News Forum - Prince Andrew asks sexual assault case be dismissed in US court

[HolyCowCm]

Is it even legal to discuss other countries royal members in Thailand? I thought I read somewhere that it is of the off limits same taboo. 
 

[Stonker]

41 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

The main issue is should Andrew be extradited to the US and face involvement of charges of sex trafficking of non consenting individuals, forced persuasion/grooming and sexual abuse of minors (under the age of consent)?

He's not facing any of those charges  - all the FBI want to interview him for is as a witness in connection with those charges against Ghislaine Maxwell, not as a suspect.

This, I'm afraid, is a common but complete misconception.

All he's facing is a civil action being brought by Virginia Giuffre.

 

[Rookiescot]

50 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Sorry, but you're simply wrong and this is incorrect - exceptions were possible but unusual, but they were served in another "regimental nick", not your own for reasons that should be obvious.  You're way out of your depth with this absurd story as is becoming very clear.

Beyond any doubt. 

It not only shows their ignorance of / disrespect for the sentencing guidelines laid down in JSPs, but it shows their incompetence and lack of checks in putting anyone "picked up on parade by Princess Anne" on the parade in the first place and their willingness to blame others for their own mistakes.

If you can't see that, it explains a great deal.

Byeee.

You are so determined to see Princess Anne as some shining light that you have now started to create straw men just to justify your argument.

[JohninDublin]

24 minutes ago, Stonker said:

It's sealed by court order!

Well, you might be but I'm not and I don't think anyone else is!

I thought the premise that no country has jurisdiction over another sovereign country was so blindingly obvious that it didn't need any "evidence" to support it, but if you want some so badly and think it's only my "uninformed opinion", try:

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/internl-judicial-asst/Enforcement-of-Judges.html

General

There is no bilateral treaty or multilateral convention in force between the United States and any other country on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments.

That's from the US Department of State, so I think they probably have some idea of what they're talking about.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-law/Jurisdiction

International law particularly addresses questions of criminal law and essentially leaves civil jurisdiction to national control. According to the territorial principle, states have exclusive authority to deal with criminal issues arising within their territories;
 

Or particularly about US jurisdiction:

United States Jurisdiction Abroad

Presumption - U.S. Law Does Not Apply Abroad
In general, absent a clear indication of intent for a statute to apply abroad, there is a
presumption that U.S. laws do not apply abroad.

In general, there is a presumption that U.S. laws do not apply outside of the United States; thus, absent a clear intent for a U.S. statute to be applied abroad, U.S. courts will ordinarily interpret U.S. statutes to apply domestically, and not abroad. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. V. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 164
(2004). The purpose is to avoid unintended conflict with laws of foreign nations.
E.E.O.C. v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248.

Well, that's your view of both "the issue" and "the law".

Thank you - I'm flattered.

No, when I'm right and accused of obfuscation, I revert to irrefutable expert opinion.

See above, including from the US Department of State about their jurisdiction.

Wrong assumption

Wow! Look out. He has a whole arsenal of nuclear armed obfuscation bombs. Better tread carefully, while I disarm them one at a time. 

The 2009 agreement has absolutely nothing to do with the issue we are arguing. Before you manage to side-track anyone else, I would remind you that the issue is whether any judgement that is made against Andrew is enforceable in the English Courts. Now what part of, "If the court rules against him in the US, it is enforceable in the English Courts is what I am I arguing about" do you not understand?

You clearly also do not understand the concept of sovereignty either. OED definition: "the authority of a state to govern itself or another state.". How does allowing other countries to impose penalties for wrongdoing by our own nationals violate our sovereignty, especially when it is a pre-qualification that the defendant must cede jurisdiction to the other country which he has done?

Regarding the first highlighted section, I never claimed there was any such treaties. I notice that you cropped the relevant part of that text that undermines your text. I wonder why: Here is the key text of that passage: Moreover, foreign countries have objected to the extraterritorial jurisdiction asserted by courts in the United States. In consequence, absent a treaty, whether the courts of a foreign country would enforce a judgment issued by a court in the United States depends upon the internal laws of the foreign country and international comity. In many foreign countries, as in most jurisdictions in the United States, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by local domestic law and the principles of comity, reciprocity and res judicata.

