Duke of York BBC Interview

Purple Mountain

Muahahaha wrote: »

For me it revealed two new pieces of information that make this case even murkier. Firstly from the Newsnight interview Andrew said that he has no recollection of ever meeting or knowing who Virginia Roberts was. Now the Panaroma team has unearthed the 5 in the morning email from Andrew to Gislaine Maxwell asking for help on the allegations.So this shows he lied in the Newsnight interview, he was fully aware of who she was as the photo proves.

The second little nugget (and one not expanded on by the Panaroma team) was the fact that when they went from Tramps to Maxwells house Andrew traveled in a jeep behind them and was driven by his royal protection officers who go everywhere with members of the royal family, including the inside of nightclubs when necessary. Their literal job is to have eyes on him at all times and be ready to intervene in case of attack. They're trained to take a bullet for him in the same way the US Secret Service are trained in protecting a US President. So his own police officers would have seen Virginia in the nightclub with Andrew dancing and would also have known and vetted all parties going back to the house, as is their job while protecting a royal. Id even go as far as to say that at least one of them was inside the house at all times, again this would be normal for a royal protection officer protecting a royal. They dont just let a prince inside a random house in case anything were to happen, then it is their job on the line.

All of the above is very relevant because Virginia went into Scotland Yard sometime around 2012 and made a full statement of what happened that night in London. She alleged that she had been traffiked by Epstein and Maxwell and abused by Andrew. The Met were supposed to investigate the allegation and if they had of they could have found out the truth from Andrews royal protection detail who would have corroborated the events of that night with what Virginia says happened. Instead the Met told her and her lawyer that the case wasnt going to proceed. They never explained why this was, only that she didnt have a case and that was that.

In my mind now all the evidence to prove what she alleges is there but instead what we have a one giant cover up of the Royal Family involving the Met police who neglected to investigate the allegations. If they had of then Andrew would clearly have been under arrest.

I didn't see last night's interview but did he not contact Ms Maxwell after the allegations came to light?
That does not prove he knew or remembered Virginia, but was merely making enquiries about who was making the allegations?

tuxy

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I didn't see last night's interview but did he not contact Ms Maxwell after the allegations came to light?
That does not prove he knew or remembered Virginia, but was merely making enquiries about who was making the allegations?

Check PMs for more info on what you missed.

Purple Mountain

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I didn't see last night's interview but did he not contact Ms Maxwell after the allegations came to light?
That does not prove he knew or remembered Virginia, but was merely making enquiries about who was making the allegations?

That was my understanding too. The news was out that she had made the allegation- so she could have just been a “name” to him at that stage and nothing else.

In relation to royal protection, certainly if he WAS in Tramp, then MI5 or whoever know this- a denial from his protection team would help him a bit if they said he absolutely wasn’t there that evening but no denial is a bit damning - sometimes it’s what’s not said that counts the most.

@ Muahaha- “under arrest” for what? 17 is consensual in UK- and where is the evidence Andrew knew she was trafficked? And possibly, were trafficking laws even in place when complaint was made?

It’s not that simple at all. But the fact she made the complaint to Scotland Yard certainly stands in her favour

Stop moaning ffs

Saw trump saying he’s never met Andrew and doesn’t know him.
Yet he had lunch with him in June.
Right around the time the whole Epstein thing was in full swing no?

Convenient selective memory ahoy

ohnonotgmail

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Saw trump saying he’s never met Andrew and doesn’t know him.
Yet he had lunch with him in June.
Right around the time the whole Epstein thing was in full swing no?

Convenient selective memory ahoy

and played a round of golf with as well.

Stop moaning ffs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and played a round of golf with as well.

I wonder is trump playing up the dementia angle. WH staffers saying he’s getting worse babbling incoherently no memory retention at all. We know he’s on speed or whatever it is. So perhaps genuinely doesn’t remember meeting him? All those times down the years

tuxy

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

We know he’s on speed or whatever it is.

He's back on diethylpropion again?

Stop moaning ffs

tuxy wrote: »

He's back on diethylpropion again?

