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

Nobody is saying that. It could be playing golf for all we know. It's the fact he lied about cutting contact when court papers have proved otherwise . He kept up contact and probably imagined it would all blow over

Nobody is saying that

They quite clearly did.

I don't need your rudeness either, and it's persistent. I am sick of it at this point.

That's not what my post says at all - it's what you want it to say! I don't want your "explanations" - I am not interested! It's your failure to comprehend here that is the issue.

You're bemoaning the awfulness of being trafficked - which it absolutely and unequivocably is! - but denying the reasonable assumption that the reality is that she was forced to sleep with a lot of men! I don't know if she ever put a figure on it. It's totally unreasonable to blame everything she suffered on one man!

I don't have "faux concern" tbh - I don't have any concern. I'm laughing at the sheer ridiculousness.

Why? It was a pragmatic decision?

You make an extremely important here re: the head of state further injuring a victim of sex trafficking in order to protect one of their own ‘firm’

Because you don’t pay someone off if you’re innocent.

Nobody is saying "give Andrew the benefit of the doubt"???

I despair.

Yes, she was 17, still basically a child.
She was groomed by Epstein and Maxwell, and had access to riches beyond her imagination.
Her parents - well they were dire. How many of us would let their 17 year fly off on private jets and spend time in mansions with older men? But they did.
Obviously she couldn't just "walk away" - groomed children often can't.
Anyone arguing with any of those points just doesn't have a clue.

HOWEVER, none of that means that the blame all rests with Andrew! Epstein and Maxwell have barely been criticised! If it hadn't been for them, Virginia would never have met Andrew! But no, blame the stupid, arrogant royal because of your hatred for the royal family! That's what a lot of this boils down to, and why you condemn him out of hand for something that we just don't know whether he's guilty of!

By all means, condemn him for the things we know that he's done, there's quite enough of them!

Bullshit. It happens all the time. You just don't understand settlements.

Have any of the men who had sex with trafficked girls, organised by Epstein, ever seen the inside of a court?

Afaik the only people ever charged have been Epstein and Maxwell. None of the punters. Or am I wrong?

He has access to the best lawyers in the world. He could’ve cleared his name definitively and left it at that. He paid her off instead.

You can say that again!!

Still bollocks. It's been explained enough times on the thread, check back.

How exactly was he going to "clear his name definitively"?? She said he did it, he said he didn't. Evidence???

Things such as text messages, recordings, video evidence etc. People have had cases where it was filmed and the police have NFA'd it. Cases where he confessed and it was NFA'd.

I was raped and my rapist text me after gloating about how he loved forcing me to do things the night before. He admitted to raping me. It was NFA'd it despite proof.

My friend was raped and he confessed and she had recorded him. He then murdered her because she reported it and the judge NFA'd it saying she was dead now so no point trying him for rape.

Many have lots of evidence. Without it it wouldn't even go to CPS because of the quota. Sadly the quota prevents it to ensure the data is fudged. Thankfully the CPS have admitted they do this.

They haven't and that is one of the things that bothers me most about all this.

She went after Dershowitz and in the end had to admit she was mistaken. To me that seriously dented her credibility. She didn't go after any of the bigger players who've been named in connection with Epstein - just the stupid buffoon of a royal, and it makes me wonder why.

Well his evidence was that he was in a pizza express and he “doesn’t sweat”. Her evidence was pictured and countless witnesses.

None of it was tested in court.

Were there more pictures than the one where Andrew had his arm around her? I have a photo of me with my arm around Martin Kemp. It doesn't prove anything either than that we were both in the same place at the same time!

Who were the "countless witnesses" and what was their testimony?

I imagine he could provide medical evidence if he doesn't sweat but I'm not sure he would have been able to prove he was in Pizza Express years later?

Well said 👏🏻

Yes, and that would have taken time, with god knows what else coming out if the repulsive man had been faced with a skilled barrister. Even Emily Maitlis enabled him to hang, draw and quarter himself, so no wonder he'd never have been allowed in a witness box

That said, none of those issues would have been Virginia's problem, so in many ways it's perhaps a pity she accepted the payoff rather than carrying on

How about we blame one of the Most powerful men on Earth rather than his victim?

To whom are you referring?

I've seen it said that Andrew was in some ways also a victim of Epstein? I'm sure he lapped up all the flattery, sycophancy, and financial gains, and I'm sure Epstein knew all the right buttons to press!

How is saying it may be a pity that Virginia accepted a payout "blaming" her, @mummytoonetryingfortwo?

For all anyone knows she may have had good reasons not to continue the case, but it doesn't change the fact that by doing so she removed any chance if the whole thing being properly examined, and to me at least that's a shame

On the sweating subject I was sure after that interview the papers had pictures of Andrew with a bit of a sweat on.

A quick Google showed that in the run up to the trial VGs lawyers had insisted he hand over medical documents that would prove he can't/doesn't do it and his lawyer "rejected this request on the grounds that it is “harassing and seeks confidential and private information and documents that are irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”.

I do not blame PA or anyone else who doesn't want their private medical information read out in open court but I'm baffled as to how the medical notes that could irrefutably back up his claims and blow VGs evidence apart can be deemed as an irrelevance.

That is likely true but it doesn't make Andrew a 'victim' in the way the girls who were trafficked were victims. He was in a powerful position and could have helped the true victims if inclined - but he wasn't.

I don't see how he couldn't have known what was going on even if he didn't himself participate. Epstein attended PA's daughter's birthday party 2 months after an arrest warrant was issued for him. PA's story was that he was not aware at the time that this was the case. But this is a family whose school age children's friends have to pass security vetting before visiting the Royal residences.

Of course PA's own daughters were never going to be at any risk....so as long it was only the 'plebs' children that were exploited it was OK.

I dislike the use of settlements for that reason but I understand the process by which they are reached.

Whether or not he could sweat wouldn't ever have "irrefutably backed up his claims". Whatever the evidence would have shown, it wouldn't have had any relevance to whether or not he had sex with her.