The key part which you "declined" to include, gives a clearer picture and is underlined. In case you need it explained to you, it says that US judgements can be enforced abroad but it is a mater of local law. So we have the article I cited: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bclplaw.com%2Fimages%2Fcontent%2F2%2F2%2Fv2%2F2220%2FBulletin-Enforcing-US-Judgments-American-version-August-2014.pdf&clen=135374&chunk=true which says that they can be enforced in the English Courts. This is a post from a leading US law firm with 25 offices world-wide. Do you not think that if this was in error, someone would have corrected it by now, or perhaps reported it to their local professional association? It was published in 2014.

The quote from Britannica is also an irrelevance as is the text about US laws abroad. We are talking about US laws applied in the US, and the enforcement of judgements. And BTW, just in case you are unaware, I have recently read that one of the matters complained of Giuffre, took place in NY, so it's not as if the NY courts have no relevance in this matter.

As for your "smart alec" quips, you should not be flattered because they do you no credit.

[JohninDublin]

55 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Maybe a little research would have helped:

https://web.facebook.com/RealAirPower/photos/did-you-know-that-during-the-falkland-war-the-royal-navy-used-helicopters-as-bai/1596226740515187/?_rdc=1&_rdr

A helicopter equipped with electronic decoys would position itself to lure an incoming Exocet missile towards itself (and away from the targeted ship). The helicopter would hover at 27 ft, and as the missile neared, would rise to 100 ft making the sea skimmer pass harmlessly below.

https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-265470.html

In the early days of the conflict after the shooting had started we received a signal advising us of a method of providing decoys. We had to make a cube but with only three side, so much like a cone, and mount it out ahead of a helicopter and fly fairly low somewhere behind the ship. We cobled together such a cone made out of 18swg Dural and using a long girder mounted from a weapons hard point managed to get the device to be sturdy enough to actually be airworthy (of a sort). Off they flew every day from both Hermes and Invince.

The funny thing about it was that after the first few days we got another signal that told us that the dimensions were wrong in the first and that it should be bigger. So we had to quickly make a bigger one.

If the pilot pointed the thing in the direction of the threat the radar return of the cone appeared bigger than the ship and the Exocet would go after the Helo. When the pilot saw it coming he simply hauled up on the collective and climbed above the missile which simply passed beneath.

Whether it actually ever seduced a missile I don't know. After a few weeks of use we actually received some electronic gear which was fitted to a couple of Lynx which then took over the duty.

That's the RN Forum discussing it, including one who supported it, so they probably have a reasonably good idea of what they're talking about.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/HJA.htm

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/air-war-in-the-falklands-32214512/

https://revistamarina.cl/en/articulo/ataque-al-hms-invincible-el-destino-del-ultimo-exocet

The military, for reasons I would have thought were obvious (let's not waste time going there), took a rather dim view of telling the media what they were doing to avoid the opposition being told in advance.

Thank you for your explanation of  the first point

Regarding, the other matter, I am well aware of why it would never have been mentioned at them time. I was referring to the fact that it only became "known" when people questioned what exactly he did during the conflict. I found the lack of any corroboration to be "worrying" considering the daily reports we were from the warzone.

Once the shooting started, I am unaware of a single pic or interview with him until it was all over.

[Andrew Reeve]

This thread will stay locked for a period of time to allow all on this thread to have a look at the forum etiquette below.

 

Etiquette – How to be “nice”!

We would like you to be civil, polite, and respectful in your interactions with other members. These guidelines can help you be a good member!

1. We encourage and love debate but be courteous even when disagreement may be vigorous!
2. The forum values and welcomes diverse opinions. So, it is likely you will come across opinions you do not agree with! It is fine to disagree with and challenge opinions, ideas, and facts. Attacking another member because their opinion differs, is not.
3. Respect that each member is entitled to make personal decisions for themselves, and to have them respected, even if you think they are “driving the train to Loonyville”!

