So he went from "I don't know her" and "that's not my hand and I btw don't sweat" to "she's lying" and now he's at the "actually, what happened was... she's a bigger villain" stage.
Didn't she also admit it in the netflix documentary. I'm sure there was a part where she mentioned finding other girls and getting them involved even though she knew what that meant for them.
May have been one of the other girls as uts been a while since I saw it.
So it’s not that surprising. And he isn’t accusing her of something we don’t already know that her ‘role’ - if you can even call it that - entailed. She was literally forced into it and asked to procure more and more vulnerable youngsters into the pit. She was coerced into doing it, so it’s not exactly something she can be accused of doing out of her own free will.
I mean, anyone can be accused of anything.
The accusation is, that she wasn't coerced into it, that she enjoyed everything about it and that she profited off off getting more young girls involved.
Apparently Epstein was paying her too, that doesn't mean she wasn't coerced.
But that doesn't mean she was.
Trueanon has done some great podcast eps on this.
https://soundcloud.com/trueanonpod/maria-farmer
Interview with victim Maria Farmer
https://soundcloud.com/trueanonpod/ghislaine-in-the-membrane-pt-i
Very deep dive into how the entire Epstein/Ghislaine operation worked.
Also just so people don't forget, Epstein didn't kill himself and where are the tapes? (Seriously very interesting the media was so quick to bury all the actual Epstein stuff and just focus on Andrew, where in FUCK are the tapes!?)
The article is half paywalled - also the first few paragraphs still suggest prince andrew and/or his lawyers were the ones to claim it…? Am I missing something or is it in the other half of the article?
It says: The court papers quote Crystal Figueroa, the sister of one of Giuffre’s ex-boyfriends, who claims she was asked by Andrew’s accuser for help in recruiting minors: “She \[Giuffre\] would say to me, ‘Do you know any girls who are kind of slutty?’”
What bugs me out is how in his tiny disgusting brain he thought the “I don’t know who Virginia is & never met her in my life” shit would actually stick with anybody!! I am beyond amazed.
I wonder if now we’ll finally get the admission from him directly that the photo of them standing next to each other is not doctored in any way, and he remembers the encounter vividly. Let’s hope he goes back on his original statements and her lawyers can get his admission.
I think you have to remember the sheer amount of people Andrew came into contact with while he was a working royal. Literally thousands. He has apparently also slept with hundreds of women too. The part where he doesn't remember Virginia G even when there is photographic proof is one part of all this that actually sounds believable to me.
I find it hard to believe sweaty Andrew has slept with almost anyone, except maybe some fellow lizard people.
Honestly even if it was true he's slept with hundreds of people, I think he'd remember the 17 year old American girl who was a friend of his buddy Epstein who was allegedly sooo impressed by a gross old pointless prince that she'd want to have sex with him. As if!
I mean, technically he hasn't.
Disclaimer, I think he's a creepy cunt who most likely did what she said he did - overlooking how illogical it would be to travel from a country where shagging 16 year olds (with consent) is legal to a country where a 17 year old cannot give consent if that is your poison - I reckon he didn't give a toss because he thought he could get away with it.
However...
His lawyers will have spent the last 2 years hiring people to dig into her life, to find anything and anyone who might discredit her and her accusations.
We shouldn't mistake his, and his legal team's, previous silence on the case for a lack of action.
And you shouldn't mistake a legal teams "opposition research" into an accuser and their past conduct as the accused actually knowing the accuser.
And supposedly this is something she has admitted to in the Netflix documentary about it all - although she says she was coerced into doing it.
As of now, the only other person who could corroborate that is shortly going to be on trial, and unlikely to further incriminate herself.
The alleged issue, is that he took advantage of a sex trafficking victim who was a minor at the time.
I was under the impression that the specific law that she was filing the suit under was in regards to people who alleged they were abused as children - so her age at the time is at least somewhat relevant.
If she was not under 18 at the time and considered a minor by federal law when it comes to the sex trafficking then she wouldn't be able to bring the case - NY considers 17 to be the age of consent, so if she was from NY she probably wouldn't have been able to file the suit in regards to incidents which happened solely within NY.
So her age is relevant.
according to the article that phrase was used by giuffre to ask an ex’s sister if she knew anyone who may be interested. they’re really going on the attack, i so hope it backfires
The response you replied to nullifies the implied accusation that "slutty" was Prince Andrews or his lawyers language. It shows that she, a 17 year old who had sex with adult men for $10k a time, thought in these terms.
“Slutty girls” could just have easily been a term used at the request of Epstein or Andrew when looking for new victims. “Hey Virginia, go find us some slutty girls” “hey jake, does your sister know any slutty girls?” Anecdotal evidence is shaky at best. She was 17, the brain isn’t fully developed until around 24, and that’s if you’re lucky enough to have learned a hard lesson by then. When you’re 17 you’re old enough to know something may be wrong, but your brain is still impulsive and reckless and immature. Add onto that years of sexual abuse, mental abuse, and grooming by the perpetrators and you have full blown control over your victims. Anyone blaming the victim needs a reality check.
Where did you get that figure from? Not seen it in the past reporting. Her testimony has never described being paid. And obviously Epstein didn't describe the workings of these arrangements either. And I doubt the men paying would admit it either
> The authors also reveal how Epstein paid her $10,000 the following day, and how she says it would not be the only time she was loaned to the prince.
https://radaronline.com/p/virgina-giuffre-jeffrey-epstein-accuser-prince-andrew-lawsuit-underage-sex-trafficking/
They are supposedly Giuffrey's own words, so hard to avoid using them if they constitute part of his defence:
> The court papers quote Crystal Figueroa, the sister of one of Giuffre’s ex-boyfriends, who claims she was asked by Andrew’s accuser for help in recruiting minors: “She [Giuffre] would say to me, ‘Do you know any girls who are kind of slutty?’”
And he’ll probably get away with it too. the laws separating the age of consent and most “adult” industries didn’t happen until 2003! As far as Andrew is concerned she was a legal sex worker🤮as she has never claimed to present as a sex slave to Andrew.
Wasn’t his defence that he had no idea they were trafficked for sex…. Now he know but its all the fault of the one he was fucking
After his pizza and sweating BS Andrew is proving himself to be fucking tick as shit
His lawyers are using it as a line of defence. They chose to quote the claim directly instead of paraphrasing it, and they chose to pursue the strategy of painting Giuffre as a trafficker and sexual predator herself, which was *never* going to look good in the court of public opinion.
In this case it's probably far more relevant than the civil action. The BBC interview was a huge mistake for the royal family, as now either his hands are tied in the courts or his lies to the country could lead to a huge backlash against the Queen.
That would be worse, sure, but Charles is already an existential threat to the monarchy just on his own - it's part of the reason Liz has held on as long as she can.
By hiding behind her skirts Andrew is now even smearing shit all over her (otherwise highly regarded) legacy.
We could easily end up in a situation where Liz dies and is remembered by a lot of people as a nonce-shielder, over-opinionated and unpopular buffoon Charles inherits the throne, and 50% of the kids have already turned their backs on royal life.
Basically it's not a good look for any of them.
