Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

VG/Prince Andrew - to say I wasn’t sure before but I believe her

999 replies

churchandstate · 03/12/2019 07:05

I posted in a thread after the Prince Andrew interview, and although I didn’t believe him about everything he said, I wasn’t wholly convinced at that time that he was lying about sleeping with young girls, about seeing things in Epstein’s houses that should have repelled him, about having sex with Virginia Roberts in particular. I just didn’t think there was certainty to be had.

I am convinced now. I believed every word she was allowed to say last night and I am only sad they didn’t give her more air time. Prince Andrew has very serious questions to answer.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
doublebarrellednurse · 03/12/2019 12:23

*But all this trial by rumour/tv is abhorrent. It’s like watching a witch trial.He may be foolish, out of touch, guilty or innocent but he’s entitled to a fair legal process just the same as the rest of us.'
*
Do you really think the Royal family are subject to fair trials?

Fairness goes both ways.

Butchyrestingface · 03/12/2019 12:23

But all this trial by rumour/tv is abhorrent. It’s like watching a witch trial.He may be foolish, out of touch, guilty or innocent but he’s entitled to a fair legal process just the same as the rest of us.'

I totally agree. That’ll teach him. He should have done one of two things:

  1. ZIP IT (his mouth, that is. The horse had long bolted on keeping his flies zipped)

OR (better yet)

  1. Agree to fly to the US and put himself at the disposal of the FBI, alleged victims lawyers, etc.

But, oh no, not him...

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 03/12/2019 12:24

Virginia Roberts's account is overwhelmingly more convincing than Windsor's decidedly flimsy performance. She has reported this issue before, some time ago. The fact that one of the stated grounds on which the FLA judge threw out her evidence was ‘impertinence’ speaks quite loudly, considering that the establishment is generally protected by the establishment. And evidence she has indeed provided: the photographic record, email trails, flight accounts – even his flight accounts placing him in her immediate vicinity on the crucial three occasions – fellow-witness testimony and five other women wanting him subpoenaed. All this evidence places Roberts where she claims she was, with whom she said she was, involved in the activities she described herself as doing. And quite frankly, grasping at the straw that the photograph might be ‘doctored’ shrieks of desperation. What else did Windsor produce? Nothing I can see but a whole lot of fudging and a selective memory.

missyoumuch · 03/12/2019 12:24

Something important to point out as I lived in America for many years. PA is not famous in America. People know the Queen, Charles, William and Harry and their spouses. Even Prince Philip wouldn’t be particular recognised. So the idea that an American (who later moved to Australia) would randomly name PA as having abused her is quite difficult to believe. She also named a former US governor - again not someone majorly famous but in the circles of power.

And yet there are photos of her at Naomi Campbell’s birthday party where there were surely genuinely celebrities in attendance. Why didn’t she claim any of them abused her? Why insist it was some minor politician and a minor royal if she’s just after cash and fame?

I believe her and have done so since her allegations were first made public.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 03/12/2019 12:25

He has extensive protection against a ‘fair trial’ making a total mockery of the concept

Precisely, Laurie - and I suspect this is what makes folk gnash their teeth more than anything else. It's bad enough when trashy businessmen and politicians do it, but to see it from a family we're expected to revere (and who are accountable to no one and can't be removed from their positions) all seems a bit much

Sagradafamiliar · 03/12/2019 12:28

I've felt genuinely sickened by many of the posts here. You really do realise how deep-rooted misogyny is.

And I hope Virginia kept every penny of that money. Not only is it her money, and who is anyone to tell someone how to spend it, but she is a victim. I'm sick and tired of people thinking victims somehow owe something to other victims, rather than the amoral sexual fucking deviants who ruin lives.

Rainbunny · 03/12/2019 12:28

It's depressingly predictable that some people here are choosing to disbelieve VG because she doesn't present victim-like enough for them. She's in her thirties now and she's been talking about her abuse for twenty years, of course she sounds rehearsed and practised, that's a natural result of having to repeat the same facts over and over again. It's a common problem for prosecutors when a crime victim testifies in court. If the victim appears too calm and collected jurists develop an unconscious bias against them, when in reality the victim has learned to dissociate themselves from the things that were done to them to survive emotionally.