I can’t spell the name right but it’s aderol

tuxy

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I can’t spell the name right but it’s aderol

Adderall? I only knew about the diethylpropion usage from his past which would be far more worrying than adderall.
Where was it reported?

Berserker5

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That was my understanding too. The news was out that she had made the allegation- so she could have just been a “name” to him at that stage and nothing else.

In relation to royal protection, certainly if he WAS in Tramp, then MI5 or whoever know this- a denial from his protection team would help him a bit if they said he absolutely wasn’t there that evening but no denial is a bit damning - sometimes it’s what’s not said that counts the most.

I think the official secrets act is the royals saviour here

I seen an ex protection officer saying he couldn't talk at all

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

@ Muahaha- “under arrest” for what? 17 is consensual in UK- and where is the evidence Andrew knew she was trafficked? And possibly, were trafficking laws even in place when complaint was made?

It’s not that simple at all. But the fact she made the complaint to Scotland Yard certainly stands in her favour

The trafficking law wasn't in place in the UK until 2003 so while what PA did with her was morally reprehensible and reflects extremely poorly on the royal family, he is at no risk of criminal charges in the UK, and never was for the alleged actions. It's probably why Scotland Yard took no action. But like you say, the fact that she reported it to them does add to her credibility.

However if he did go to other jurisdictions such as the island and some of JE's mansions there may be charges to answer in those. If those can be proven I suppose.


Charles has indicated that he wants to pare down royalty in the past and probably when the queen dies he would happily strip Andrew of his HRH title and not just retire him from public duties as the Queen did. And I'd say she only did that as a last resort to her favourite child when she had no option after his car crash interview. Something like 6% of the public believed him. There would have been many on the fence up to the interview.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

The trafficking law wasn't in place in the UK until 2003 so while what PA did with her was morally reprehensible and reflects extremely poorly on the royal family, he is at no risk of criminal charges in the UK, and never was for the alleged actions. It's probably why Scotland Yard took no action. But like you say, the fact that she reported it to them does add to her credibility.

However if he did go to other jurisdictions such as the island and some of JE's mansions there may be charges to answer in those. If those can be proven I suppose.


Charles has indicated that he wants to pare down royalty in the past and probably when the queen dies he would happily strip Andrew of his HRH title and not just retire him from public duties as the Queen did. And I'd say she only did that as a last resort to her favourite child when she had no option after his car crash interview. Something like 6% of the public believed him. There would have been many on the fence up to the interview.

New York and the Virgin Islands where Epstein had properties we’re referenced- I don’t believe there is an allegation that he had sex with her in a country or state where it was illegal to do so, from an age consent perspective.
She filed a law suit in Florida where the legal age of consent is 18, against Epstein. However PA wasn’t alleged to have sex with her there, even though he did stay in Epstein’s house there.

His responses to questions and language used throughout in the interview clearly show he’s hiding a lot. His third party reference to “a mans positive act” when talking about his sexual conquests shows that he distanced himself from answering that difficult question by simply talking in the 3rd party- royal or no royal, that’s not a way to answer a question.

Saying all of that, Roberts did sell the PA photo for 160,000 dollars to a newspaper - so it’s hard for me to unquestionably believe her side of the story either.

Neyite

Yes from an age of consent perspective it's a non-runner of a conviction. They seem to be approaching it from a trafficking point of view though - which fits since she maintains that her passport was held by Gislaine or Jeffrey. And it could be argued that flying her to an island on a private plane effectively trapped her at their whim. She couldn't physically leave even if she wanted to without their approval. And crossing state lines makes it an FBI matter



Id' say the victims know that getting a conviction for any of the perpetrators is a long shot, given the powerful people involved. They know Andrew won't ever set foot on US territory and risk being even questioned. In times gone by, the could have been (and were) silenced and the matter covered up. But times have changed and that's in their favour.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

Yes from an age of consent perspective it's a non-runner of a conviction. They seem to be approaching it from a trafficking point of view though - which fits since she maintains that her passport was held by Gislaine or Jeffrey. And it could be argued that flying her to an island on a private plane effectively trapped her at their whim. She couldn't physically leave even if she wanted to without their approval. And crossing state lines makes it an FBI matter



Id' say the victims know that getting a conviction for any of the perpetrators is a long shot, given the powerful people involved. They know Andrew won't ever set foot on US territory and risk being even questioned. In times gone by, the could have been (and were) silenced and the matter covered up. But times have changed and that's in their favour.

