New allegations against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

[Muffinmam]

Last night an episode of 60 Minutes (Australia) aired and an allegation was
made that it wasn’t just girls who were trafficked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor by Ghislane and Epstein - there were also young boys.

I’ve included the link below:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-9SfptZlU&pp=0gcJCR4Bo7VqN5tD

This allegation never made it into the book because the writer never had a second witness to concur. However, he revealed it in the 60 Minutes interview last night and 60 Minutes aired what is a defamatory allegation - which makes me think that 60 Minutes felt confident it was true (otherwise their lawyers would have killed the story). It was a very short reference but British Police need to interview Ghislane as to Andrew’s other victims.

Further, AIBU to think that the Royal Protection officers should be made to answer questions as to criminality involving Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor?

Also, how can Beatrice & Eugenie still support their disgusting father after everything we know? Do they not care about their own children? Particularly Beatrice’s young step son. Hopefully Andrew is not allowed anywhere near this boy.

I'm wondering about the legality of stripping Andrew of all his titles. AFAIK, he hasn't been convicted of any crime and he is protesting his innocence. If this happened to an ordinary joe we would be calling it an injustice?

Good post 👏

An ordinary Joe doesn't have titles. I believe most titles he had were at the discretion of the sovereign. I actually didn't know a born Prince could lose that title, although obviously he might choose not to use it.

It didn’t specify a country. Probably not UK (I hope)

Its an attempt to hedge off official investigation and possible charges, as well as trying to deflect closer inspection of all the Royal family and the point of them.

What can't you get your head around?!? It's sex trafficking,Diddy is in PRISON for similar. Their ages are irrelevant!!

I think the options open to Andy are Sandringham or Balmoral, which are both privately owned, unlike Windsor which is publicly owned.

Rightly or wrongly he is going to need security. So keeping him on one of the private estates with existing security makes sense.

Didnt ask about "hiding" this thread, i asked about blocking the subject.

And what does watching the BBC have to do with it 😂

I know I'm slightly off-topic here...

I haven't seen anything said regarding where Sarah Ferguson is going to end up living. In the absence of any firm intelligence here, I'm enjoying imagining her moving to a semi-detached in Slough...

Beatrice and Eugenie are not working royals and they do not receive money from the Civil List. Nor do they have round the clock security, much to Andrew's chagrin.
If memory serves me, I believe that a few years back, a lot of changes were made within the royal family and lots of the hangers-on were given the boot. I think maybe around the time Her Maj started paying taxes

You might be right that AMW will likely never go to prison. But that absolutely does not mean he hasn't committed a crime, or that it would be impossible to convict him in court.

Whether he knew VG was trafficked:
Courts regularly evaluate what defendants knew or should have known. Prosecutors can present circumstantial evidence like: the setting where they met, who introduced them, the victim's age and circumstances, the defendant's relationship with known traffickers, patterns of behaviour, etc. Willful blindness - deliberately avoiding knowledge - can also establish liability in some jurisdictions.

Andrew spent a lot of time with Epstein. He would have seen a lot of young girls around Epstein, surely. He absolutely should have taken it on himself to ask/check whether they were there consensually.

On age of consent:
The age of consent argument misses the broader legal picture. Sex trafficking laws exist precisely because trafficked individuals cannot meaningfully consent, regardless of their age. If someone is brought to you through force, fraud, or coercion, having sex with them can be criminal even if they're legally an adult. The fact that Epstein and Maxwell were convicted of trafficking these young women is legally significant.

On "smiling in photos":
This is a deeply problematic argument. Trafficking victims often appear compliant in photos - that's how trafficking works. Traffickers condition victims to appear willing. Courts and juries are instructed not to assume consent from someone's demeanor, especially in trafficking contexts.

You might be right that criminal prosecution seems unlikely at this point due to evidence and time constraints. But that's different from saying no crimes could have occurred or that the legal barriers are insurmountable in principle. The settlement of the civil case suggests Andrew's legal team saw real litigation risk.

Given the allegations against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and his propensity to lie (and he has absolutely now been proven he was lying) it is blatantly clear that he is morally corrupt and I would go so far as to say he is evil.

It is the public who need protection from this sex pest - particularly minors.

Concerningly his behaviour was carried out in front of Royal protection officers who stood by while he committed crimes. The public was paying for these Royal protection officers. So Randy Andy was kept safe but minors were not.

