Talk

Advanced search

To support the Duke of York

(1000 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread.

LadyLanka Sat 16-Nov-19 21:42:01

Just that.
Although he is being asked the wrong questions.

StoneofDestiny Mon 18-Nov-19 16:46:38

Fourthly his ‘friends’ say his fingers are slimmer

Geez - whose friends know the width of your fingers?
Wouldn’t you like to know who his ‘friends’ are 😱

TheMidasTouch Mon 18-Nov-19 16:42:43

@CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook

"Off point. Why is Rohan Silva choosing to talk now about something that was allegedly said in 2012?"
Jumping on the bandwagon. To kick a dog when it's down? Just likes to be part of the lynch mob mentality? I think that as he reckons 2 comments were made, one followed by a further one year later, he should have opened his mouth and said something at the time if he was that offended.

Is there evidence these things were said? If so, he should have complained at the time. If not he should not be raising it now.

mbosnz Mon 18-Nov-19 16:41:36

It is in today's newspapers that he regrets not expressing sympathy for Epstein's victims.

I bet he bloody does. Idiot.

He has shown what matters to him, alright - and it's not the victims of paedophiles and human traffickers.

Better late than never? Not so much.

Way too little, way too late? Definitely.

Doubleraspberry Mon 18-Nov-19 16:39:39

The photo is hugely problematic for him. First, he is claiming it’s a fake but can’t prove it. Second, he claims it can’t be him because he never wears clothes like that - much proof to the contrary. Thirdly he claims it can’t be him because he doesn’t hug people in photos - much proof to the contrary. Fourthly his ‘friends’ say his fingers are slimmer - other photos suggest not. Fifthly he claims the photo is taken in a place he’s never been but immediately identifies (and a place it is unlikely he has never been). So from this one denial a whole stream of untruths flows, setting him up as a deeply unreliable person who will tell multiple lies.

MockersthefeMANist Mon 18-Nov-19 16:38:42

And although one may find it reprehensible for a man of his age to sleep with a girl of 17, the girl in question was of the age of consent.

But it was an offence even in 2001 to traffic a woman under the age of 18 into the UK for the purposes of prostituton. Not an offence for HRH, but his pal Ghilaisne Maxwell, who is is still in contact with despite her effectively being a fugitive from justice.

TheMidasTouch Mon 18-Nov-19 16:32:56

@ Gin96

"The fact he never apologised for associating with a known convicted sex offender speaks volumes. The British public will not forgive him. He has now shown the whole world that the royal family condone this disgusting behaviour. He has failed as a human being."
He should have apologised for associating with a known sex offender for visiting him in December 2010. However, there is no proof that he was aware before 2008, when Epstein was convicted, of Epstein's crimes.
He has not shown the whole world that the RF condone this disgusting behaviour at all. It is in today's newspapers that he regrets not expressing sympathy for Epstein's victims. The RF believe him 100% and, bearing in mind that they will know the kind of language and terminology he uses (which is probably alien to many of us) they are probably better placed to judge from his demeanour and manner, along with his detailed diaries, whether he is being truthful or not.

Do you really believe the Queen or Camilla or Anne or Fergie or Beatrice or Eugenie or Kate or Camilla or Sophie would condone Epstein's behaviour? Epstein attended a big birthday party they all attended. They are probably shocked and horrified by Epstein's behaviour. They have probably questioned whether there was anything they could have picked up on.

I know there are plenty of people on here who would like the Royal Family to be abolished but they are still human, like us, with the same feelings. This must be an horrendous situation for them too, to have their characters slurred by association. They aren't allowed to just speak out like we can but that doesn't mean they aren't disgusted with Epstein's behaviour.

In his interview with EM, PA probably was thinking of himself and, assuming his innocence, I think I would be too in his situation. I'd be worried about my reputation. I dont think he can be blamed for that.

He isn't immune from prosecution and I think it probably is appropriate for him to be officially questioned by those investigating Epstein.

churchandstate Mon 18-Nov-19 16:26:27

But there is evidence to suggest he is lying, and no definitive way it seems for him to prove that he is not. Just one way in which his defence is less than stellar.

I agree. The photograph is solid evidence that they met, and he would have to discredit it (for me) with some more concrete evidence than “It’s fake”.

But with that said, a meeting isn’t a rape. Look at the possibilities here:

A. They didn’t meet and the photograph is a fake.
B. They did meet and PA knows this and is lying (see D-F).
C. They did meet and PA genuinely doesn’t remember.
D. They did meet, he’s lying and he went on to have sex with her when she was underage in the countries in which that happened.
E. They did meet, he’s lying and he went on to have sex with her when she was of age in the countries in which that happened.
F. They did meet, he’s lying and he never laid a finger on her.

I don’t know.

mbosnz Mon 18-Nov-19 16:25:49

I think that if there is a little book of sayings, there will be a photo of Andrew next to the one 'better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's arrogant gob mouth and remove all doubt'. . .

Doubleraspberry Mon 18-Nov-19 16:21:38

And inconclusive means not demonstrable.

I know exactly what inconclusive means. I was wrong to demonstrable, you are right. But there is evidence to suggest he is lying, and no definitive way it seems for him to prove that he is not. Just one way in which his defence is less than stellar.

churchandstate Mon 18-Nov-19 16:15:42

mbosnz

Thank you. I agree with you.

mbosnz Mon 18-Nov-19 16:11:17

I see where churchandstate is coming from. She is saying that there is reasonable doubt, (I'm not going to dignify aliens and body doubles as 'reasonable' doubt though!), and potentially if a criminal case were brought to bear, it would be possible for the defence to adduce sufficient questions as to have him not proven guilty. Beyond all reasonable doubt is a very high threshold, and it's for the prosecution to prove their case to that threshold, not for the defence to prove their innocence.