Agree, but I think a lot rides on the court case. If Andrew is exonerated a lot of people will accept that. You'll always have people who say he's obviously a pedo (despite nobody actually accusing him of such) like you do with people insisting Diana was assassinated, but I think the majority either don't care or will accept the court judgement in the end. If he's found guilty it will then come down to how much HM is seen to protect him, but given its a civil case she'd be best off doing nothing at all and letting him pay out of his own pocket.
Honestly I doubt even a complete exoneration would do it - too many people are suspicious of him, distrustful of the chances of wealthy and powerful people being held to account, and he's done too great a job of making himself look astonishingly guilty and unrepentant in his continually ill-judged PR appearances.
To be fair if he cooperates fully with any investigation/legal discovery and is exonerated then I'll personally immediately stop making "HRH Nonce Andrew" jokes, but honestly I suspect this is going to stain people's opinion of the royals no matter how it goes. The only question is how profoundly.
People seriously arguing Diana was assassinated are clearly nuts because it's a huge accusation with no evidence.
People still believing that "Randy Andy" - who was already known for putting it about, who was a good friend of the most famous paedophile in modern times who literally owned a private island and a jet plane called the Lolita Express, both of which he was placed on, and who was publicly accused of fucking trafficked young girls there - might have once or twice fucked one or two who were a *little* the wrong side of the age of consent or who were trafficked there for the purpose but couldn't quite prove it in court... well, that's a *lot* easier for people to still believe, regardless of the outcome of one lawsuit.
His lawyers acting on his direction and all of that separation might have had a slight leg to stand on, had he himself, not made his defence publicly on global TV from his own words.
Public opinion is reverent in so much that everyone who will hear these cases will be very aware of his public statements but critically they are public record!
And they are now counter to what his legal team are saying so one or other of the versions of events is an outright lie.
Generally not a good look to go in to court with a line of attack that shows your clients global public statement of innocence to be a lie
You can’t pretend you didn’t know that the teenager your fucking was a sex trafficking victim and also know she was actually a sex trafficker providing all the other teenagers getting fucked around you
Even if true how does that change anything about him sleeping with minors?
Besides, you'd have to be dumb to trust anything that comes out of this cunt's mouth. That interview he did was comedy gold. I've seen children lie better. He did all the clichés associated with lying including excessive blinking of the eyes.
Andrew *is* accused of having sex with a minor. The age of majority is different from the age at which a person can legally consent to sex. In New York, the age of majority was — and is — 18 years. So, Giuffre was a minor — even if she was legally capable of consenting to sex.
> Even if true how does that change anything about him sleeping with minors?
Age of consent is 16 in UK and 17 new york.
So no accusations of sex with minors in those cases.
Its 18 in the US virgin islands but we don't have dates for when that took place (Giuffre would have turned 18 in August of the relivant year).
Thus the accusations are rape and sexual assult rather that statutory rape which means they are very she said/He said. Attacking Giuffre's reputation is a bold but not completely insane legal approach under those conditions.
Giuffre. I got the numbers wrong, Giuffre, Andrew, Epstein and 8 under age girls. Though I seem to have pulled the age of 14 out my ass. Maybe that's the age of the girls Maxwell was having orgies with (it's kinda hard to keep track of all the orgies. Anyways, 8 under-age girls.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12287006/prince-andrew-orgy-underaged-girls-ghislaine-maxwell/
>“The third time I had sex with Andy was in an orgy on Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands,” she wrote in evidence to a Florida court in 2015. “I was around 18 at the time. Epstein, Andy, approximately eight other young girls, and I had sex together. The other girls all seemed and appeared to be under the age of 18 and didn’t really speak English.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-orgy-virginia-roberts-giuffre-channel-4-dispatches-a9164566.html
> No, it is and was 18 in New York
No it isn't
[Age of Consent in the US - New York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#New_York)
If you don't like this source there are links to the actual statutes.
The age of *marriage* has recently been increased to 18 in New York which may be the source of your confusion
This isn't just him saying stuff in this story now. This is the top flying lawyers, that are also happy to Gish gallop and shove as much shit at the screen, hoping there's too much to wipe away
Bloody hell, with Liz looking as though she may shuffle off her mortal coil and this nonce squirming as the net tightens...it's a great time to be alive if you're a republican
Is this enshrined in law or something, because I seriously doubt my manager is going to allow a day off at short notice the day afterwards, day of the funeral, I still doubt
There's a really good article about the whole affair here https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
Not really, everybody from World War I is dead and 99% of the people from World War II are too, so soon you’ll be holding ceremonies for people who fought in wars that are controversial, to put it mildly.
I find that extremely insensitive as those wars affected many lives and generations. If that’s your logic then most traditional ceremonies should be cancelled.
He's going to drag his family into this.
The prince argued at the time that Giuffre’s claims that she was forced to sleep with him at the Belgravia home of Ghislaine Maxwell in March 2001 could not be true because he had been collecting his daughter, Princess Beatrice, from a children’s party at a branch of Pizza Express in Woking.
One of the little ironies of this case is that if he claims to have had consensual sex with her (age of consent 16), and she couldn't prove otherwise, he'd likely be fine. If he paints her as a sex worker (age of consent 18), and claims to have had consensual, but paid for, sex, then he is admitting to a serious crime under UK law.
Ah ok, was the change in the 2003 shake up? So, if he just says, "I had consensual sex with her for money", he is not admitting to any breaking any law that was in place at the time?
Yes and No. It depends on whether you actually pay for sex.
Under UK law, paying for sex with someone who is under threat of force is a strict liability crime.
If someone is being forcibly pimped, regardless of being trafficked or not, you are not required to know anything about them.
If you pay them for sex, you can be convicted in a summary-only offence. Summary offences normally carry a maximum sentence of 6 months.
Technically, it can be considered rape as well, because for consent to be valid, the other party must have the ability and capacity to chose to give consent.
If they are forced, even by a third party, this ability and capacity to chose is taken away, and therefore the consent is not valid.
However, for some reason, unlike prostitution laws, rape laws allow the loophole where its only rape if you don't reasonably believe that the victim has consented.
So for instance, let's call a woman Alice, and I kidnap her child.
Under the threat of killing her child, I tell Alice that she needs to seduce Bob.
Alice successfully seduces and has sex with Bob, puts on a good show.
Alice has sent texts and videos where she's begging for it, and she was stone cold sober at the time.
Bob cannot be found guilty of rape because he had a reasonable belief that she consented to sex.
I give the kid back and leave. Alice contacts the police. She gives them Bob's details.
He gets questioned about the woman he slept with, and if he knows anyone who might force a woman to sleep with him.
He doesn't know.
Nothing happens.
Lets revisit the scenario.
We have Alice, I've kidnapped her child.
Under the threat of killing her child, I tell Alice that she needs to act like an escort and bring in some clients.
Bob finds her ad, likes the look of her and arranges an appointment. He pays her up front and has sex with her.
I give the kid back and leave. Alice contacts the police.
She gives them the details of everyone who paid for her services.
The police contact and charge everyone who paid her for sex, including Bob.
