https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59857168

<quotes>

An agreement between Virginia Giuffre and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which could be key to a civil case involving the Duke of York, is to be made public for the first time later.

Prince Andrew's lawyers believe the agreement "releases Prince Andrew and others from any purported liability arising from the claims Ms Giuffre asserted against Prince Andrew here".

</quotes>

If the agreement does get the Pervy Prince off the hook it will prove to have been money well paid.

Avoiding justice, by buying their way out of it, is a luxury rich and elite criminals have which others don't.

On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 13:46:28 +0000
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59857168
: > An agreement between Virginia Giuffre and sex offender Jeffrey
> Epstein, which could be key to a civil case involving the Duke of
> York, is to be made public for the first time later.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

<quotes>

Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a 2009 damages settlement against the sex offender shows.

The document, disclosed by a New York court, reveals the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.

</quotes>

I imagine there are going to be some in-depth legal arguments as to whether her settling with Epstein prohibits her bringing a claim against the Pervy Prince. His lawyers will be insisting it does, but hers will be claiming it doesn't, that it is separate perviness to what Epstein settled over and the Pervy Prince is accused of.

"Potential defendants"

It is hard to see how the Pervy Prince or anyone else could potentially have been a defendant in a case solely against Epstein. I would have taken that to be limited to other Epstein related companies, closing vectors for a second bite of the cherry.

"First Parties and Second Parties agree that the terms of this Settlement Agreement are not intended to be used by any other person nor be admissible in any proceeding or case against or involving Jeffrey Epstein, either civil or criminal".

That could be a killer because it pretty much says the Pervy Prince cannot use that settlement as the basis of a claim that it has been settled.

It would be rather odd that a document which declared itself inadmissible would be admissible.

I suspect the Pervy Prince will think he's "nailed it" again if he gets off on this technicality. He may be in for a bit of a surprise when the public verdict is exactly that; guilty as hell but got off on a technicality.