The "thing" about America is the statute of limitations which applies in many states, even for such crimes as these. So quite often, the only way forward is the civil route, if even that.

I agree, a "conviction" would certainly be a long shot- in addition, the challenge now for any victim (and for the record, I do believe there are victims), will be the lawyers and PR idiots, publicists and general ambulance chasers- who will take the lions share of Epstein's estate, and both genuine victims and whoever rolls in for the monetary ride, will be left with the scraps to fight over.

It's a sad story.

There's a very interesting article out there - if I get it I'll post the link again- I think it's from the New York Times but I just can't remember right now.

But the essence of the article is essentially, if you're rich in New York society i.e. billionaire rich, anything is forgivable, even this seedy stuff- but being poor, that's when your friends really desert you in droves. It was a bit of an eye opener and a very well written article.

Creol1

Deleted User wrote: »

New York and the Virgin Islands where Epstein had properties we’re referenced- I don’t believe there is an allegation that he had sex with her in a country or state where it was illegal to do so, from an age consent perspective.
She filed a law suit in Florida where the legal age of consent is 18, against Epstein. However PA wasn’t alleged to have sex with her there, even though he did stay in Epstein’s house there.

His responses to questions and language used throughout in the interview clearly show he’s hiding a lot. His third party reference to “a mans positive act” when talking about his sexual conquests shows that he distanced himself from answering that difficult question by simply talking in the 3rd party- royal or no royal, that’s not a way to answer a question.

Saying all of that, Roberts did sell the PA photo for 160,000 dollars to a newspaper - so it’s hard for me to unquestionably believe her side of the story either.

While it's true that they paid her $160,000, they had to hunt her down for the story and the photo -- so it wasn't as if she was hawking it to the highest bidder. The newspaper was the MoS and their account is that "The photo of the pair - with Maxwell also in frame - was first published in 2011 after the Mail on Sunday tracked down Virginia Giuffre and paid her $160,000 for her story."

Also, she didn't actually sell them the photograph itself, which she states she turned over to the FBI.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7748397/THAT-photo-Prince-Andrew-Virginia-Roberts-100-real-says-ex-boyfriend.html

Creol1

Creol1 wrote: »

While it's true that they paid her $160,000, they had to hunt her down for the story and the photo -- so it wasn't as if she was hawking it to the highest bidder. The newspaper was the MoS and their account is that "The photo of the pair - with Maxwell also in frame - was first published in 2011 after the Mail on Sunday tracked down Virginia Giuffre and paid her $160,000 for her story."

Also, she didn't actually sell them the photograph itself, which she states she turned over to the FBI.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7748397/THAT-photo-Prince-Andrew-Virginia-Roberts-100-real-says-ex-boyfriend.html

According to that article, she didn’t put forward that photo to the journalist- he “found” it in a bunch of other photos.

If she was so hung up on PA at that time, why didn’t she simply show the photo to the journalist as proof instead of this story of the journalist “just coming across” it as it’s described.

As I’ve said, I’m not accepting her story “unquestionably” - it May be true -I think a healthy scepticism is always prudent in the absence of clear evidence.

Muahahaha

Article in the Guardian today asking where is Ghislaine Maxwell. Guiffres lawyer has a team of private investigators on it, they had thought they tracked her down to some wealthy gated community in Colorado but the lead came up blank. She was last seen in public in LA back in August this year.

It speculates that she is now likely in some country with no extradition treaty with the US, that the FBI know where she is and that (surprisingly) she may be planning a tv interview of her own. Really doubt the last part is true, unless of course she is the one who gets to write the questions and its all stage managed to the point of being useless.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Article in the Guardian today asking where is Ghislaine Maxwell. Guiffres lawyer has a team of private investigators on it, they had thought they tracked her down to some wealthy gated community in Colorado but the lead came up blank. She was last seen in public in LA back in August this year.

