Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - you have blood on your hands

Still bollocks. It's been explained enough times on the thread, check back.

How exactly was he going to "clear his name definitively"?? She said he did it, he said he didn't. Evidence???

You can say that again!!

He has access to the best lawyers in the world. He could’ve cleared his name definitively and left it at that. He paid her off instead.

Have any of the men who had sex with trafficked girls, organised by Epstein, ever seen the inside of a court?

Afaik the only people ever charged have been Epstein and Maxwell. None of the punters. Or am I wrong?

Bullshit. It happens all the time. You just don't understand settlements.

Nobody is saying "give Andrew the benefit of the doubt"???

I despair.

Yes, she was 17, still basically a child.
She was groomed by Epstein and Maxwell, and had access to riches beyond her imagination.
Her parents - well they were dire. How many of us would let their 17 year fly off on private jets and spend time in mansions with older men? But they did.
Obviously she couldn't just "walk away" - groomed children often can't.
Anyone arguing with any of those points just doesn't have a clue.

HOWEVER, none of that means that the blame all rests with Andrew! Epstein and Maxwell have barely been criticised! If it hadn't been for them, Virginia would never have met Andrew! But no, blame the stupid, arrogant royal because of your hatred for the royal family! That's what a lot of this boils down to, and why you condemn him out of hand for something that we just don't know whether he's guilty of!

By all means, condemn him for the things we know that he's done, there's quite enough of them!

Because you don’t pay someone off if you’re innocent.

You make an extremely important here re: the head of state further injuring a victim of sex trafficking in order to protect one of their own ‘firm’

Why? It was a pragmatic decision?

I don't need your rudeness either, and it's persistent. I am sick of it at this point.

That's not what my post says at all - it's what you want it to say! I don't want your "explanations" - I am not interested! It's your failure to comprehend here that is the issue.

You're bemoaning the awfulness of being trafficked - which it absolutely and unequivocably is! - but denying the reasonable assumption that the reality is that she was forced to sleep with a lot of men! I don't know if she ever put a figure on it. It's totally unreasonable to blame everything she suffered on one man!

I don't have "faux concern" tbh - I don't have any concern. I'm laughing at the sheer ridiculousness.

Nobody is saying that

They quite clearly did.

Nobody is saying that. It could be playing golf for all we know. It's the fact he lied about cutting contact when court papers have proved otherwise . He kept up contact and probably imagined it would all blow over

You edited your post - I was replying to;

Its still not 'breaking all contact' though. Which is what he said he did.

There are so many people involved- evidence always comes out. VD had every opportunity to release everything she had.

Pressed send too soon - corresponding/chatting can be viewed in terms of 'playing' I think.

I agree but that's not the point I was making.

Its still not 'breaking all contact' though. Which is what he said he did. What can he 'play' if not face to face? Online chess? The man has the intelligence of an amoeba.

'play some more soon' could also refer to another exchange of emails/correspondence in the near future rather than planning a face to face meeting.

There will never, ever be that evidence though, because Andrew will never see the inside of a court, even as a witness. He gets that privilege because he is a member of the Royal Family, and the establishment will go to the ends of the earth to protect them.

Doesnt sound much like anyone who had the slightest intention of cutting contact. Even if he just wanted an innocent round of golf with a convicted sex offender, that makes him a liar. He was so desperate to stay in touch with a sex offender, even though he claimed he was only really friends with the other sex offender, Ghislaine Maxwell, that even after the avalanche of bad publicity and being told to cease all contact with Epstein, he went round to his house, stayed for a week, didn't put 2 and 2 together about the convictions for sex trafficking, the young girls hanging around the house and the pictures of naked very young girls on the walls, went home to his own teenage daughters, then sat down and wrote an email to Epstein asking him to 'keep in touch'? If he was even remotely a decent person in any sense of the word, he would have at the very least decided Epstein wasn't the type of person he wanted to be friends with. Are we really meant to be looking up to a family who can produce people so monumentally ignorant, naive and easily manipulated, at best?

In my mind I am not trying to exonerate him at all, I just want some verifiable evidence to base my views on rather than conjecture and innuendo. So far I’ve not seen anything to suggest he even knew what was going on. He was a ‘useful idiot’ as the saying goes. Naive and easily manipulated.

Well we now know he didn't, because we know he was still in touch with him months later, even trying to organise another meet up to 'play'.

What proof? Their own testimony is hardly proof.

There is evidence, so these are not just assumptions and they are not groundless. VG's statements were evidence if not conclusive; but otoh we all saw at his interview (the stated purpose of which was to enable him to put his case) how flimsy Andrew's position appeared and how shifty and untrustworthy he seemed.

And speaking of assumptions: as I have said upthread, our Head of State no less was happy to make assumptions when Buckingham Palace issued a statement which branded VG as a liar. I don't know why anyone else isn't as ashamed as I am that our establishment was happy to publicly injure a victim of sex trafficking all over again.

The point I am making is that fa ts rather than assumptions have to be the key factors. Assumptions are being made here, and assumptions are not hard evidence.