However, in giving that interview, Andrew volunteered to be judged in a very different court. That of public opinion. Where people don't have to base their judgment on what is presented on the basis of him having been proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, but on what they feel is the most likely story.

Given this absolute trainwreck of an interview, how absolutely tone deaf he was, seemingly incapable of seeing how he was going to be coming across, I think Andrew is most likely absolutely confused and appalled at how he is being judged in this particular court. I really do think, he thought that as he is soooo honourable, and he is deigning to respond, he would be taken at his word and everything he said would be taken at face value, without question.

Twat.

churchandstate Mon 18-Nov-19 16:07:34

Which has been proved to be a demonstrable lie. I know, there are feeble claims that the photo is fake, but tests have apparently proved ‘inconclusive’.

And inconclusive means not demonstrable. Glaring contradiction. I don’t think the photograph is faked, but it’s not a fact that it’s real.

churchandstate Mon 18-Nov-19 16:06:39

spanglydangly

It ISN’T dismissing her. Saying I don’t know whether what she is saying is true is categorically not the same as saying I think it isn’t true. Do you get that?

spanglydangly Mon 18-Nov-19 16:05:08

@churchandstate

The same absence of logic here. That version of events hasn’t been claimed by me. It has been used to illustrate the point that we don’t have all the information needed to declare Virginia Roberts’ version as a ‘fact’. Sarcastic comments about aliens - as funny as some people seem to find them - are completely futile in refuting my argument that the facts may be other than how they have been presented.

This is dismissing her!

If it were your daughter raped by PA, you would t be calling for mistaken identity either. You'd be saying like any sane person, he's well known he's easily identifiable and given he was close enough to have raped her she might just know that it wasn't a lookalike!

Doubleraspberry Mon 18-Nov-19 16:04:42

given that Prince Andrew’s claim is that he never met her.

Which has been proved to be a demonstrable lie. I know, there are feeble claims that the photo is fake, but tests have apparently proved ‘inconclusive’.

CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook Mon 18-Nov-19 16:02:48

Off point. Why is Rohan Silva choosing to talk now about something that was allegedly said in 2012?

churchandstate Mon 18-Nov-19 15:52:50

spanglydangly

You can’t explain how or when I have dismissed her claims, can you? Because I haven’t.

spanglydangly Mon 18-Nov-19 15:50:37

@churchandstate carry on with your hours of but, but, but it might not be him!

You've clearly got a lot of spare time on your hands and similar morals to PA.

👋

churchandstate Mon 18-Nov-19 15:47:19

spanglydangly

I have not dismissed her claims.

churchandstate Mon 18-Nov-19 15:46:40

The last thing they would want to do, for example, is suggest that Virginia might have been drugged, because then the accused becomes a man who hangs out with a man who may control young girls with drugs. It’s far, far more likely they will say she was lying. Pretty easy to find witnesses to whether Epstein stripped his home when PA came to stay, less easy to find one who was in the room with PA and VR. A defence has to be plausible.

I’m not sure I agree with that. If Virginia Roberts and the other girls have already claimed that drugs were involved, it becomes a defence of unreliability. That could be powerful, given that Prince Andrew’s claim is that he never met her. As a defence lawyer, I would want to know how she can be so sure it was him. And I suspect any lawyer would probe that.

spanglydangly Mon 18-Nov-19 15:46:14

@churchandstate whilst I don't have the endless hours that you do to defend VR as you have for defending PA, you've dismissed her claims...

Let's see what happens over the next few weeks and months?

CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook Mon 18-Nov-19 15:44:01

And although one may find it reprehensible for a man of his age to sleep with a girl of 17, the girl in question was of the age of consent. So in RL life at best you'd be hmm.

The issue is that she may not in fact have consented, and whether PA knew she was being effectively pimped out against her will. Whether there's more, time will tell.

TheMidasTouch Mon 18-Nov-19 15:43:43

Those photos have no relevance whatsoever. All they show is PA sunbathed on a boat with JE, another man and at lease 3 topless women.

Doubleraspberry Mon 18-Nov-19 15:43:25

churchandstate I get that you’re playing devil’s advocate here (and how appropriate in this case). But part of that role is to be challenged and by describing all challenge you’ve received on here as emotive nonsense (or whatever phrase you used) you discredit yourself in the process.

Much of what you’ve said is technically possible, if so unlikely that I think it wouldn’t get wheeled out by the defence. The last thing they would want to do, for example, is suggest that Virginia might have been drugged, because then the accused becomes a man who hangs out with a man who may control young girls with drugs. It’s far, far more likely they will say she was lying. Pretty easy to find witnesses to whether Epstein stripped his home when PA came to stay, less easy to find one who was in the room with PA and VR. A defence has to be plausible.

I would be astonished if PA could hold out his current position under genuine questioning though, rather than a media interview. How long some of his claims would stand if properly investigated. The sweating, for example. The fact that he’s apparently never been upstairs in Maxwell’s house yet immediately identified the setting of the photo there. There are holes everywhere you look. A police detective friend of mine said this morning that PA would be God’s gift to an interrogator. If the denial is so weak, looking for additional ways to discredit the accusation feels a little unnecessary, until perhaps his story can be proved a little more robust.

Gin96 Mon 18-Nov-19 15:40:49

The fact he never apologised for associating with a known convicted sex offender speaks volumes. The British public will not forgive him. He has now shown the whole world that the royal family condone this disgusting behaviour. He has failed as a human being.

This thread is not accepting new messages.