The facts support her side far more than Andrews in any case. The photo is almost certainly legitimate, it's ridiculous to deny that really. Flight logs & Andrews public diary have confirmed that Andrew and VG were in the same locations on the three occasions she said she was forced to have sex with him. There are other witnesses as well who confirm that Andrew was in these places. Even if people choose to believe Andrew's denials (why some people think "RandyAndy" was incapable of having sex with a beautiful young woman offered up to him on a plate I'm not sure...)

At the end of the day Andrew will likely not face any criminal charges but it's still important that daylight is shed on the identities of people who engage in such awful activities. I hope that the trove of materials the police found in his houses see's the light of day. Even more importantly I hope Ghislaine Maxwell comes clean about everything in return for a plea deal.

Bluerussian · 03/12/2019 12:29

Passthecherrycoke, you're right about that, being anonymous just wouldn't work and in a way that is right, if someone makes accusations they should be prepared to go public.

I do think if I'd been in her position, I'd have tried to get some money out of Epstein privately before blowing cover (& before he died of course!) - and if it was sufficient, I would have kept my mouth shut. I read that some people did receive pay offs, maybe Virginia G did too, we'll never know, but she obviously hopes to get a lot more now.

Pumperthepumper · 03/12/2019 12:29

To make hundred of thousands out of allegations that have not yet been proved is not right imo.

I believe she was used and abused by rich older men, we dont know Prince Andrew's exact involvement until someone actually interviews witnesses of whom there must be many.

We know she was sex trafficked. We know she was around Prince Andrew at the time she was being sex trafficked (see photo). We know she was abused.

We know Prince Andrew was friends with JE. We know he stayed friends with JE even after he’d been charged with sex with a minor. We know PA received massages at JE mansions. We know PA’s lifestyle where he hangs about with paedophiles is funded by public money.

Hardly comparable, are they? So why should Virginia be guilt tripped into handing over money? Why shouldn’t she make some money from her abuse?

derxa · 03/12/2019 12:31

Why shouldn’t she make some money from her abuse? That sounds all kinds of wrong tbh

Pumperthepumper · 03/12/2019 12:33

Why? Explain to me why she’s not entitled to that money?

LaurieMarlow · 03/12/2019 12:35

How much money is fair compensation for being trafficked and abused by powerful men?

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 03/12/2019 12:35

To reply to a couple of PP:

First, @WingingItSince1973, I'm so sorry to hear of your traumatic experiences. It's a story which to a certain degree I share.

Quoting a previous post from @newdeer

It can take decades before you are able to reflect on how you were treated when young and work out that it was wrong. To me she speaks like someone who is only just waking up to this, still on rocky ground, in that she half doubts herself.

That's it; exactly. As a victim of child abuse and teenage rape this has been precisely my experience: particularly the child abuse. The earlier this starts, the more it's 'normalized' in the mind of the victim, especially if the perpetrator is a close family member of that child. The realization that 'yes, I was a victim', and even worse, that 'Daddy was a psychopath' - even if you've always known this deep down, comes like a bolt out of the blue when properly faced in later life, and is a shock that can utterly fell a person.

My cPTSD therapist informed me that that overwhelming majority of his clients were between 35 and 65. This is how long it takes to process. The mind simply doesn't let in painful stuff like this when its host is too young and still-vulnerable to handle it. I believe another term for this kind of thing 'boiling frog syndrome'.

And another thing abuse does. It turns off what Mumsnet likes to refer to as the 'spidey-senses'. I could never understand, why as a reasonably intelligent person and skilled communicator, I never got that gut feeling; a self-preservation mechanism that warns you when someone is 'off'. I was positively reckless in the way I responded to people as a consequence, and baffled as to why I was such a poor judge of character. That was explained to me, too. As a child-abuse victim you live in a perpetual state of fear: the fight/flight/freeze mode is more-or-less permanently engaged. So the mind suppresses it, because no one can survive for any duration in that state of unmitigated stress. What the mind can suppress is terrifying and devastating. Now, after 2 years of intensive therapy, my senses are as awake as those of the next person. And when you've never experienced this in your life before, it's extraordinary: powerfully disturbing, but liberating at the same time.

