Prince Andrew

[Tevion28]

Do you think guilty or innocent

@Roussette

LockdownBear someone on this thread linked such an interesting article about that photo.

It was fascinating.

Here it is.

www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/12/how-the-only-known-photo-of-prince-andrew-and-the-pedophile-happened/amp

How and why it happened is so interesting

Very interesting article

I used to be of the mind set of innocent until proven guilty, however as a pp said if it was me I would fight to clear my name if I was accused of something so horrendous.
The fact that he hasn’t IMO proves his guilt and although I understand that as a mother the queen seeks to protect him, she has a responsibility to ensure that no one is above the law and let justice run its course. Similarly as a son he should be protecting his mother from unnecessary stress.

@BligeMe

Well one of them is lying, but which one? He's an arrogant entitled arse, who can't sweat and goes to Pizza Hut, though he apparently can't prove it. Does his close protection officer have amnesia too? He says he doesn't remember meeting her - well she was a minion so perhaps not. Perhaps he did give someone one (or three) but he can't quite remember who? Perhaps he was also used - "come and meet a real live prince"?

But then parts of her story don't quite add up to me. Nor, it appears to Maxwells prosecutors, because she wasn't called in that trial - I read something about inconsistencies in her previous statements. I wonder......she was used to being abused anyway before she met Maxwell and Epstein, and after being molested on the first visit to an Epstein property, she went back for more, presumably thinking that this behaviour was ok because she was being very handsomely paid to be at the receiving end of it. Perhaps she was actually a willing participant? Maybe she felt it was all ok until her boyfriend now husband enlightened her. Her lawyers are working Pro Bono on this case, so she has nothing to lose. She has already sued people and won a fair few bob to date. Who else does she allege she was pimped out to, why isn't she suing them? Because Andrew was the only one stupid enough to be photographed with her?

I’ve not looked it up but I’m just reading the Vanity Fair article linked on this page and it says:

U.N. ambassador Bill Richardson and Middle East envoy George Mitchell allegedly participated in Epstein’s sex ring, according to a lawsuit filed by Giuffre.

So Andrew is not the only one she has named.

So Giufre

@Roussette

I will repeat what I said before chaos

You are victim blaming in the worst possible way. Again. Your post is not worth answering in any detail. Plus I don't want to be rude. Which rules out an answer from me.

and again im not the only one questioning her account which does not make me the only one victim blaming as you call it , and i wouldnt expect an answer from you unless it was the same old stuff you trot out , you already are rude anyway in the way you seek to denigrate those who dont share your views

So Andrew is not the only one she has named

Giuffre and lawyer Alan Dershowitz are suing each other. She has accused him of rape and he is counter suing for defamation.

One of the witnesses at Maxwell's trial

Just leave it chaos

There are very many disagreeing with you on here.
Maybe you'll get more joy with a response from others.

Yes. Victim blaming.

Sorry posted too early. One of witnesses at Maxwell's trial , "Carolyn" testified she was 14 or 15 years old and she was brought to Jeffrey Epstein for money by Virginia Giuffre who was over 18 at the time.

Giuffre then, according to the testimony at the trial, got naked, had sex with Jeffrey Epstein in order to facilitate the witness having sex with Epstein. That is almost certainly why Giuffre wasn't called as a prosecution witness.

Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard and also a practising lawyer. He has acted for Weinstein and Trump.

The BBC is being hauled over the coals for doing an interview with Dershowitz without making this background clear.

That is almost certainly why Giuffre wasn't called as a prosecution witness.
Why did the defence team not call her?

@KimikosNightmare the only person I have read saying that is Epsteins lawyer who himsélf has been alleged of being guilty of sexual abuse.

That’s the same pattern that happened in Rotherham - the network liked girls 12-14, so when the abuse victims got older and of less interest, the girls had to find younger girls because, by that time they were wholly dependent on the network which had become their life.

I can see why lawyers may not have wanted to muddy the waters with issues extraneous on the GM case, but I think it’s fairly obvious what was going on there.

