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.

the bigger question - WHEN will other people be revealed?! A surprising lack of American abusers so far

VG also says that the third time she had sex with Andrew, it was an orgy with him, Epstein, her, and seven other girls.

So why haven't any of these other seven girls also spoken out about having sex with the British prince? I find it highly improbably to have taken place, given no one else has ever corroborated this story.

I'm not saying that she never had sex with him. That photo spoke volumes. It was real - seen by several people - and why else would he have been upstairs in that tiny news house, if not to have sex with her? But I AM saying that not everything she says is necessarily to be believed. Then there's the fact that she retracted some of her allegations against certain people, including Alan Dershowitz. Unfortunately, VG is (was) not an entirely reliable witness.

It’s less about the gender and more about the EXTENT of his crimes. Deny one allegation, ok. Say the friendship was an error of judgement or you didn’t know. Ok. But trafficking young people constantly, having sex parties in places, being accused of abuse again and again?
That’s going to be harder to deny esp. if victims start coming forward or staff start to talk.

‘So why haven't any of these other seven girls also spoken out about having sex with the British prince? I find it highly improbably to have taken place, given no one else has ever corroborated this story.’

That comment is right up there with the crassiest, dumbest I have seen in a while… what ON EARTH would anyone have to gain by speaking out? Notoriety? Judgement? Victim Blaming? Legal threats from the Royals lawyers and others? Public shaming?
We can’t even get rape convictions here when people speak out and evidence is overwhelmingly because abusers are believed ‘ she liked it rough’ and women are blamed for ‘putting’ themselves in a situation where it happened. ‘You went home with him’ ‘what were you wearing?’ ‘You’ve had how many boyfriends??’

I was listening to Andrew Lownie on LBC a couple of weeks ago. He said what is in the public domain is just the tip of the iceberg and that there's a lot more to come out about "Andy the corrupt paedophile" (my words not Andrew Lownie's).

Thanks for clarifying.

Well bloody said. Why on earth would any of the other victims come forward when they may end up like poor Virginia?

When the palace stripped him of his titles and kicked him out of the house I assumed that there’s more to come, and it’s very damaging.

Surely not.

He was in KFC in Tunbridge Wells at the time.

I agree with Noblegiraffe actually that it is somehow seen as worse because boys were involved and of course it shouldn’t be any different. because it stands to reason that both would have been trafficked from the start

"Young boys" makes it sound like eight-year-olds. Did they actually mean children, or people 16-plus? There's a difference between someone who wants actual children and someone who wants people over the age of consent, and who are - like Virginia - almost 18. People online are calling him a paedo for sleeping with Virginia, which in my opinion is ridiculous. She was well over the age of consent.

The terrible part about the whole thing is not so much her age - although the age gap WAS gross - it's the fact that she was trafficked and did not WANT to be there. She wasn't a willing sex worker glad to be making lots of money and doing it all on her own terms, free to come and go, she was a horribly abused young woman.

But he was 41, and she was due to be 18 in a few short months, and many a man has slept with someone who's 23-24 years younger than them and is over the age of consent. So I do wish people would stop making out that he's a paedophile. It's inaccurate, it takes away from the suffering of actual children who have been molested, and detracts from the real accusation.

Which is, did he know that she was trafficked? Did he know that she was there under coercion and duress? Or did he think she was a groupie or a sex worker who was happy to be there and get paid well? My fear is that he knew EXACTLY what Epstein was up to, and that these young women were not there as a free choice. If he knew, then he should absolutely be in jail.

I don't agree with 60 Mins airing vague accusations without any proof. If Andrew slept with "boys," then they need to come forward. I find it interesting that no one else has come out of the woodwork after VG was paid 12m.

I'm not defending him, I'm defending what is fair.

I’d be surprised at that, to be honest, but my husband worked with him and he was a massive shagger, of women, even in the early days of Sarah and leading up to marriage. Even before this all came out, it was way more than a jokey “Randy Andy” .

so if his tastes ran to young boys, to my limited knowledge of paedos, he’d probably have focused on this and I think that andrew is unlikely to take action unless it becomes bigger as it just gives fuel to the fires and global attention. That doesn’t mean it’s not true, but to be honest I’d be surprised.

however I do absolutely think there is much more to come out and that’s why Charles has done what he’s done, as he knows or suspects. I don’t beleive Charles would have done what he’s done if there wasn’t more, and by more I mean something so unpalatable he had no option and that’s why Sarah is running in the opposite direction as well.

" But then he would parachute back in … Very occasionally, taking you by surprise in some far off places … Or in one of his glorious homes he likes to share with his friends (yum yum) … But wherever he is in the world, he remains my best pal!”

• Mandelson on Epstein.

Yum yum.