There needs to be a massive inquiry on how he was able to get away with his disgusting behaviour for years. Even when there were serious allegations against him - he got away with it. He has never had to account for what he did.

I just hope that Beatrice’s step son was never alone with this evil and hideous man.

Yes but diplomats can’t really say anything although they must know.

He was not good friends with Trump much a people would like to believe it.

I really don’t think this can be the case. If you look at Andrew and Peter Phillips for example, they have a very similar look face wise. IMO anyway.

He was supposed to have been fathered by the Queen's racehorse trainer Lord Porchester

So you think the late Queen had an affair?

Like father - like son. Philip was widely known in Fleet St to be involved with the Christine Keeler/Mandy Rice Davies scandal but F St was warned off reporting it.

He knew Stephen Ward.

What else is there?

If it's so widely known what are the details?

Something that was mentioned last night in the 60 Minutes interview was that while he did get away with what he did to Virginia (and you are absolutely right - he will never face charges) - there were other occasions where he was in other countries as part of his official Trade delegation duties. It was suggested that it was on these occasions that criminality occurred and it is possible for charges to be made against him. The interviewee was vague but we do know that there has been leaks and it’s highly possible more information will come to light.

When the 60 Minutes interviewer asked this person “where do you think Andrew will be this time next year?” The interviewee responded “in a country without an extradition treaty.” He thought there was enough for Andrew to face charges but he also thought he would never answer those charges.

60 Minutes felt confident to air this episode - which means they had to do background research of their own or face being sued by the money hungry predator himself.

I think there is absolutely more to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s alleged criminal conduct and I think we would all be remiss if we didn’t loudly demand that he face charges.

So you think the late Queen had an affair?

Who knows what the Upper classes get up to?

The BBC that did the interview that moved the dial on how Andrew was treated in public life and started the process of him being stripped of titles and patronages?

Whether he knew VG was trafficked:

We deal with people under the law as it stood at the time of the alleged offence. Today, it is an offence to pay or offer to pay for sex with someone who has been trafficked and, if the trafficked person is being unlawfully detained, there is a rebuttable presumption that they did not consent. If Andrew did not pay Epstein for sex with VG (she has never alleged that he did) and she was not being unlawfully detained, there was no offence even under today's laws. Under the laws at the time, neither of these things were offences. Whether he knew VG was trafficked is irrelevant.

A further factor is that VG always refused to co-operate with law enforcement. It seems she did not want those she alleged abused her prosecuted, preferring to pursue them through the courts for payouts. In the only case where she did offer to give evidence, the prosecution declined to call her due to doubts about the reliability of her evidence.

Andrew did not settle the case with VG to avoid a criminal prosecution. He settled because, following various rulings by the judge, his lawyers advised him of the level of risk he faced in proceeding both in terms of the possibility he might lose and the ongoing publicity. and he decided to settle. VG was also willing to settle, presumably due to her lawyers advising her of the level of risk that she might lose. The size of the settlement is unknown. The figure of £12M was widely reported, but that was just an estimate by a newspaper. Information that has emerged more recently suggests the true figure was around £3M. Either figure is significantly lower than she would have expected if she had won in court.

I would not say definitively that no crimes have occurred, but VG's evidence does not appear to show Andrew committing any criminal offences either here or in the USA.

You place a lot of store on the fact 60 Minutes aired this episode. They may have done so relying on the fact that senior members of the Royal family do not sue people for libel. If you know the person you are making allegations against won't sue, you can make any allegations you want regardless of whether you actually have evidence to back them up. Note that I'm not saying the allegations are untrue. I don't know what evidence there is. But the evidence may not be remotely as strong as you appear to think.

I KNOW there were many victims! I was talking specifically about Andrew and the fact that only one accuser has come forward for him.

it is blatantly clear that he is morally corrupt and I would go so far as to say he is evil.
That may be true, but he hasn't been convicted of any crime. Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, etc were all convicted of something before they were publicly condemned. Saville notably wasn't convicted and was treated with honours right up and beyond his death.
I think the media is attacking Andrew to preserve the Royal Family (who have always been dodgy, remember his accepting millions in cash in bin bags "I thought all commoners did this" and his current charging the NHS millions each year for use of his Duchy facilities).

I expect their dad has them well confused with his vigorous denials.