Sorry , what happened is Dershowitz initiated a defamation action against Giuffre because of abuse claims she was making about him and calling her a liar.

Giuffre is counter suing, also defamation.

[quote RoyalFamilyFan]@KimikosNightmare the only person I have read saying that is Epsteins lawyer who himsélf has been alleged of being guilty of sexual abuse.[/quote]
No. It was said in court by the witness Carolyn.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10284941/amp/Ghislaine-Maxwell-accuser-Carolyn-testifies-Day-Seven-sex-trafficking-trial.html

[quote StormzyinaTCup]I posted this a few months back on one of the other PA threads, it’s another Vanity Fair article but looks at the relationship between Wexner and Epstein. Apologies if already linked on this thread somewhere and I’ve missed it:

www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/inside-jeffrey-epsteins-decades-long-relationship-with-his-biggest-client/amp[/quote]
Well that was an excellent and eye opening well researched piece. Many thanks for sharing that. I always thought Andrew was a dick but now I think he's beyond pathetic and desperate and The Queen is sorely lacking in judgement to keep supporting his nonsense.

@KimikosNightmare

I think that poster meant that she had only read Dershowitz claim that Carolyn’s testimony was the reason VG wasn’t called.

abcnews.go.com/US/dramatic-testimony-alleged-epstein-victim-carolyn-recounts-maxwells/story?id=81612421

"Carolyn" was taken to Epstein's house by a friend. The friend was Virginia Roberts.

Carolyn was also deemed “too old’ once she hit 18 according to her testimony.

No one has got to the bottom of epsteien wealth he was a college lecturer??

It's definitely something to do with the man who owned the house he took over.

@KimikosNightmare

abcnews.go.com/US/dramatic-testimony-alleged-epstein-victim-carolyn-recounts-maxwells/story?id=81612421

"Carolyn" was taken to Epstein's house by a friend. The friend was Virginia Roberts.

Yes that is covered in the DM account you already linked.

[quote TatianaBis]@KimikosNightmare

I think that poster meant that she had only read Dershowitz claim that Carolyn’s testimony was the reason VG wasn’t called.[/quote]
It makes perfect sense that is the reason she wasn't called. It's a basic principle of law that no- one can be compelled to incriminate themselves. In the US - it's The Fifth Amendment.

Knowing what Carolyn was going to testify the prosecution couldn't use Giuffre as a witness.

Ooops what I'm alluding too is of course exactly what that article is about

That last article is all about Maxwell not VG. I don't understand the point. They were both trafficked girls which Maxwell's guilty verdict has proved

@KimikosNightmare

It makes perfect sense that is the reason she wasn't called is not the same as saying it was ‘almost certainly’ the reason she wasn’t called, which was your first claim.

Procuring other girls for a sexual abuse network is part of what they are groomed to do so I’m not sure why you’re so convinced VG would have incriminated herself there.

It’s extraneous to the case against GM either way.

You're welcome *@CaveMum and @Malariahilaria.

It's a very interesting thread and I have seen several posts questioning why the Queen is covering the cost (and basically his arse) on this and it got me thinking, I wouldn't be surprised if PA was using some emotional manipulation. Just a thought.

@GrazingSheep

That is almost certainly why Giuffre wasn't called as a prosecution witness. Why did the defence team not call her?

Why would they? What she would say wouldn't help Maxwell's case. The only point would be to try to drag Giuffre in as a co- accused/ diminish her credibility but as Giuffrre wasn't testifying against Maxwell what would be the point?

The rule against incrimination still applies. Giuffre wasn't on trial. The defence can't compel her to incriminate herself.

Guilty and shame on the RF for allowing him to hide from justice. Harkens to history where the gentry did the fuck what they wanted and tough luck peasants.

The shielding of his was the final nail in the coffin for me for any liking of the RF. Charles and Camilla like fucking Henry VIII and now Harry flouncing and busy profiteering off the family he has left. Parasites.