Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - you have blood on your hands

[Muffinmam]

Am I being unreasonable to say that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - the Duke of York and member of the Royal Family has blood on his hands following the tragic suicide of Virginia Giuffre?

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has faced zero consequences for his role in Virginia Giuffre‘s sexual abuse and trafficking because he’s rich and his powerful mummy paid off the victim and the British police failed to pursue charges against him. To be clear, while the age of consent in the UK is 17 years old this does not apply to trafficking victims and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has never faced criminal charges.

He probably thinks he’s got away with it now she’s gone.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14649791/Virginia-Giuffre-suicide-perth-mansion.html

It isn't unusual for people if Andrew's age, my age, to refer to meeting up with friends as "going out to play". It refers to not working and seeing friends. I often say to DH that I'm going out to play with the girls. I often ask thebDC if they have been out for a play with any of their old school friends.

It does not refer or relate to anything sexual. That, I am afraid, is your mind.

@RosesAndHellebores

Sure you do.

So it’s all in my head isn’t it ? Epstein just wanted a pint and a catch up ?
Christ this thread is sickening

Epstein had already been convicted is sexual offences by this stage . This is the direct quote from court documents

“The court documents say there was a "discussion of press articles" and then the message: "Keep in close touch and we'll play some more soon!!!”

You can see in some posters on here the same mindset that used to lead people to believe that touching the King could cure various illnesses….

Yes, we do.

I am a few years older than Andrew and I have never heard that expression.

And you are being absurdly disingenuous to claim that any suspicion that it related to something sexual is 'in your mind' when we know the extent of Andrew's connections to Epstein & Maxwell; it is completely reasonable to suspect it may be a reference to something sinister.

Again, I don't know for sure whether Andrew is guilty. What I do know (and every woman in particular should know) is that there is a huge amount of sexual misconduct against women & girls the overwhelming majority of which goes unpunished. And we know that regardless of whether or not A is guilty, he will be protected anyway.

In the context of all that, this thread - on MN of all places - in its victim blaming and determination to exonerate Andrew - is deeply disappointing

@RosesAndHellebores

I’d like to know how you can state categorically that Andrew saying “ we’ll play again soon’ to convicted sex offender and sex trafficker Epstein , is not in any way sexual ?

Sounds like it to me. Made me shudder 🤢

Me too

But I’m the one with something wrong with me according to @RosesAndHellebores

In the context of all that, this thread - on MN of all places - in its victim blaming and determination to exonerate Andrew - is deeply disappointing

This. And even if we take Andrew out of the equation for a second we are still talking about a woman who had a horrific life. Sold by her parents to Epstein, endured god knows what at the hands of his powerful friends, been relentlessly trolled online and through the press, lost her children and finally her life. The callousness with which she is sometimes being referred to by other women is somewhat shocking.

Did Epstein play golf? Andrew is a keen golfer.

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.

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.

What proof? Their own testimony is hardly proof.

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'.

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.

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?

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.

'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.

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.

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

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

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

You edited your post - I was replying to;

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