It speculates that she is now likely in some country with no extradition treaty with the US, that the FBI know where she is and that (surprisingly) she may be planning a tv interview of her own. Really doubt the last part is true, unless of course she is the one who gets to write the questions and its all stage managed to the point of being useless.

I’ve been very sceptical of all TV interviews since the Molly Martens 20:20 shameful sh1tefest that was her pre-trial PR pack of lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg-ZnGvBkgI

So I ask, why should I believe Roberts or indeed PA?

Oxter

Irish newspapers have been very quiet about the yanks demanding to interview Andrew.

Dual wheels

Oxter wrote: »

Irish newspapers have been very quiet about the yanks demanding to interview Andrew.

They stay away from the royal family in general
I wonder did the queen know he was a pedo? Back in Philip’s day it was probably seen as acceptable

Seth Brundle

The indo had an article on his interview yesterday...
Palace initially thought Prince Andrew interview went well, says BBC's Maitlis

So , 2 days in the Virgin Islands with VR- I wonder what Pizza restaurant he’ll choose this time as his alibi


https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/31/underage-girl-forced-to-have-sex-with-prince-andrew-us-court-document-jeffrey-epstein

Zebra3

Dual wheels wrote: »

They stay away from the royal family in general
I wonder did the queen know he was a pedo? Back in Philip’s day it was probably seen as acceptable

I wonder did she know Mountbatten was a nonce too?

James Brown

I'd expect his arrogance makes him believe people will buy his bull****. That's what messed him up last time.
It's not credible that he stayed with Epstein so many times over so many years and either didnt know or didn't participate.
Also we need to remember members of UK security would be well aware of any shenanigans and for many years. Also who ever they reported to. Likely some politicians too.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

I'd expect his arrogance makes him believe people will buy his bull****. That's what messed him up last time.
It's not credible that he stayed with Epstein so many times over so many years and either didnt know or didn't participate.
Also we need to remember members of UK security would be well aware of any shenanigans and for many years. Also who ever they reported to. Likely some politicians too.

Flight logs should give some clear evidence- also lack of alternative location where he was. He hasn’t provided clear evidence for any of the allegations so far

Muahahaha

Bowie wrote: »

I'd expect his arrogance makes him believe people will buy his bull****. That's what messed him up last time.
It's not credible that he stayed with Epstein so many times over so many years and either didnt know or didn't participate.
Also we need to remember members of UK security would be well aware of any shenanigans and for many years. Also who ever they reported to. Likely some politicians too.

Ain't that the truth. He is a member of the royal family so gets 24/7 protection. I would presume on a foreign trip to New York that would mean a minimum of four royal protection officers. Two teams of two working 12 hour shifts while protecting him in the city. If Andrew goes into a restaurant or a house like Epsteins then one stays outside and the other protects him inside. Probably liaising with FBI officers too on site, important for diplomatic relations that they keep him safe as well.

I've no doubt his royal protection officers were in Epsteins house in New York and walked in the door to see young girls walking half naked around the place. Its just not credible that they were tasked with protecting him and didnt see anything. Same with the trips to the island, they would have seen and known everything.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Ain't that the truth. He is a member of the royal family so gets 24/7 protection. I would presume on a foreign trip to New York that would mean a minimum of four royal protection officers. Two teams of two working 12 hour shifts while protecting him in the city. If Andrew goes into a restaurant or a house like Epsteins then one stays outside and the other protects him inside. Probably liaising with FBI officers too on site, important for diplomatic relations that they keep him safe as well.

I've no doubt his royal protection officers were in Epsteins house in New York and walked in the door to see young girls walking half naked around the place. Its just not credible that they were tasked with protecting him and didnt see anything. Same with the trips to the island, they would have seen and known everything.

It’s the elephant in the room-he’s provided alternative locations for the 3 separate allegations (I think for the Virgin Islands allegation he was supposed to be holidaying with his family AROUND that time)- but there’s gaps in his alibis where he could easily have been at the alleged alternative locations - all 3 of them
But I wouldn’t hold out hope as this will likely be the official response -“records from that time destroyed”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8584291/Met-Police-destroyed-records-Prince-Andrews-Pizza-Express-alibi.html