Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think that Buckingham Palace SHOULDN'T have named Prince Andrew's accuser?

218 replies

aermingers · 03/01/2015 23:39

I've just heard on the news that Buckingham Palace has named the person who has accused Prince Andrew of sex crimes against her. I can't find any confirmation online. But is it just me who thinks this is deeply wrong? Okay it may be technically legal because she's making the allegations in the US - but surely as potentially the victim of a sex crime they should have the decency not to name her? I'm really shocked, it just smacks of malice. And they can't even be certain she's not telling the truth.

OP posts:
BoneyBackJefferson · 04/01/2015 11:57

"Not to mention that if it happened at all it wouldn't have been like picking someone up in a bar, but more like picking from a menu."

The woman in the papers has said that the "clients" didn't know that she was being coerced or being paid to entertain them.

so they wouldn't have "picked" anything

diddl · 04/01/2015 12:09

"I don't think Andrew faces any penalty except disgust and ridicule."

I agree.

They seem to have no sense!

i can't for the life of me imagine why he'd even have his pic taken with his arm around a very young girl tbh.

Then again I don't really get why William & Harry are friends with Guy Pelly.

CocobearSqueeze · 04/01/2015 12:15

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Viviennemary · 04/01/2015 12:15

Why can't she be named if she's made the accusations. But from what I understand her name appears in the legal paperwork. So perhaps that isn't confidential.

hackmum · 04/01/2015 12:20

limited: "I wonder how this distressing fate could have befallen such an intelligent man who scrupulously insists on paying his way at all times and is very careful not to get involved with dodgy characters."

Perfect. Smile

hackmum · 04/01/2015 12:21

CocobearSqueeze: "Really? What if Prince Andrew is innocent? Surely he shouldn't have been named until proven guilty - or am I missing something?"

He's not actually being prosecuted for anything - he's been named in court papers, and a different set of legal rules apply to them.

Primadonnagirl · 04/01/2015 12:24

She says she was 15 when it first happened not 17.

Mintyy · 04/01/2015 12:27

Wish people would get their facts right before posting threads like this.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 04/01/2015 12:30

In the UK AFAIK having sex with someone who is a victim of trafficking is illegal and not knowing that they have been trafficked is no defence.

If she was coerced / controlled then this is much more involved than just was she / wasn't she over 16. In UK you have to be over 18 to be a prostitute also I think.

There may well be similar laws in the other locations that she is saying she was coerced into / forced to have sex.

So not as straightforward as a man had sex with a 17yo so nothing to see here type thing.

cupofsneeze · 04/01/2015 12:52

I thought the reason this has been made public was because the 40 victims who claim to have been trafficked around the world for sex were sold out when it came to court because Epstein was given a ridiculously lenient plea bargain deal that none of them were consulted about.

Yet another group of alleged victims neatly packed away with minimal damage to the accused.

Prince Andrew doesnt have criminal charges laid at his door, he's just Collateral damage in someone elses court case.

Its all incredibly grim.

PhaedraIsMyName · 04/01/2015 14:04

Re the lenient plea bargain it might possibly have been agreed because putting her in the witness box might not have resulted in a prosecution.

She seems to have met Epstein when she worked at some fancy resort where her father also worked. Whilst her story was reported in the Daily Mail and therefore not reliable, it seems a million miles away from horrors like Rotherham. I don't think it would have been difficult for the defence to portray it as someone living the high life with plenty of opportunities to walk away.

The prosecution may well have thought we'll get him for what we can.

BackOnlyBriefly · 04/01/2015 14:18

The business of naming people is complicated legally and morally.

I'd say don't name accuser or accused until after the court case, but that won't work unless it goes to court in a fortnight. These days a case can be stretched out for decades so you're never know what was happening.

I find the statement by Buckingham Palace annoying because I don't see how they can know. Who is actually speaking? is that meant to be the Queen's opinion or their PR dept?

If Andrew says "I didn't do it" that is fair enough because he knows if he did or not, but no one else knows that.

I don't like any hint that it's official and settled because they said so.