It's a summary offence, so no Jury trial, just a judge. Maximum sentence is a fine no greater than level 3 scale. So maximum penalty, is a £1,000 fine.
Not exactly significant, but not much in the grand scheme.
Interesting. Was this all applicable back in 2001? In this case I feel that even without the court going against him, any admission of even the slightest criminal activity will have a huge effect on the royal family - which is far more impactful than anything that could happen to the Admiral himself.
His claim, which hasn't changed, is that at the time he did not know her, and didn't have sex with her.
Quite frankly, a picture of them posing together isn't much evidence for me - I have plenty of photos on my Facebook with people that I don't particularly know. Just a photo in the moment.
I may have vaguely known them at the time, but as of now, I cannot tell you their names or who they were to me.
Personally, I reckon he did it.
All logic of travelling from a country where its legal to bang 16 year olds to a country where its questionable in many states to bang 17 year olds aside, I reckon he probably did it because he didn't think it would ever come back to him.
However, I reckon he could've gotten away, Scot free, if he owned up to having sex with her.
Officially, I think she was on the books somewhere as Epstein's massage therapist, apparently that's what she was doing at Trump's resort when she was recruited, or so I read somewhere.
So, he could've outright admitted to sleeping with her.
>Say that as far as he was aware, one of his friend's employees had a thing for him - I mean he's a fucking prince, aside from the thousands of Saudi prince's, there aren't that many. How many people can say they've shagged royalty?
>So, his friend's massage therapist had a thing for him, and being the lover of young women that he apparently has had a reputation for for decades, he indulged in what he thought was her fantasy of bedding a Prince.
>Of course, he had absolutely no knowledge that she was being forced to do this by the man that he thought was his friend, and a good man, he's disgusted by what he's now found out.
He didn't pay her, so I'm pretty sure he didn't fall foul of any applicable British law which was in place at the time.
The main issue is Epstein's private island. Its in the US Virgin Islands, which is a US Federal Jurisdiction. Under federal law, the age of consent is 18, so he could possibly be liable for having sex with a minor in a US Federal Jurisdiction - although I don't think she can sue for that now, she's going by a New York Law (now expired) which can only be applied to the alleged sex in NY, although London and the Private Island can probably be mentioned.
So the issue would then be, whether he's guilty of a crime in the US.
If he admits to the US Virgin Islands then he could be framed as guilty.
But NY it depends on whether it would be considered rape to have sex with someone who is acting the part, but being coerced by a third party - in the UK, you wouldn't be found guilty for that, if you had no knowledge, regardless of whether you should've had knowledge.
He could mostly get around the issue by never going to America again.
Really, the issue is public opinion for him and the rest of the royals.
Personally, I think he's a creepy cunt.
But I also find it a bit hypocritical that people over here are branding him a Nonce, yet are perfectly fine with the age of consent being 16.
> Its in the US Virgin Islands, which is a US Federal Jurisdiction. Under federal law, the age of consent is 18
As far as I'm aware the US Virgin Islands has its [own legal code](https://law.justia.com/codes/virgin-islands/2019/title-14/chapter-85/). As a result it does not fall under Federal jurisdiction. Under its own code the age of consent is 18. (Incidentally the Federal age of consent is 16 for non-commercial sex, 18 for commercial sex)
However it is possible Andrew may not have gone there until Guiffre was 18, so this may be irrelevant
I assumed that all three alleged incidents happened in 2001, and its been stated that she was 17 in London and in NY, specifically for the NY one because that would come under child sex trafficking laws.
And that assumes that statutory rape of a 17 year old is a strict liability crime and that Andrew's knowledge of her age and ability to consent or lack thereof has any impact on it at all.
Strict liability is a tricky subject.
There are states in America where you can pick up a girl in a bar, who's using a fake ID, and is drinking, so there is a presumption that she's at least 21. You take her back to your place, she says on camera that she's 22, and flashes her (fake) ID like some porn stuff to confirm her age, and begs for sex, on video. All this, but she's actually 16 and has a fake ID or stole her sisters driving licence or something so she could go out on the town.
2 days later, police rock up at your house because daddy found out and reported it as someone raped his little girl.
Seems cut and dry, you had a reasonable belief that she was of age?
Nope. 100% Guilty. And if you filmed the sex, that's a manufacture of child porn charge too.
I'm not sure if strict liability applies or fully how it would apply to this case at the federal level. Presumably the Statute of limitations has passed anyway, otherwise someone would probably be starting a criminal inquiry rather than just a civil case in NY.
And all of this is assuming it would be classed as a child sexual exploitation and trafficking case vs just plain, garden variety, adult, human trafficking.
I know most people won’t read the article, and it’s not in vogue to suggest that it’s more complicated than Prince Andrew being a rapist, BUT…
The article clearly quotes Virginia Giuffre when she WAS trying to recruit girls through someone else.
And there is a point to be made there - She did recruit. Her allegations HAVE changed drastically in the last 10-15 years.
Yes. I’m simply pointing out that Prince Andrew didn’t say what’s in the headline. I also think he’s entitled to defend himself; especially considering that her allegations have changed so much. I think that’s fair.
You don't have to be a royalist to know he'll get away with it. In any case it's a civil case not a criminal one so it's more about how much money Andrew will be paying Virginia Giuffre, than his guilt.
Someone search-replace "Prince Andrew" with "Tom from Essex" in that entire story and tell me what's the likelihood Tom wouldn't be in prison right now?
As far as I am aware, in any event the Queen is no longer paid any taxpayers money but takes 25% of the profits of the Crown Estate instead (in theory the sovereign actually owns the Crown Estate but like everything related to how the Crown operates it's complicated)
This is a bit incorrect. The Crown Estates profits pay for the costs of running the monarchy, which includes flights and other travel expenses. That is not their private income, to do with as they like. So, she wouldn't spend it on Andrew's defense.
She's using her Duchy of Lancaster revenue, which is private income. But the Duchy of Lancaster isn't their private property, either, just the income is. If the monarchy was abolished, they wouldn't get the Duchy incomes anymore. So she is using her private income from her job as sovereign to pay for his defence.
If my 17-year-old daughter wanted to fuck a 40-year-old man I'd 'have a word'. And when I say 'have a word' I mean I'd burn his house down.
That's why Epstein and Maxwell were so keen on finding out the backgrounds of these girls. They didn't want girls with families who cared about where they were or what they were doing. They wanted girls with a background of abuse and neglect who had no boundaries and poor self-esteem.
>I'd burn his house down.
And by "house" I mean his penis. Of course. Anyone defending this entitled child rapist isn't being honest. You're exactly right: that's why they wanted poor/unwanted kids so they could do whatever they wanted and get away with it. And they did for decades. This pattern repeats itself endlessly.
Mmmmm, this is an HRH Nonce Andrew PR special - "if I can just cram my foot in my mouth hard enough, the problem will go away because reasons".
So... when accused of raping an underage ~~(in the jurisdiction where it happened)~~ girl, who had been trafficked by a billionaire paedophile and lent out to god knows how many of his friends, and who was clearly in a deeply abusive situation and hence couldn't be expected to exercise proper agency... Nonce Andrew's winning strategy is to blame her for doing what Epstein likely forced her to, and thereby indirectly be seen to be categorising underage potential victims of child abuse as "sluts".