 

[mickkotlarski]

9 hours ago, Stonker said:

He's not facing any of those charges  - all the FBI want to interview him for is as a witness in connection with those charges against Ghislaine Maxwell, not as a suspect.

This, I'm afraid, is a common but complete misconception.

All he's facing is a civil action being brought by Virginia Giuffre.

Hi Stonker

Even in the article you quoted on the summary lines states that Reuters mentions is Prince accused of sex crimes in U.S. lawsuit.  Very easy to misunderstand. However it is the FBI investigation even as a witness that will open up a can of worms.

Should Prince Andrew (voluntarily or under force of law) testify in a US court this may lead to charges.

It is the interest of many including the prince that he remains on British soil.

[gummy]

19 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

Hi Stonker

Even in the article you quoted on the summary lines states that Reuters mentions is Prince accused of sex crimes in U.S. lawsuit.  Very easy to misunderstand. However it is the FBI investigation even as a witness that will open up a can of worms.

Should Prince Andrew (voluntarily or under force of law) testify in a US court this may lead to charges.

It is the interest of many including the prince that he remains on British soil.

Wait till Scotland becomes independent, he can't hide at Balmoral then  .  Mind you by that time he will be well over a hundred perhaps 

[JohninDublin]

6 hours ago, mickkotlarski said:

Hi Stonker

Even in the article you quoted on the summary lines states that Reuters mentions is Prince accused of sex crimes in U.S. lawsuit.  Very easy to misunderstand. However it is the FBI investigation even as a witness that will open up a can of worms.

Should Prince Andrew (voluntarily or under force of law) testify in a US court this may lead to charges.

It is the interest of many including the prince that he remains on British soil.

Greetings.

Just to clarify some of the issues raised by your post, "lawsuit", refers to civil non-criminal cases.

The FBI, will often question suspects under the guise of them being a witness.

In the US, there is an absolute right to silence in criminal cases, but not in civil cases where SCOTUS have ruled that someone exercising that right may allow the jury to draw inferences as to their innocence. However, even in these cases, if a question may expose the defendant to the risk of criminal charges, the right to silence is restored.

The only powers they have in the US to compel a witness to speak is under the Grand Jury system. A witness "takes the fifth", and the prosecutor offers them immunity to testify. The witness refuses and can be jailed for contempt and held at the prosecutors pleasure while that Grand Jury remains empanelled.

But there are other aspects of this case that people might want to note.

Giuffre is alleging that she was raped three times by Andrew, the basis of the claims being that due to her age, she  was incapable of consenting. The locations of each "rape" was London, US Virgin Islands and NY. These all took place when she was 17. The Age of Consent (AoC), for each place was 16,16,17.

Then of course, what nobody seems to have picked up on  is how was she able to obtain a passport to travel with Epstein. She was living with her father at the time, and would have needed his consent to obtain the doc. Would the father not have asked why this very wealthy man who was more than twice her age, wanted to fly his daughter 1st class to various destinations. You have to conclude that either the father had an inkling of what was going on, or alternately, that she lied to her father, knowing that what Epstein was doing was illegal. It is difficult to see her as an innocent victim in this especially when it is also considered alongside the AoC issue. 

AoC, presents another issue, in that it is arbitrary. A girl one day short of her 16th birthday, is deemed incapable, but one day later, she has gained the necessary wisdom? During the meantime, there are now witnesses coming forward to say that she asked them about where she could find, "slutty girls", presumably for Epstein. You might ask yourself why she wasn't trying to recruit within her own circle of friends? One explanation of that is that if she considered the girls she was trying to recruit as being "sluts", then she might expect her friends to hold similar views on her. Again, this suggests guilty knowledge on her part, which undermines her suggestions of her being a victim of her own youthful innocence.

Now add to this mix, the several NDA's she has reportedly signed. It would not surprise that those agreements have been reached with the "rich and famous" who would not want these matters exposed, and it's not too difficult to consider that she has found a pretty fool proof way of legally blackmailing these people years after the event.