Inkanta · 04/01/2015 14:45

"i can't for the life of me imagine why he'd even have his pic taken with his arm around a very young girl tbh"

No I can't either. I have a 17 year old and no way would her dad (DH) put his arm round her friends' bare mid-drift for a photo!

Unethical.

PhaedraIsMyName · 04/01/2015 14:52

Virginia Roberts is also quoted as saying the photograph of her with Andrew was taken because she wanted to show to her mother she'd met a prince. How do you think that would have played out in court?

cupofsneeze · 04/01/2015 14:58

Isnt the whole point of grooming children to totally distort the reality of what is happening and how wrong it is?

A smiling photo means nothing when you take into account how many DC are abused by close relatives and yet photos show them all smiling together at past events.

VikingVolva · 04/01/2015 14:59

If I'm looking at the same pic, he's not touching bare flesh in any sexual way, nor is is a sexy photo in any way. It's a line up where he has an arm round someone whose T shirt (not even a crop) hangs to about 1inch above ordinary just-below-natural-waist jeans.

Clawdy · 04/01/2015 15:02

Primadonna all the reports I read say she was 17? But that the age of consent in that state was 18,so she was legally under-age.

ReallyTired · 04/01/2015 15:15

"She says she was 15 when it first happened not 17."

Virgina was abused by Epstein at the age of 15. She didn't meet Prince Andrew until she was 17.

I believe that Virgina has been a victim of appauling sexual abuse as a young child. She was later groomed just like the girls in Rotherham partly because herself esteem was so low.

I am glad that there is no plea bargaining in the UK.

limitedperiodonly · 04/01/2015 15:43

Whilst her story was reported in the Daily Mail and therefore not reliable, it seems a million miles away from horrors like Rotherham.

Does it? I don't think so. It seems like same shit, just different geography to me.

And while you might not like Associated Newspapers, and I might not either btw, read the MoS article, if you can bear it Hmm. It looks rock solid to me.

I agree with you that a jury might decide that a teenager in the orbit of a fabulously wealthy older man who swore he just wanted to give a leg up to a young person, in this case a girl whose dream was being a masseuse, was a nasty liar just out to traduce him for what she could get.

Look at Michael Jackson.

I wouldn't have hired him as a babysitter but plenty would because he was rich and famous.

PhaedraIsMyName · 04/01/2015 15:47

I am glad that there is no plea bargaining in the UK.

It's not called that but the Crown will accept a plea to a lesser charge if they think they cannot prove a more serious charge.

PhaedraIsMyName · 04/01/2015 15:49

I did read the Mail on Sunday article. That's why I said I thought the defence could rip to shreds the idea of her being forced and coerced.

limitedperiodonly · 04/01/2015 15:57

It's not called that but the Crown will accept a plea to a lesser charge if they think they cannot prove a more serious charge.

I agree, and sometimes they just drop the whole thing, which is plea bargaining in all but name.

As regards the MoS article and the proceedings it is based on. Who are the defence and in what way could they rip it to shreds?

MythicalKings · 04/01/2015 16:16

It's a civil case, not criminal.

limitedperiodonly · 04/01/2015 16:34

So there's no defence team, mythicalkings?

I took it that it was a civil case in Florida for damages against Jeffery Epstein and the Duke of York and Ghislaine Maxwell were mentioned in preliminary evidence.

Seems reasonable to me. They can always respond if they feel inclined.

In fact, I'd think that if they did feel inclined they'd be busy building a proper rebuttal rather than scurrying out muddled press statements.

I notice Ghislaine Maxwell hasn't commented even though her phone must have been red hot. Perhaps she and her lawyers aren't as doltish as Andrew's.

MythicalKings · 04/01/2015 16:42

I'll repeat what I said earlier on this thread-

"I heard on the radio yesterday an interview with Alan Dershowitz who is looking at taking legal action against her and her lawyers. He said she also claims to have had sex with Bill Clinton and it can be easily proven he was elsewhere at the time.

"If she lied about that how can anything else she says be believed?" is his question."