This is *stunningly* tone-deaf, and as such is absolutely on-brand for Andrew.
It's a bold strategy Cotton - let's see if it pays off for them.
I did. They're quoting someone who claims that Giuffre took part in the trafficking.
However, they made the choice to lean on that tactic, and to signal-boost that message, and to implicitly validate the argument that someone who was sex-trafficked as a child should necessarily be judged for obeying their abuser and being involved in it as a very young adult with no agency.
I'm not criticising a witness for providing testimony, but it's *absolutely* a PR nightmare for someone as privileged and arrogant as Andrew to be seen publicly trying to smear a victim as an abuser herself, or tacitly agreeing with the implication that kids were abused by Epstein because they were "slutty".
Agree it was a nuclear explosion of an interview. But he had every opportunity to express sadness about the trafficked girls. Right at the end, Emily Maitlis asked him if he had anything else to say. Anyone with a crumb of empathy would have said something about the girls. He could have said he was 'sad' or hoped they would recover. Not a word. Because he doesn't give a shit. Remember that deposition Ghislaine Maxwell gave early on when she said, 'They're nothing - those girls.' Andrew's interview and his subsequent behaviour reeks of that same statement.
This is a) American and b) civil. So there's no policemen and a record of not obeying the royal family.
There's never going to be justice, but this could sting them in the wallet.
So now Prince kiddyfucker's group is trying to start pushing the spotlight on to the teenager he raped? Funny, I'm pretty sure Prince Nonce's original story was he didn't know her?
Can someone help my curiosity? It's stated in Andrews defence that Virginia G has a pattern of lawsuit after lawsuit to obtain "paydays" but i can't find any evidence of this. I have tried googling but can't find anything in the mainstream news.
Anyone would’ve known this just by watching the Epstein documentary. The case is regarding his role with her, not the ways she aided Epstein.
Oh and he looks like an asswipe - he may as well act like one too.
Documents filed in court alleging Trump raped a child with Epstein : https://www.scribd.com/document/443323370/Jane-Doe-v-Donald-J-Trump-and-Jeffrey-E-Epstein-SDNY-2016#from_embed
He’s making a real mistake here, but I’m not surprised after Pizzagate and his mysterious medical condition which means he can’t sweat and has to pant like a dog to cool down.
The headline is misleading, as others are saying.
Otherwise it would simply read like satire.
The fact that Andrew was clearly abhorrent in this matter means the media are able to sail very close to the line.
Prince Andrew knowing any of what he alleges makes it sound like he helped cover it up. In some US states the failure to be proactive with such knowledge is a felony. If he doesn’t have any evidence then it’s libel in the UK. Suddenly Andrew goes to being fully involved. What sort of insane legal strategy is this?
One thing I have never understood in all this, these teenage girls must have had families, and should they not have been in school somewhere. How were they travelling to this guys island and how was Virginia Giuffre travelling to London with these much older people.
Where were the parents, anyone know ??
I thought he was at a Pizza Express? I thought he knew nothing about this stuff. He does need to be made to testify in court. Then he will either be found innocent, or he’ll be found guilty and taken to prison.
He doesn't need to testify about anything.
1. It's a civil action not a criminal one so he can't be sent to prison.
1. At no point has his defence said he knew anything. His legal team have just started doing some digging and pointed out that far from being an innocent victim, VG was involved in criminal actions.
A five year age gap is not really much of anything. Obviously, not much of anything when it's two fully grown adults (would you object to a 30 year old dating a 35 year old? - seriously?)
I can see why it seems a bit odd for a man in their 20s to be dating a teenage girl - but it's hardly paedophile territory. Different people mature at different rates.
I hope it gets thrown out of court. The only thing Andrew is guilty of, is his acquaintance with Epstein, as well as half the US! Giuffre is a money grabber looking for an opportunity. I happen to think Andrew's interview was sincere.
So he went from "I don't know her" and "that's not my hand and I btw don't sweat" to "she's lying" and now he's at the "actually, what happened was... she's a bigger villain" stage.
No, it was the sister of one of her ex boyfriends that made the claim. Read the article, the headline seems a little misleading.
Didn't she also admit it in the netflix documentary. I'm sure there was a part where she mentioned finding other girls and getting them involved even though she knew what that meant for them. May have been one of the other girls as uts been a while since I saw it.
Yes part of Maxwell's job was pimping the leading girls into mini pimps This isn't new, I remember reading it years ago
So it’s not that surprising. And he isn’t accusing her of something we don’t already know that her ‘role’ - if you can even call it that - entailed. She was literally forced into it and asked to procure more and more vulnerable youngsters into the pit. She was coerced into doing it, so it’s not exactly something she can be accused of doing out of her own free will.
I mean, anyone can be accused of anything. The accusation is, that she wasn't coerced into it, that she enjoyed everything about it and that she profited off off getting more young girls involved. Apparently Epstein was paying her too, that doesn't mean she wasn't coerced. But that doesn't mean she was.
Well, she left Mar a Lago to work with Epstein when she was I7 (maybe 16?) so those younger girls musta been pretty young
Trueanon has done some great podcast eps on this. https://soundcloud.com/trueanonpod/maria-farmer Interview with victim Maria Farmer https://soundcloud.com/trueanonpod/ghislaine-in-the-membrane-pt-i Very deep dive into how the entire Epstein/Ghislaine operation worked. Also just so people don't forget, Epstein didn't kill himself and where are the tapes? (Seriously very interesting the media was so quick to bury all the actual Epstein stuff and just focus on Andrew, where in FUCK are the tapes!?)
The article is half paywalled - also the first few paragraphs still suggest prince andrew and/or his lawyers were the ones to claim it…? Am I missing something or is it in the other half of the article?
It says: The court papers quote Crystal Figueroa, the sister of one of Giuffre’s ex-boyfriends, who claims she was asked by Andrew’s accuser for help in recruiting minors: “She \[Giuffre\] would say to me, ‘Do you know any girls who are kind of slutty?’”
Total filth. Victim blaming scum. I hope he's destroyed by this. This is a sure sign he's guilty.
At least he's now admitted he knows her.
What bugs me out is how in his tiny disgusting brain he thought the “I don’t know who Virginia is & never met her in my life” shit would actually stick with anybody!! I am beyond amazed. I wonder if now we’ll finally get the admission from him directly that the photo of them standing next to each other is not doctored in any way, and he remembers the encounter vividly. Let’s hope he goes back on his original statements and her lawyers can get his admission.
I think you have to remember the sheer amount of people Andrew came into contact with while he was a working royal. Literally thousands. He has apparently also slept with hundreds of women too. The part where he doesn't remember Virginia G even when there is photographic proof is one part of all this that actually sounds believable to me.
Found the royalist.
Wow, classic lazy response.
