 · 02/04/2025 18:33

Agree with below. He was a handsome privileged wealthy prince of England . It’s certainly possible he knew her story but it’s also possible given his status that he thought she was just another groupie keen to sleep with a Royal. Don’t think we will ever know for sure as both are plausible and there is not proof either way.

I think the fact he paid her is proof , you don't pay someone if you have never met them or done anything. I've never met him , the majority of the British public have never met him why hasnt he paid us? There's a reason her paid her.

Crudd99 · 02/04/2025 20:48

pollyglot · 02/04/2025 19:16

Interesting the Virginia chose to name and shame the one man that would give her maximum publicity and the most $$$. There were plenty of others apparently not worth the effort to pursue.

Maybe she was afraid of the others? Epstien dying conviently in prison showed that anyone can be gotten to. PA is so well known they wouldn't dare touch her with his name involved. Like when witnesses go to the press to protect themselves.

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 02/04/2025 20:51

Crudd99 · 02/04/2025 20:43

I think the fact he paid her is proof , you don't pay someone if you have never met them or done anything. I've never met him , the majority of the British public have never met him why hasnt he paid us? There's a reason her paid her.

Show quote history

Don't be daft! He couldn't prove he hadn't met her. His name was mud. It is NOT proof. That's how the law operates.

The reason he paid her was to make the case go away. It would have cost more to fight it and drawn further attention to his private life. It's a simple concept. I think his expensive lawyers will know more about this than you do.

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 02/04/2025 20:52

Bingbopboomboomboombopbam · 02/04/2025 18:43

@wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting if so he could easily have said he takes photos with several “help”, as evidenced by [shows multiple photos with different help across the years]

We don't know what he would or wouldn't have said. He was never cross-examined.

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 02/04/2025 20:55

AquaPeer · 02/04/2025 19:32

I think PA would be considered relatively poor by Epstein standards. However VG has sued, and named and shamed, Epstein, maxwell and Alan Dershowitz, off the top of my head.

Show quote history

Yes and she had to admit that she was mistaken about Dershowitz. Didn't do a lot for her credibility!

Crudd99 · 02/04/2025 20:57

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 02/04/2025 18:36

You can believe all you want. Everyone can. Without evidence, it matters not one damn what you or anyone else thinks. Would have been the same if he lived on a council estate. No evidence, no crime!

Show quote history

Yes because the rich and powerful have never paid,manipulated , used their positions and status to make evidence disappear or smear their victims have they ? Shows the type of person being friends with a known pedophile and defending them. And as you say it doesn't matter what we think because they'll never face justice because they're rich and powerful. Makes me sick.

Amberlynnswashcloth · 02/04/2025 20:59

From Sky news:

"Ms Giuffre, who lives in Australia, has been charged with breaching a family violence restraining order in Ocean Reef, near Perth, on 2 February, Western Australia (WA) Courts said"

I wonder if this is why she's reported as being "estranged" from her husband and children?

Crudd99 · 02/04/2025 21:01

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 02/04/2025 20:51

Don't be daft! He couldn't prove he hadn't met her. His name was mud. It is NOT proof. That's how the law operates.

The reason he paid her was to make the case go away. It would have cost more to fight it and drawn further attention to his private life. It's a simple concept. I think his expensive lawyers will know more about this than you do.

Edited
Show quote history

You believe what you want. You're being daft believing he's innocent, and expensive lawyers make the most money defending the guilty. What's to stop other people he's never met getting paid from him? Oh yes the fact they've got nothing on him. She did. That's why he paid.

Zone2NorthLondon · 02/04/2025 21:02

VG is a vulnerable adult who was assaulted,raped,and trafficked in adolescence. Discredited by the perpetrators and derided online. Teams of lawyers and PR tasked with discrediting her. Her account of trauma picked apart That’ll impact her judgment,behaviour,how she presents herself and she will have a pattern of poor decision making and actions that others find hard to understand

#BeKind isn’t just a hashtag, it’s an acknowledgement that vulnerable adults who have experienced trauma can have a complicated presentation and sometimes poor judgment

Direct your derision to the rich who exploit young women and then employ armies of lawyers and PR to discredit the accusers

Bingbopboomboomboombopbam · 02/04/2025 21:06

wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting · 02/04/2025 20:52

We don't know what he would or wouldn't have said. He was never cross-examined.

Show quote history

But he sure as hell decided it was a good idea to sit and yap on that ridiculous BBC interview. He could easily have brought the “I take photos with every other commoner” defence on board if he wanted to show how innocent he was that badly.

But well, it obviously worked well enough in his favour.