Andrew in bid to clear his name

[Viviennemary]

Daily Mail is reporting this, I heard it on Sky News press preview. He is going to try to get her to retract her statement, apologise and pay back the money. It's hard to know what to think. But apparently, she dropped the case against another man after saying it was a case of mistaken identity. Prince Andrew said he can't recall meeting her. Very stramge.

This sounds like a political policy floated in the Sunday papers to gauge public reaction.

A: I want my status back bruv. And I want a proper costume at the coronation.
C & Courtiers: Ok let's see what the public thinks about that...
Fergie: whoopee of course you are innocent babes, am I on the guest list for the coronation?
The public: what was the date of that bank holiday, shall we leave the country?

Guilt of what though? She was over 16.

Im not sure he was in charge of the decision making after the disastrous interview.

But if you are being investigated for a crime, there is no benefit to speaking with the police. Endless videos on YouTube explaining the reasoning if you are interested.

In US, the Miranda rights (which they explain upon every arrest) even say “any information you provide can and will be used against you.” Not for you, only against.

Talking or not talking isn’t evidence of guilt. So many people think they can talk their way out of something anyway.

He thought he could talk his way out of it via the interview. That totally backfired.

Luckily Sarah has a new tell all book coming out dishing the dirt on her riveting life and has loads of interviews lined up, so she will be able to fund his defence, well , ok, five minutes of a top barristers time at least.. Plus he has a lot of gun running pals who love nothing more than being his friend and are willing to pay for the kudos of entertaining him in the manner in which he expects to be entertained. And if push comes to shove he could do air B and B at his 31 bedroom house . ( 31 bedrooms? does he have that many friends ? )

@TaRaDeBumDeAy That’s the interesting piece. In US 18 is the age of consent. She says this happened in March 2021 so she would not be 18 for a few months. The only picture was taken in London and she can’t be bothered to look for the original.

I think they wanted to keep it in US because in UK he didn’t break any laws even if he did sleep with her.

@Yesthatismychildsigh Exactly, so I think after that he got out on a tight rein and had to do as told.

You can see why “never explain” is a good policy. When some of these people talk they just dig themselves a bigger hole.

It's a good job that Pizza Express Woking alibi will come through for him then !

Actually just tried to recreate the photo with DH. We are the same size difference as A and V in the picture. His arm ends up much further up my waist. Very odd that the hand is so low down on V’s waist, on her bare midriff. A must a double jointed elbow!

A must have *a double jointed elbow.

In the UK, people are legally allowed to pay for sex if the person is over 18 and hasn't been forced into prostitution. She was under 18 and she believes that she was groomed and coerced into prostitution by Epstein and Maxwell. So there is a potential offence in the UK if that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Well @vera99 if he was in the UK at all during this time, no crime was committed?

If he was in the US and had sex with a 17 year old, it was a crime.

Should be easy enough to prove, at least, that he was in the US. Except the dates around this all seem very vague.

Does she allege that PA paid her?

I suggested at the time that her charity was likely just to be her but got shot down pretty fast on here.

I think Andrew is a total twat but I also think VG is a little dubious herself - she has been accused of trafficking herself, she sued another man and then said she was mistaken, her testimony wasn't required for Maxwell and Epstein's trial because it wasn't considered credible enough, I think the difference between her and GM isn't huge.

I think VG alleged that Epstein/Maxwell paid her to have sex with Andrew, so it wouldn't be Andrew committing the offence as he didn't do the paying?

@Everydayitsgettingcloser I feel the way you do. You have a woman who admitted to being paid to recruit young girls when she was 18+. She’s not credible.

I think she had a terrible childhood and it lead to her behavior, but I don’t think she is credible.

It’s also impossible to fathom why a 17 year old with a home (she lived with her dad) and a job (in the spa at a swanky resort, where her father also lived) would choose to work for these two horrible people and assist them in abusing you g girls.

Her father also worked, not lived.

There has been no criminal prosecution of Andrew neither here nor in the States. Presumably because either no criminal offence was presumed to have been committed, or if it was, there wasn't enough evidence to prove the case and secure a conviction. So this was a civil case. She says he did, 3 times, he says he never even met her. They can't both be telling the truth. So who is lying? ........

Virginia was considered an unreliable witness, and was not called to testify in Maxwells prosecution. In this case, if she can't produce the original photo to prove otherwise, then of course it can be said that the photo is false. She has also dropped her case against Dershowitz, saying she was mistaken about his identity.

Andrew has given us a load of old guff about not sweating and visiting Pizza Hut, on one relevant date in London, but appears to be unable to prove either. Where was his personal protection officer?

Even if he does manage to get Virginia to admit to another "mistake" in identifying him, and the picture could be proven to be false, the verifiable truth is that Andrew stayed in touch with a man who had been found guilty of sexual offences against a minor. His reputation is shot from that alone anyway.

I thought Andrew was horrible long before all this due to reports of how he behaved to staff. I remember a story about him screaming at the security on the gate of where I can’t remember, and can’t be bothered to look it up, because they didn’t let him in quick enough or something.

So I have no doubt he’s not a nice person and has possibly been ‘entertained’ on occasion the same as many wealthy men in positions of power all over the world but to be publicly labelled a paedophile, pervert, to be involved in sex trafficking etc, is a different matter and I hope he does have his day in court as reading between the lines something doesn’t add up especially as it seems the the original of this photo has somehow disappeared. If you have a original of a photo that is important enough to have scanned it onto a PC to be used as evidence to accuse someone of something, why not keep the original safe?

“the verifiable truth is that Andrew stayed in touch with a man who had been found guilty of sexual offences against a minor.”

agreed. Unforgivable.

If it could be proved that he knew that she was under 18 and had been paid to have sex with him then that looks like an offence has been committed. Since Epstein is dead and Maxwell says it never happened and in the probable absence of physical evidence then that's looking like a non starter.

I agree with that too. I wish someone more credible had accused him and taken their case all the way.

And utterly stupid. Imagine being so arrogant and so dim that you meet someone like Epstein and think what a good chap, so brilliant that all these beautiful girls/women want to be with me, and don't stop for a moment to consider what Epstein wants from you.

I think the difference between her and GM isn't huge.

I think that's an awful thing to say. Trafficked young girls aren't just beaten up and manacled in a basement, they are coerced, manipulated, paid with money and promised modelling contracts, theatre school, riches beyond their imagination. The whole Epstein way of doing it was to get these young girls to bring in their friends.

To say that a 17 year old girl is no different to a mid thirties very rich entitled woman of the world, who is now in prison for 20 years plus because she spent her time recruiting girls as young as 14 in trailer parks, outside schools, in shopping malls etc. is really unpleasant.

I can't believe what I read on here sometimes.

I also think that VG’s attorney mentioning calling MM to testify makes them both (VG and her attorney) seem utterly ridiculous. Out for money, not justice.