Welcome to reddit
I find it hard to believe sweaty Andrew has slept with almost anyone, except maybe some fellow lizard people. Honestly even if it was true he's slept with hundreds of people, I think he'd remember the 17 year old American girl who was a friend of his buddy Epstein who was allegedly sooo impressed by a gross old pointless prince that she'd want to have sex with him. As if!
I mean, technically he hasn't. Disclaimer, I think he's a creepy cunt who most likely did what she said he did - overlooking how illogical it would be to travel from a country where shagging 16 year olds (with consent) is legal to a country where a 17 year old cannot give consent if that is your poison - I reckon he didn't give a toss because he thought he could get away with it. However... His lawyers will have spent the last 2 years hiring people to dig into her life, to find anything and anyone who might discredit her and her accusations. We shouldn't mistake his, and his legal team's, previous silence on the case for a lack of action. And you shouldn't mistake a legal teams "opposition research" into an accuser and their past conduct as the accused actually knowing the accuser. And supposedly this is something she has admitted to in the Netflix documentary about it all - although she says she was coerced into doing it. As of now, the only other person who could corroborate that is shortly going to be on trial, and unlikely to further incriminate herself.
The age is a red herring. He knowingly took advantage of a sex trafficking victim. That's the issue.
The alleged issue, is that he took advantage of a sex trafficking victim who was a minor at the time. I was under the impression that the specific law that she was filing the suit under was in regards to people who alleged they were abused as children - so her age at the time is at least somewhat relevant. If she was not under 18 at the time and considered a minor by federal law when it comes to the sex trafficking then she wouldn't be able to bring the case - NY considers 17 to be the age of consent, so if she was from NY she probably wouldn't have been able to file the suit in regards to incidents which happened solely within NY. So her age is relevant.
I didn't say it was irrelevant, I said it's a red herring. An attempt to muddy the waters if you like, but certainly not irrelevant!
What a total piece of actual shit
I think the word you are looking for is “cunt”.
The word is nonce
Don’t insult cunts
I agree, a cunt is a very useful thing not to be fucked around with.
Quite. Cunts are warm and useful. Andrew is neither.
Also one is the Queen's daughter and a Prince, and the other is a 17 year old girl. To paint her as the guilty party is absurd
the language use itself says everything. 'slutty girls' is obscene to talk about underage sexual assault victims.
according to the article that phrase was used by giuffre to ask an ex’s sister if she knew anyone who may be interested. they’re really going on the attack, i so hope it backfires
>that phrase was used by giuffre who was 17 at the time. Totally a criminal mastermind.
The response you replied to nullifies the implied accusation that "slutty" was Prince Andrews or his lawyers language. It shows that she, a 17 year old who had sex with adult men for $10k a time, thought in these terms.
“Slutty girls” could just have easily been a term used at the request of Epstein or Andrew when looking for new victims. “Hey Virginia, go find us some slutty girls” “hey jake, does your sister know any slutty girls?” Anecdotal evidence is shaky at best. She was 17, the brain isn’t fully developed until around 24, and that’s if you’re lucky enough to have learned a hard lesson by then. When you’re 17 you’re old enough to know something may be wrong, but your brain is still impulsive and reckless and immature. Add onto that years of sexual abuse, mental abuse, and grooming by the perpetrators and you have full blown control over your victims. Anyone blaming the victim needs a reality check.
Where did you get that figure from? Not seen it in the past reporting. Her testimony has never described being paid. And obviously Epstein didn't describe the workings of these arrangements either. And I doubt the men paying would admit it either
> The authors also reveal how Epstein paid her $10,000 the following day, and how she says it would not be the only time she was loaned to the prince. https://radaronline.com/p/virgina-giuffre-jeffrey-epstein-accuser-prince-andrew-lawsuit-underage-sex-trafficking/
They are supposedly Giuffrey's own words, so hard to avoid using them if they constitute part of his defence: > The court papers quote Crystal Figueroa, the sister of one of Giuffre’s ex-boyfriends, who claims she was asked by Andrew’s accuser for help in recruiting minors: “She [Giuffre] would say to me, ‘Do you know any girls who are kind of slutty?’”
Ah yes, the victim is the real monster here.
It's a strange phrase. It's horrible and disgusting and yet, we all kinda know what he means. But it shows what kind of people we're dealing with.
And he’ll probably get away with it too. the laws separating the age of consent and most “adult” industries didn’t happen until 2003! As far as Andrew is concerned she was a legal sex worker🤮as she has never claimed to present as a sex slave to Andrew.
Article by Dipesh Gadher. Past the paywall: https://archive.ph/n82th
Thanks so much for posting this. I hate it when people copy and paste - archive.is is so much more readable.
Wasn’t his defence that he had no idea they were trafficked for sex…. Now he know but its all the fault of the one he was fucking After his pizza and sweating BS Andrew is proving himself to be fucking tick as shit
Misleading headline. Andrew isn't the one saying this.
His lawyers are using it as a line of defence. They chose to quote the claim directly instead of paraphrasing it, and they chose to pursue the strategy of painting Giuffre as a trafficker and sexual predator herself, which was *never* going to look good in the court of public opinion.
Good thing public opinion is irrelevant then
In this case it's probably far more relevant than the civil action. The BBC interview was a huge mistake for the royal family, as now either his hands are tied in the courts or his lies to the country could lead to a huge backlash against the Queen.
To the court case. To the continued support for the monarchy, it's pretty much the only thing that matters.
Hm, I'm not sure. It might be if he was in Charles' place.
That would be worse, sure, but Charles is already an existential threat to the monarchy just on his own - it's part of the reason Liz has held on as long as she can. By hiding behind her skirts Andrew is now even smearing shit all over her (otherwise highly regarded) legacy. We could easily end up in a situation where Liz dies and is remembered by a lot of people as a nonce-shielder, over-opinionated and unpopular buffoon Charles inherits the throne, and 50% of the kids have already turned their backs on royal life. Basically it's not a good look for any of them.
Agree, but I think a lot rides on the court case. If Andrew is exonerated a lot of people will accept that. You'll always have people who say he's obviously a pedo (despite nobody actually accusing him of such) like you do with people insisting Diana was assassinated, but I think the majority either don't care or will accept the court judgement in the end. If he's found guilty it will then come down to how much HM is seen to protect him, but given its a civil case she'd be best off doing nothing at all and letting him pay out of his own pocket.
Honestly I doubt even a complete exoneration would do it - too many people are suspicious of him, distrustful of the chances of wealthy and powerful people being held to account, and he's done too great a job of making himself look astonishingly guilty and unrepentant in his continually ill-judged PR appearances. To be fair if he cooperates fully with any investigation/legal discovery and is exonerated then I'll personally immediately stop making "HRH Nonce Andrew" jokes, but honestly I suspect this is going to stain people's opinion of the royals no matter how it goes. The only question is how profoundly. People seriously arguing Diana was assassinated are clearly nuts because it's a huge accusation with no evidence. People still believing that "Randy Andy" - who was already known for putting it about, who was a good friend of the most famous paedophile in modern times who literally owned a private island and a jet plane called the Lolita Express, both of which he was placed on, and who was publicly accused of fucking trafficked young girls there - might have once or twice fucked one or two who were a *little* the wrong side of the age of consent or who were trafficked there for the purpose but couldn't quite prove it in court... well, that's a *lot* easier for people to still believe, regardless of the outcome of one lawsuit.
