What is Ms Roberts-Giuffre really

on about? You know who I mean I am sure - the woman alleging she was sexually assaulted three times by a certain member of the Firm.

I have no idea whether she is telling the truth or not but there are some things which seem a little unusual. 

If the evidence is there then why isn't this matter being pursued in a criminal court?  The matter could be pursued in more than one jurisdiction but no charges have been laid by the police. This is despite the fact that charges have been laid against other people. 

In a criminal court of course the level of proof has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". In a civil court the level of proof is much lower being "on the balance of probabilities". Law enforcement agencies clearly do not believe they would have a case. And no, it would not matter who was involved, if it was serious enough they would pursue it.  The only person above the law is the Queen  because ultimately she is the law - for which reason she would never knowingly break the law.  

Then there is the question of what this is all costing. Who is paying for it? It is a very expensive business to bring this sort of case before the courts. I doubt that the law firm involved with Ms Giuffre is doing it pro-bono. They would already have demanded some payment. Is Ms Giuffre paying for this herself? Is her husband paying for it? She says it is not about money and she doesn't want to accept a "settlement" so what does she want? Is she really prepared to pay out millions of dollars in order to pursue a civil case she could lose - or is someone else financing this? If someone else is financing it then why are they doing it? 

I was prompted to write this because it came up in discussion in a (Zoom) meeting about another situation. I am involved because I am providing communication support for the victim. Yes I can say victim this time because the physical evidence is there and the perpetrator has admitted the act. Everyone in the meeting agreed that most people they have known in similar situations would not want to publicise what had happened to them. They would be more than happy to accept reasonable financial compensation. Imprisonment? Yes, if it could be done. They don't want their names and exploits displayed around the world. And yes, the Prince is an idiot to have  been involved with Epstein and his security detail not to have done more to prevent it.

And then someone else asked, "But what was a girl of the age she was then doing in that situation in the first place? How did she get there? What were her parents doing?"

For once this was not about "victim blaming" but rather a genuine query.  Everyone at the meeting is all too well aware that the victim is often the one who is held responsible in the court of public opinion. "If she is going to dress that way...." and "If she behaves like that...." and, "Well if she is stupid enough...." or  "Walking around like that on her own after dark...."  That sort of thing is so offensive I cannot begin to describe how I feel and I know others feel the same way. 

But what was allegedly going on here is not quite the same. How does a young girl get involved in something like this? It isn't like a group of teens doing something while high on drugs or alcohol and then getting pressured by their peers or emotions running high between a young couple who think they are "in love".  It isn't like the vile opportunistic act on a random young stranger. This is alleged to have occurred three times and in three different locations. 

I think the questions about motivation, payment, and parental responsibility are all reasonable in this instance.