You said "Facts are awkward things" but none of your questions are facts.
But the facts I presented earlier are, and I haven't seen anyone addressing them.
A civil action is about money. Did she ever said she wouldn't accept a settlement, can you provide a source for it? As I understand it she said it was not purely about money, she wanted him to acknowledge that she was a victim, which he did (praising her courage for coming forward etc.) as well as paying her a lot of money.
You have somehow concluded that he agreed to testify?
'Prince Andrew to testify over sexual assault trial in London.'
Prince Andrew will meet lawyers representing his accuser Virginia Giuffre in London in March and testify under oath, a source close to the Duke of York told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Saturday.
The
Duke of York, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, faces a United States civil case for sexual assault, embarrassing the royal family as his 95-year-old mother is about to celebrate her 70th year as monarch.
"We agreed to voluntarily produce the Duke for a deposition on March 10," a source close to the Duke said.
This means the prince will give sworn testimony in response to questions from Giuffre's lawyers.
...The prince has not been criminally charged and has strenuously denied the allegations.
He is seeking a jury trial.
He did everything possible to avoid testifying
After seeking to have the case dismissed (which failed), he literally agreed to testify, and sought a jury trial. I don't think that qualifies as 'everything possible to avoid testifying.'
You think she has done something wrong in accepting a settlement
No I don't, and I never even implied that. But it was certainly a sharp turnaround from her original position, where she said she wanted Andrew to testify in court, and insisted that she would seek damages
'in an amount to be determined at trial.' I can only assume that she subsequently decided £12 million was sufficient restitution, and there was no need to risk a trial.
Why didn't she testify at Epstein's trial? You mean the one in 2008
Yes.
where the prosecutor did some dodgy deal?
That's not what happened. The prosecution wanted a conviction, and they got one. The dodgy deal was done by Barry Krischer, the South Florida US Attorney.
He nerfed the case by working closely with Epstein's lawyers, and treating the victims as prostitutes instead of victims of sexual assault. He also chose to call only one victim as a witness. This contrasted with Maxwell's trial, where more than one witness was called—but again, Virginia Giuffre was not one of them.
Despite her many claims, Giuffre has never been called upon to testify in a criminal trial against Epstein, Maxwell, or Andrew, which is difficult to explain unless she doesn't really have a strong case.
Why not ask the prosecutor for not calling her? The same for Maxwell's trial, she wasn't called. A person can't just turn up to testify at trial.
A person can go to the authorities, make a formal statement, and present evidence showing why they should be called. When that happens, the authorities will call upon them unless they consider the statement and/or evidence to be lacking. This is literally how people get their abusers into court.
I keep an open mind on the whole case; I think it's possible that Andrew is guilty. But to date I have seen no evidence that he is, and it seems the police agree with that assessment because he's never been charged.
In the meantime, I stand by my assertion that the mythical 'Epstein client list' does not exist, and never did.