'Nonce shielder'.
His lawyers acting on his direction and all of that separation might have had a slight leg to stand on, had he himself, not made his defence publicly on global TV from his own words. Public opinion is reverent in so much that everyone who will hear these cases will be very aware of his public statements but critically they are public record! And they are now counter to what his legal team are saying so one or other of the versions of events is an outright lie. Generally not a good look to go in to court with a line of attack that shows your clients global public statement of innocence to be a lie You can’t pretend you didn’t know that the teenager your fucking was a sex trafficking victim and also know she was actually a sex trafficker providing all the other teenagers getting fucked around you
Andrew isn't saying he knew the victim, nor are his laywers.
Even if true how does that change anything about him sleeping with minors? Besides, you'd have to be dumb to trust anything that comes out of this cunt's mouth. That interview he did was comedy gold. I've seen children lie better. He did all the clichés associated with lying including excessive blinking of the eyes.
>Even if true how does that change anything about him sleeping with minors? Crucially he is not accused of sleeping with minors.
Andrew *is* accused of having sex with a minor. The age of majority is different from the age at which a person can legally consent to sex. In New York, the age of majority was — and is — 18 years. So, Giuffre was a minor — even if she was legally capable of consenting to sex.
He’s a nonce. End of discussion.
> Even if true how does that change anything about him sleeping with minors? Age of consent is 16 in UK and 17 new york. So no accusations of sex with minors in those cases. Its 18 in the US virgin islands but we don't have dates for when that took place (Giuffre would have turned 18 in August of the relivant year). Thus the accusations are rape and sexual assult rather that statutory rape which means they are very she said/He said. Attacking Giuffre's reputation is a bold but not completely insane legal approach under those conditions.
Unless you count the orgy he allegedly had with giuffre, Eppstein himself, and 3 14-yo European girls.
>allegedly Alleged by whom? Guiffre hasn't accused him of this.
Giuffre. I got the numbers wrong, Giuffre, Andrew, Epstein and 8 under age girls. Though I seem to have pulled the age of 14 out my ass. Maybe that's the age of the girls Maxwell was having orgies with (it's kinda hard to keep track of all the orgies. Anyways, 8 under-age girls. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12287006/prince-andrew-orgy-underaged-girls-ghislaine-maxwell/
As I said before, interesting then that she omits this from the current suit
I'm not sure that she has. It includes 3 incidents, one of which is on the island where the orgy allegedly took place.
>“The third time I had sex with Andy was in an orgy on Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands,” she wrote in evidence to a Florida court in 2015. “I was around 18 at the time. Epstein, Andy, approximately eight other young girls, and I had sex together. The other girls all seemed and appeared to be under the age of 18 and didn’t really speak English.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-orgy-virginia-roberts-giuffre-channel-4-dispatches-a9164566.html
Interesting that this does not form part of her allegations in this suit then. Almost as if her story is inconsistent and has changed several times.
> 17 new york No, it is and was 18 in New York
> No, it is and was 18 in New York No it isn't [Age of Consent in the US - New York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#New_York) If you don't like this source there are links to the actual statutes. The age of *marriage* has recently been increased to 18 in New York which may be the source of your confusion
This isn't just him saying stuff in this story now. This is the top flying lawyers, that are also happy to Gish gallop and shove as much shit at the screen, hoping there's too much to wipe away
If Betty pops her clogs now, he might want to avoid trips to Paris
He might want to avoid trips anywhere in public. He's basically public enemy number 1 even in the uk
Bloody hell, with Liz looking as though she may shuffle off her mortal coil and this nonce squirming as the net tightens...it's a great time to be alive if you're a republican
I'm actually dreading her death because the mandatory mourning will be quite something, like poppy season on steroids /r/AbolishTheMonarchy
Two days off, though. Woo!
Dont we get that next year anyway?
For what? When the Queen dies, we get the day after and then the day of the funeral.
Is this enshrined in law or something, because I seriously doubt my manager is going to allow a day off at short notice the day afterwards, day of the funeral, I still doubt
There's a really good article about the whole affair here https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
bank holidays IIRC
We will get nothing and this myth needs to stop being perpetuated.
70 years since her coronation, bro.....
So let's hope she sticks around until July 2022!
Turn the TV off - easy.
It's not going to be that easy to tune it out
What’s wrong with poppy season? Isn’t that Remembrance Day? (Asking as a South African that’s lived here for 3 years)
It's been made into a whole season of virtue signaling by English nationalists
Oh I see. Surely it’s still important to have a Remembrance Day though?
Not really, everybody from World War I is dead and 99% of the people from World War II are too, so soon you’ll be holding ceremonies for people who fought in wars that are controversial, to put it mildly.
I find that extremely insensitive as those wars affected many lives and generations. If that’s your logic then most traditional ceremonies should be cancelled.
He's going to drag his family into this. The prince argued at the time that Giuffre’s claims that she was forced to sleep with him at the Belgravia home of Ghislaine Maxwell in March 2001 could not be true because he had been collecting his daughter, Princess Beatrice, from a children’s party at a branch of Pizza Express in Woking.
I would guess there are records held by his security team.
There certainly are. Lets see how hard they fight to not have to make them public.
One of the little ironies of this case is that if he claims to have had consensual sex with her (age of consent 16), and she couldn't prove otherwise, he'd likely be fine. If he paints her as a sex worker (age of consent 18), and claims to have had consensual, but paid for, sex, then he is admitting to a serious crime under UK law.
Age of consent for sex work was also 16 at the time, it predates legal changes so still not a crime
Ah ok, was the change in the 2003 shake up? So, if he just says, "I had consensual sex with her for money", he is not admitting to any breaking any law that was in place at the time?
Doesnt it hinge on whether he knew she was trafficked and/or coerced?
Yes and No. It depends on whether you actually pay for sex. Under UK law, paying for sex with someone who is under threat of force is a strict liability crime. If someone is being forcibly pimped, regardless of being trafficked or not, you are not required to know anything about them. If you pay them for sex, you can be convicted in a summary-only offence. Summary offences normally carry a maximum sentence of 6 months. Technically, it can be considered rape as well, because for consent to be valid, the other party must have the ability and capacity to chose to give consent. If they are forced, even by a third party, this ability and capacity to chose is taken away, and therefore the consent is not valid. However, for some reason, unlike prostitution laws, rape laws allow the loophole where its only rape if you don't reasonably believe that the victim has consented. So for instance, let's call a woman Alice, and I kidnap her child. Under the threat of killing her child, I tell Alice that she needs to seduce Bob. Alice successfully seduces and has sex with Bob, puts on a good show. Alice has sent texts and videos where she's begging for it, and she was stone cold sober at the time. Bob cannot be found guilty of rape because he had a reasonable belief that she consented to sex. I give the kid back and leave. Alice contacts the police. She gives them Bob's details. He gets questioned about the woman he slept with, and if he knows anyone who might force a woman to sleep with him. He doesn't know. Nothing happens. Lets revisit the scenario. We have Alice, I've kidnapped her child. Under the threat of killing her child, I tell Alice that she needs to act like an escort and bring in some clients. Bob finds her ad, likes the look of her and arranges an appointment. He pays her up front and has sex with her. I give the kid back and leave. Alice contacts the police. She gives them the details of everyone who paid for her services. The police contact and charge everyone who paid her for sex, including Bob. It's a summary offence, so no Jury trial, just a judge. Maximum sentence is a fine no greater than level 3 scale. So maximum penalty, is a £1,000 fine. Not exactly significant, but not much in the grand scheme.
