Prince Andrew

[Tevion28]

Do you think guilty or innocent

Guilty & I feel sickened by him hiding away and his interview literally made me cringe to the point of unwatchable. I think he’s so disconnected from real life that it’s very possible he doesn’t realise what the rest of the world thinks of this situation. He should face the accusations and stop hiding away. In all honesty his absolute stupidity and behaviour has destroyed the public image of the royal family… when I watched the queens speech this year obvs zero mention of Andrew but it just makes the whole set up we have look ridiculous & outdated. I thought it was very sad given the terrible couple of years many people have had. xo

Oh yes, a filthy pig of a man.

Guilty and of low intelligence.

@480Widdio

Guilty and of low intelligence.

I think he's too thick and is too entitled to think he did anything wrong. I hope he disappears into obscurity.

Has he actually been accused of anything?

@Motherdare
…only a few accusations!!
www.bbc.com/news/uk-58871849

It’s also the part he has played in this ongoing trafficking saga, the ‘above the law’ elite lifestyle and public denial & backtracking.. none of it make him look good & all of it makes him look very much guilty.

@BoudecaBains

A civil action brought by a court in a foreign country has no jurisdiction in the UK. Also it’s perfectly clear she is looking for a pay out.

Has she said that or do you "just know"?

@Luckyducky75

Absolutely I believe he had sex with her, but as someone mentioned at 17 that's not a crime here. Whether or not he knew she was a trafficking victim or deludedly thought she was there because she liked him (he's really not very bright and very arrogant, I could believe it) 🤷 either way nothing will probably happen to the vile prat.

Well if that's the case then he could have said that. But he's denying ever having met her. Which isn't what you do if you don't believe you've done anything wrong.

Perhaps lock him up in the Tower of London.Could do wonders for tourism !

Indeed. As pp says, if he genuinely thinks he did nothing wrong, why not just say he had an ill-advised brief relationship with her? He was a divorced man, in effect single.

Instead he started telling a litany of lies - some of them really bizarre, like the sweating stuff and the pizza hut - and has ended up looking like, as Malcolm Tucker would say, a massive cunt.

And the sight of Fergie and the Princesses cavorting in Verbier is just vom.

@Covidclaire

I do find it a bit odd that Virginia Giuffre didn’t testify against GM.

Virginia Guiffre was named by one of the witnesses (Carolyn I think) as the person who introduced the witness to Maxwell and Epstein when the witness was 14. If that is true then Guiffre also procured under age girls.The witness said Guiffre said the witness could make 100s of dollars.

The prosecution couldn't call Guiffre as the defence would have asked her under oath if that was true. If she admitted it, she would incriminate herself; if she denied it then either she or the witness would be lying under oath.

Fresh Guardian headline today:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/01/prince-andrew-lawsuit-virginia-giuffre-effort-block-rejected

She was a teenage girl who'd been brought from America alone without her parents by an old rich man. Any reasonable person would know that she was being exploited on those facts alone.

I don't think he cared. He was happy to exploit her too.

I would love him to see the inside of a courtroom over this, but, if he doesn't, I am at least glad that he has been punished in that he has lost his status, position, role and influence. He will never serve the country again and his life work and his memory will be shrouded in the shame of what he has done.

@BoudecaBains, it's courts which have jurisdiction, not law suits.

In a civil case, the domicile of the petitioner is what matters, not wherever a respondent normally lives, or might have absconded to. If the domicile of the respondent was relevant, there would be nothing to stop ruthless respondents from fleeing to avoid civil cases.

Hence PA's lawyers' recent attempt to have the case thrown out in NY and presumably moved to Australia, where they allege VG has domicile.

In a criminal case, the location of the crime is what counts for jurisdiction unless interstate criminal activity is part of the indictment. Maxwell's criminal case was tried in federal court because her crimes involved interstate trafficking. The civil case against PA is not a criminal case.

He may yet be charged with criminal activity and extradited to face charges.

But the duke was not named during the Maxwell proceedings and his lawyers are likely to seize on testimony from the key witness “Carolyn”, who said it was Giuffre who introduced her to Epstein and Maxwell

From The Guardian article. Of course they are going to seize on that.

I assume Giuffre's advisors are hoping for an out of court settlement. Giuffre could be on very thin ice if she has to speak to this in court.

It's a different jurisdiction but I think some of the Rotherham victims have convictions for committing “survival crimes” for their own safety or where they acted under the influence of abusers.

Guilty. Denying all knowledge then a photograph emerging with his snake like arm around the woman he acusing him of sexual assault. Didn't know her my arse.

@coraka Exactly. He has had every opportunity to clear his name. He could have come out of with his reputation intact and kept his various roles if he actually was cleared of wrongdoing. His evasiveness now seems to indicate that there’s more to it than he’s actually saying. If that was just one picture that Epstein had taken, who knows there might be many more?

But the duke was not named during the Maxwell proceedings...

The plan of the prosecution was to focus squarely on GM, establishing that she had a relationship of a certain nature with GE, that they conspired together and worked together, and not to cloud the issues by introducing other names which were irrelevant to the case in point.

GM was tried and found guilty based on her relationship with Epstein, not because she was friends with PA or any other rich and famous people.

Given the existence of the photograph , and assuming it's genuine, the only way he could have no recollection of Giuffre is if she had been one of many similar young women.

I wonder who took it and who holds the original.

assuming it's genuine, the only way he could have no recollection of Giuffre is if she had been one of many similar young women

Exactly. Either way there are questions that need answered. I certainly hope he's made to answer them like any other suspect

...his lawyers are likely to seize on testimony from the key witness “Carolyn”, who said it was Giuffre who introduced her to Epstein and Maxwell

In which case, the nature of the scheme and the control exerted over her by GM and JE will be used in defense of VG.

VG has not been accused of a crime in relation to GM and JE's activities or her part in luring others. It's very unlikely that she will ever be, because of the control exercised over her.

@KimikosNightmare

Given the existence of the photograph , and assuming it's genuine, the only way he could have no recollection of Giuffre is if she had been one of many similar young women.

I wonder who took it and who holds the original.

Apparently Epstein took it, with Virginia's camera. The FBI (or whatever authority)has the original.

I imagine having the photo was critical in getting the Press to run with the story originally. I wonder how many others there were that don't have a photo to back it up and couldn't get their voice heard.

@mathanxiety

...his lawyers are likely to seize on testimony from the key witness “Carolyn”, who said it was Giuffre who introduced her to Epstein and Maxwell

In which case, the nature of the scheme and the control exerted over her by GM and JE will be used in defense of VG.

VG has not been accused of a crime in relation to GM and JE's activities or her part in luring others. It's very unlikely that she will ever be, because of the control exercised over her.

Exactly. And it's got nothing to do with whether Andrew abused her or not anyway. Just a typical attempt to trash a victim's reputation.

I did hear a rumour that Brenda has told William to stop helicopter travel with all three children, because, in the worst case a crash and Harry being no longer royal it would make Andrew next in line after Charles.

As for what Charles and William think, well Charles was 30+ going on 50 when he married a woman just out of her teens.

His father started courting his mother when mummy was 13.

As if you can remember you were in a Pizza Express on a particular night many years later!

He's an arrogant arse!