Last point: a PP mentioned that it wasn't VG's interview that convinced her; it was that of Andrew himself. I sympathise with her, but concur that it's he who truly convinced me. He's convicted himself out of his own mouth.

IamPickleRick · 03/12/2019 12:37

missyoumuch agreed. She looks so sad and young in those photos at Naomi Campbell’s birthday as well.

Passthecherrycoke · 03/12/2019 12:45

But all this trial by rumour/tv is abhorrent. It’s like watching a witch trial.He may be foolish, out of touch, guilty or innocent but he’s entitled to a fair legal process just the same as the rest of us

But he isn’t, because he isn’t subject to any legal process. I’m so confused by this coming up again and again- he’s not being accused of a crime. He’s not going to be put on trial. He’s not entitled to a legal process because he doesn’t have a legal case to defend Confused

PippiDeLena · 03/12/2019 12:47

Bluerussian

I do think if I'd been in her position, I'd have tried to get some money out of Epstein privately before blowing cover (& before he died of course!) - and if it was sufficient, I would have kept my mouth shut. I read that some people did receive pay offs, maybe Virginia G did too, we'll never know, but she obviously hopes to get a lot more now.

Maybe, just maybe, and this is going to be a shocking thought for you, money isn't her main motivator in speaking out?

This woman can't win. If she speaks out and accepts money from a newspaper then she's obviously a money grubbing opportunist. If she secretly made a deal with Epstein to be paid off then people would say she blackmailed him. It seems like she didn't follow the 'Perfect Victim' script (she smiled! She accepted money! She is still talking about it all these years later!) So everything she says can be disregarded.

I think VG has been so brave to come forward. Look at all the posts on this thread alone criticising her, questioning how bad her childhood actually was, saying she's lying based on her eye contact (??), why would any woman subject themselves to this?

I'm sickened by some of the responses on this thread.

Passthecherrycoke · 03/12/2019 12:49

I wouldn’t blackmail Epstein. I’d want the cash to bring a civil lawsuit against him which is horrendously expensive and is what she’s been trying to do for years, as well as answer to maxwells lawsuit against her which is again hideously expensive

IamPickleRick · 03/12/2019 12:49

You know what else I’ve just noticed. She’s wearing the same top in the photo with PA as she is at Naomi Campbell’s party. I wonder if that was her “uniform” and could be used to support the veracity/date of the PA photo if he is going to go down the route of forgery.

mummmy2017 · 03/12/2019 12:50

People have said they were happy at the time with things they did in the past, but now looking back they feel they were wrong, at what point does something you were once OK about become a crime?

IamPickleRick · 03/12/2019 12:52

And trousers in fact.

VG/Prince Andrew - to say I wasn’t sure before but I believe her
Passthecherrycoke · 03/12/2019 12:53

It’s not about what she thinks about it mummy17. It’s about her abuser. It’s either a crime by law, or it’s not.

Honestly you sound so niave. Do you think if someone has Stockholm syndrome- they’re in love with their kidnapper- that therefore their kidnap wasn’t a crime? I mean it’s not even hard to understand, how can you not know this?!

FreeStar · 03/12/2019 12:55

They are both as stupid as each other for thinking a TV interview about this is a good idea.

Epstein is dead, the Maxwell woman needs bringing in for questioning, and Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts should be helping the FBI to get to the bottom of it all.

I can't see that Prince Andrew has done anything against the law.

Pumperthepumper · 03/12/2019 12:55

mummmy2017 I know this is hard for you to understand because you’d love to believe otherwise but: it was always a crime. Whether or not she realised it, she was always the victim of a crime.

mummmy2017 · 03/12/2019 12:56

But if the law came in from 2003? And her case is pre that, then the law says it was not wrong, even though we all know what happened to her was very wrong.

Pumperthepumper · 03/12/2019 12:57

So, what’s your point? Is she a victim or not?