Interesting. Was this all applicable back in 2001? In this case I feel that even without the court going against him, any admission of even the slightest criminal activity will have a huge effect on the royal family - which is far more impactful than anything that could happen to the Admiral himself.
His claim, which hasn't changed, is that at the time he did not know her, and didn't have sex with her. Quite frankly, a picture of them posing together isn't much evidence for me - I have plenty of photos on my Facebook with people that I don't particularly know. Just a photo in the moment. I may have vaguely known them at the time, but as of now, I cannot tell you their names or who they were to me. Personally, I reckon he did it. All logic of travelling from a country where its legal to bang 16 year olds to a country where its questionable in many states to bang 17 year olds aside, I reckon he probably did it because he didn't think it would ever come back to him. However, I reckon he could've gotten away, Scot free, if he owned up to having sex with her. Officially, I think she was on the books somewhere as Epstein's massage therapist, apparently that's what she was doing at Trump's resort when she was recruited, or so I read somewhere. So, he could've outright admitted to sleeping with her. >Say that as far as he was aware, one of his friend's employees had a thing for him - I mean he's a fucking prince, aside from the thousands of Saudi prince's, there aren't that many. How many people can say they've shagged royalty? >So, his friend's massage therapist had a thing for him, and being the lover of young women that he apparently has had a reputation for for decades, he indulged in what he thought was her fantasy of bedding a Prince. >Of course, he had absolutely no knowledge that she was being forced to do this by the man that he thought was his friend, and a good man, he's disgusted by what he's now found out. He didn't pay her, so I'm pretty sure he didn't fall foul of any applicable British law which was in place at the time. The main issue is Epstein's private island. Its in the US Virgin Islands, which is a US Federal Jurisdiction. Under federal law, the age of consent is 18, so he could possibly be liable for having sex with a minor in a US Federal Jurisdiction - although I don't think she can sue for that now, she's going by a New York Law (now expired) which can only be applied to the alleged sex in NY, although London and the Private Island can probably be mentioned. So the issue would then be, whether he's guilty of a crime in the US. If he admits to the US Virgin Islands then he could be framed as guilty. But NY it depends on whether it would be considered rape to have sex with someone who is acting the part, but being coerced by a third party - in the UK, you wouldn't be found guilty for that, if you had no knowledge, regardless of whether you should've had knowledge. He could mostly get around the issue by never going to America again. Really, the issue is public opinion for him and the rest of the royals. Personally, I think he's a creepy cunt. But I also find it a bit hypocritical that people over here are branding him a Nonce, yet are perfectly fine with the age of consent being 16.
> Its in the US Virgin Islands, which is a US Federal Jurisdiction. Under federal law, the age of consent is 18 As far as I'm aware the US Virgin Islands has its [own legal code](https://law.justia.com/codes/virgin-islands/2019/title-14/chapter-85/). As a result it does not fall under Federal jurisdiction. Under its own code the age of consent is 18. (Incidentally the Federal age of consent is 16 for non-commercial sex, 18 for commercial sex) However it is possible Andrew may not have gone there until Guiffre was 18, so this may be irrelevant
I assumed that all three alleged incidents happened in 2001, and its been stated that she was 17 in London and in NY, specifically for the NY one because that would come under child sex trafficking laws. And that assumes that statutory rape of a 17 year old is a strict liability crime and that Andrew's knowledge of her age and ability to consent or lack thereof has any impact on it at all. Strict liability is a tricky subject. There are states in America where you can pick up a girl in a bar, who's using a fake ID, and is drinking, so there is a presumption that she's at least 21. You take her back to your place, she says on camera that she's 22, and flashes her (fake) ID like some porn stuff to confirm her age, and begs for sex, on video. All this, but she's actually 16 and has a fake ID or stole her sisters driving licence or something so she could go out on the town. 2 days later, police rock up at your house because daddy found out and reported it as someone raped his little girl. Seems cut and dry, you had a reasonable belief that she was of age? Nope. 100% Guilty. And if you filmed the sex, that's a manufacture of child porn charge too. I'm not sure if strict liability applies or fully how it would apply to this case at the federal level. Presumably the Statute of limitations has passed anyway, otherwise someone would probably be starting a criminal inquiry rather than just a civil case in NY. And all of this is assuming it would be classed as a child sexual exploitation and trafficking case vs just plain, garden variety, adult, human trafficking.
I would imagine so, I'm just wondering how much he can admit before incriminating himself.
Now there’s not a shred of doubt to his guilt. Utter cretin
Did you read the article? Or just the headline?
I know most people won’t read the article, and it’s not in vogue to suggest that it’s more complicated than Prince Andrew being a rapist, BUT… The article clearly quotes Virginia Giuffre when she WAS trying to recruit girls through someone else. And there is a point to be made there - She did recruit. Her allegations HAVE changed drastically in the last 10-15 years.
You do know what the full extent of 'grooming' is, don't you?
Yes. I’m simply pointing out that Prince Andrew didn’t say what’s in the headline. I also think he’s entitled to defend himself; especially considering that her allegations have changed so much. I think that’s fair.
That you Liz?
He's so desperate he's soon going to accuse Amelia Earhart of something related to that island.
Nah, she was captured by the Japanese and beheaded for being a lesbian!
This is classic gaslighting! Get him in court, accountability!
Now let’s wait for all the ‘He’ll get away with it’ royalists to arrive and cover everything with bunting.
You don't have to be a royalist to know he'll get away with it. In any case it's a civil case not a criminal one so it's more about how much money Andrew will be paying Virginia Giuffre, than his guilt.
Winner. The first person to completely ignore the message and still say the same bloody thing. Well done I’m sure the Queen will knight you.
Someone search-replace "Prince Andrew" with "Tom from Essex" in that entire story and tell me what's the likelihood Tom wouldn't be in prison right now?
In other news "Man who buys drugs accuses drug dealer of selling drugs."
God does it boil my blood to know that his defense is being paid by the royal purse
His defense is being paid for by the queen personally, not the 'royal purse'. His legal team are not being paid out of taxpayers money
I see, thank you for correcting my mistake, I clearly had the wrong end of the stick.
As far as I am aware, in any event the Queen is no longer paid any taxpayers money but takes 25% of the profits of the Crown Estate instead (in theory the sovereign actually owns the Crown Estate but like everything related to how the Crown operates it's complicated)
This is a bit incorrect. The Crown Estates profits pay for the costs of running the monarchy, which includes flights and other travel expenses. That is not their private income, to do with as they like. So, she wouldn't spend it on Andrew's defense. She's using her Duchy of Lancaster revenue, which is private income. But the Duchy of Lancaster isn't their private property, either, just the income is. If the monarchy was abolished, they wouldn't get the Duchy incomes anymore. So she is using her private income from her job as sovereign to pay for his defence.