Um, hello? For not letting him get away with it? For the purpose of taking him down lower than Virginia managed in her lifetime? For the millions of compensation? LOADS of good reasons! VG blazed a trail and made it possible for many, many victims to come forward, and support each other. As for not ending up like her, before she died, no one would have known that she would end up like that, would she? She accused Andrew, and it was a huge story, and I find it odd that no one else came forward to say that had been trafficked to him when they'd have had the company of VG and all the other Epstein victims that had come forward. Use your head!

I think multiple things can be true at once.

I think Virginia Giuffre was abused by Epstein and his pals, but I don’t think everything she alleged was true. She’s already proven to have a very loose relationship with the truth. She accused Alan Dershowitz of rape but then had to retract the allegations and lawsuit when they could be shown as lies - she admitted she got his identity wrong. A whole man’s life could have been blown to pieces, and nearly was.

There was another allegation she made under oath in 2014 (which I think may have been about Andrew) which she later admitted was fictional. I think a fictitious re-imagining had been encouraged by her psychotherapist to help with her trauma but Virginia presented it under oath as factual, but later was forced to admit it wasn’t actually true.

There’s been plenty of other things along the way with Virginia which have either been challenged about or are clearly untrue, such as the debacle with her claims about being hit by a bus shortly before she died.

But she was a victim of child abuse and that kind of trauma can leave lasting effects. I don’t think everything she said was untrue and I think even if you take SOME things with a pinch of salt, there’s enough demonstrable truths to still provide a horrifying glimpse into Epstein and his pals.

It’s possible to accept that Virginia made up some of the stuff she said while also believing that she was still abused, groomed, and trafficked.

I also think there’s more to come out about Andrew and these allegations about young boys would make perfect sense. He was viewed as the playboy prince and the ultimate bachelor, always stepping out with a glamorous woman - yet despite a brief marriage to Sarah Ferguson to produce heirs has been single. No further marriages or serious relationships- most unusual…. I think much more has gone on behind closed doors which is why his titles have been removed.

Trump is a very, very powerful man, with influence probably greater than we realise. We already know he likes to bully and intimidate to get his way. There’s definitely stuff in the Epstein files on Trump. But given how he’s ousted the head of the FBI and installed a stooge, I have zero confidence that the truth about him will ever be revealed.

I doubt we’ll ever get the full facts about everyone involved but I do think more is going to come out about Andrew and some of the others, and it probably includes young boys as well as girls.

I have no experience of it but I couldn’t agree with you more.1a

This absolutely! I was the victim of a serious sexual assault by a stranger while I was walking home from work. I was a "perfect" victim (and I hate that concept but it is sadly prevalent) in that I was sober, it was early evening , I was older so not conventionally "attractive", I was dressed in plain work clothes and had never met the attacker. The criminal justice process nearly broke me, the delays, the mistakes, the offender went on the run after being arrested and charged and I lived in a state of terror because in law he had been informed of my name, I have an unusual name and in my distress and paranoia I became convinced he would find me. I had to attend court three times and it took over my life. I would not report if god forbid anything of that nature happened to me again, Horrible times so god only knows what women and girls endure if they are viewed as being in any way complicit in their abuse .

That was my gut feeling too.

Don't be ridiculous. If someone makes such a claim, it's the next logical step to wonder where these victims are and why we haven't heard from them during a time when MANY victims were speaking up and getting compensation.

And prey tell, what good did the millions of £££ do for VG? I am so sick to death of whataboutery. And victim blaming. I was sexually abused and decided what the actual fuck is the point of reporting it. His word against mine, no witnesses, victim blaming (I was wearing a short skirt and went back to his house...so, you know, I was obviously up for it!

I heard a similar story from someone in the know, back in the mid 90s. They said then it would all come out one day.

Maybe, just Maybe, not everyone is motivated by money. Maybe it's just too upsetting, maybe they're dead. Maybe they're worried about their safety?

Can you link to something that shows she took Virginia to court and won? I can’t find it. And I found nothing about winning $7.5 million.

All I found is that she was taking Virginia to court because of something Virginia wrote about her in an unpublished book. (Virginia saw Oh as an aggressor, and Oh says no it was Virginia): Virginia died before the court case. And that a court case could still proceed.

@Horsiei think your points are all v well made.

Not remotely surprised about this, I think it's been known for a while.

It's the Kazakstani money trail that I think will bring the royals down, the "working" for charities and then creaming off the money, the Chinese connections. That's why they removed his titles - to avoid the contagion of the dodgy money practices to the wider royal family (although probably unavoidable at this stage anyway). I think the Epstein connections are largely known about now so it wasn't for that really.
I'm also absolutely no fan of H&M but I think when Harry alludes to secrets being kept for other people but H&M being sacrificed to the press to provide a smoke screen, that may well be nuggets of truth in that. true. Trouble is, their own "charitable" work will now also come under scrutiny.
I think this is catastrophic for the wider royal family and that's why they've taken such unprecedented action.