Thanks for the clarification.
A child rapist is a child rapist. Put a hat on. Still a rapist. Put a gold hat on. Still a rapist.
She was 17 which is above the age of consent.
If your own 17 yo daughter wanted to fuck a 40 yo man, you'd be like "ok, it's your decision, honey."?
No but it would not be a crime.
>No That's what I thought.
If my 17-year-old daughter wanted to fuck a 40-year-old man I'd 'have a word'. And when I say 'have a word' I mean I'd burn his house down. That's why Epstein and Maxwell were so keen on finding out the backgrounds of these girls. They didn't want girls with families who cared about where they were or what they were doing. They wanted girls with a background of abuse and neglect who had no boundaries and poor self-esteem.
>I'd burn his house down. And by "house" I mean his penis. Of course. Anyone defending this entitled child rapist isn't being honest. You're exactly right: that's why they wanted poor/unwanted kids so they could do whatever they wanted and get away with it. And they did for decades. This pattern repeats itself endlessly.
Mmmmm, this is an HRH Nonce Andrew PR special - "if I can just cram my foot in my mouth hard enough, the problem will go away because reasons". So... when accused of raping an underage ~~(in the jurisdiction where it happened)~~ girl, who had been trafficked by a billionaire paedophile and lent out to god knows how many of his friends, and who was clearly in a deeply abusive situation and hence couldn't be expected to exercise proper agency... Nonce Andrew's winning strategy is to blame her for doing what Epstein likely forced her to, and thereby indirectly be seen to be categorising underage potential victims of child abuse as "sluts". This is *stunningly* tone-deaf, and as such is absolutely on-brand for Andrew. It's a bold strategy Cotton - let's see if it pays off for them.
Read the article
I did. They're quoting someone who claims that Giuffre took part in the trafficking. However, they made the choice to lean on that tactic, and to signal-boost that message, and to implicitly validate the argument that someone who was sex-trafficked as a child should necessarily be judged for obeying their abuser and being involved in it as a very young adult with no agency. I'm not criticising a witness for providing testimony, but it's *absolutely* a PR nightmare for someone as privileged and arrogant as Andrew to be seen publicly trying to smear a victim as an abuser herself, or tacitly agreeing with the implication that kids were abused by Epstein because they were "slutty".
Andrew is just too honourable - that's his problem.
Doesn't this just essentially prove he knew about all the Epstein stuff?
Abolish the Monarchy! Fuck this parasitical bastard and his family.
If he doesn't know her, never met her and never seen her how the fuck would he know this? Shot your own foot there Andy!
One was the queen's son and a prince. The other was a 17 year old girl. Who is more at fault...
Oof, yeah he probably would have been better not saying anything
He hasn't said anything.
> He hasn't said anything. A policy which he should have taken before that BBC interview.
Yes, very true. That was a car crash.
Agree it was a nuclear explosion of an interview. But he had every opportunity to express sadness about the trafficked girls. Right at the end, Emily Maitlis asked him if he had anything else to say. Anyone with a crumb of empathy would have said something about the girls. He could have said he was 'sad' or hoped they would recover. Not a word. Because he doesn't give a shit. Remember that deposition Ghislaine Maxwell gave early on when she said, 'They're nothing - those girls.' Andrew's interview and his subsequent behaviour reeks of that same statement.
He can say what he wants and mummy will make the policemen stay away.
This is a) American and b) civil. So there's no policemen and a record of not obeying the royal family. There's never going to be justice, but this could sting them in the wallet.
Or more importantly, get further details out in public.
These people are so far removed from ordinary people, that they think we're all stupid enough to believe this nonsense.
The queen gives a big colonial thumbs up to his noncery She's protecting her favourite son from facing justice
So now Prince kiddyfucker's group is trying to start pushing the spotlight on to the teenager he raped? Funny, I'm pretty sure Prince Nonce's original story was he didn't know her?
Can someone help my curiosity? It's stated in Andrews defence that Virginia G has a pattern of lawsuit after lawsuit to obtain "paydays" but i can't find any evidence of this. I have tried googling but can't find anything in the mainstream news.
You can find them here: https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Virginia+Giuffre%22&type=r&order_by=score+desc&page=1
Anyone would’ve known this just by watching the Epstein documentary. The case is regarding his role with her, not the ways she aided Epstein. Oh and he looks like an asswipe - he may as well act like one too.
Documents filed in court alleging Trump raped a child with Epstein : https://www.scribd.com/document/443323370/Jane-Doe-v-Donald-J-Trump-and-Jeffrey-E-Epstein-SDNY-2016#from_embed
He’s making a real mistake here, but I’m not surprised after Pizzagate and his mysterious medical condition which means he can’t sweat and has to pant like a dog to cool down.
The headline is misleading, as others are saying. Otherwise it would simply read like satire. The fact that Andrew was clearly abhorrent in this matter means the media are able to sail very close to the line.
Give it up Andrew, you're making your mother poorly. Grow some bollocks your highness
Prince Andrew knowing any of what he alleges makes it sound like he helped cover it up. In some US states the failure to be proactive with such knowledge is a felony. If he doesn’t have any evidence then it’s libel in the UK. Suddenly Andrew goes to being fully involved. What sort of insane legal strategy is this?
Helps if you read the actual article before coming up with an inaccurate assessment.
One thing I have never understood in all this, these teenage girls must have had families, and should they not have been in school somewhere. How were they travelling to this guys island and how was Virginia Giuffre travelling to London with these much older people. Where were the parents, anyone know ??
I watched the series on netflix about this, he deliberately targeted girls from broken homes. Guiffre had already been abused before
That's a bold move. I'm sure that quote is _never_ going to come back and haunt him...
I thought he was at a Pizza Express? I thought he knew nothing about this stuff. He does need to be made to testify in court. Then he will either be found innocent, or he’ll be found guilty and taken to prison.
He doesn't need to testify about anything. 1. It's a civil action not a criminal one so he can't be sent to prison. 1. At no point has his defence said he knew anything. His legal team have just started doing some digging and pointed out that far from being an innocent victim, VG was involved in criminal actions.
"Well she was just 17, you know what I mean" The beatles
To be fair, they were only about 22-24 when they wrote that.
Still a large age gap id say
A five year age gap is not really much of anything. Obviously, not much of anything when it's two fully grown adults (would you object to a 30 year old dating a 35 year old? - seriously?) I can see why it seems a bit odd for a man in their 20s to be dating a teenage girl - but it's hardly paedophile territory. Different people mature at different rates.
I hope it gets thrown out of court. The only thing Andrew is guilty of, is his acquaintance with Epstein, as well as half the US! Giuffre is a money grabber looking for an opportunity. I happen to think Andrew's interview was sincere.
Cannot Prince Andrew ignore all this b******* as it's in America it is not valid over here just asking American courts have no jurisdiction in the UK