There is a legal maxim, "He who comes into equity, must come with clean hands". Basically, it is about people acting illegally, then coming to the courts in the hope of suing fellow criminals who they consider have not given them their fair share of the loot. Believe it or not, that did happen  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everet_v_Williams which is also known as "The Highwaymen's Case". Though the case took place in England, it has been used in the US because both jurisdictions use common law.

So putting myself in the place of the Judge in this case, I am listening to what is being said, and the first thing that comes to my mind, is the rape allegation based on AoC. Hmmm? Then there is the question of the passport? The surreptitious  (attempted?) recruitment of "slutty girls". Then there are the multiple NDA's: Did she sue everyone that she had sex with before she was 18, or just those with fat wallets? It is not too difficult to think that maybe she is not coming into court with clean hands, in which case the judge would be in his rights to dismiss the case.

But the NDA's throw up another interesting question. Giuffre is reported to have signed one with Epstein where she agreed not to involve in further similar matters, several of Epstein's friends including Andrew. You might ask why Andrew needed to be included on this if he not been involved? You might also wonder why Epstein needed to tell Andrew that he had in effect, bought him immunity if he done nothing?

On Sep 16, the US court ordered the limited unsealing of this NDA so that it could be examined by Andrews Lawyers. Unless they are very slow readers and knowing the way US trial lawyers like to conduct cases in the media, seven weeks later, we have heard nothing to suggest that his name was on that list. Similarly, if his name was on it, you would have expected Giuffre to come forward by now with an alibi as to why she "forgot" that she was not supposed to go after him. And of course, if his name isn't on it, that then raises the question, "Why should it be if he has done nothing"?

Andrew is not obliged to attend the case in person but can deal with it via his Lawyers. Of course, if he does give evidence, even if he is really innocent, he has to watch out for the risk of a perjury charge.

FWIW, I don't believe Andrew's version of events, but I cannot really see anyway that Giuffre, in all the circumstances, can claim she was victimised by him. Based on what I've read to date, I think she will lose this case. Regardless, I don't think it will change the consensus which seems to have arrived about what sort of person Andrew is when it comes to honesty.

 

 

 

[JohninDublin]

19 hours ago, Yinn said:

Gummy try to act like my question is shocking?
Because nobody else say Andrew is a liar right???
well, Virginia say he lie.

and.....experts

I don't think it really matter what the experts say. I think there will be plenty who have formed their own opinion as to his honesty from what they have both seen and heard.

Andrew would have been so much wiser to have said, "If it happened, where is the evidence that I have done anything wrong? Outside of that, it is nobody's business who I do or don't have sex with". 

It was a massive mistake on his pat to turn it into a "he said, she said" case.

[mickkotlarski]

Greetings John

The "lawsuit" is a quote from a Reuters article that Stonker posted. Civil case is indeed what is relevant. Both parties have very suspect tales being told and neither is truly reliable. There are several factors I didn't consider. The passport issue is relevant to both parties and throw in the NDA's and eyebrows are being raised.

Perjury is also a serious concern for Prince Andrew. I would be very surprised to see him attend court personally. But still though even with so many loose areas in the prosecutions case Andrew's reputation is toast.

Thank you for the message  

[gummy]

25 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Greetings.

Just to clarify some of the issues raised by your post, "lawsuit", refers to civil non-criminal cases.

The FBI, will often question suspects under the guise of them being a witness.

In the US, there is an absolute right to silence in criminal cases, but not in civil cases where SCOTUS have ruled that someone exercising that right may allow the jury to draw inferences as to their innocence. However, even in these cases, if a question may expose the defendant to the risk of criminal charges, the right to silence is restored.

The only powers they have in the US to compel a witness to speak is under the Grand Jury system. A witness "takes the fifth", and the prosecutor offers them immunity to testify. The witness refuses and can be jailed for contempt and held at the prosecutors pleasure while that Grand Jury remains empanelled.

But there are other aspects of this case that people might want to note.

Giuffre is alleging that she was raped three times by Andrew, the basis of the claims being that due to her age, she  was incapable of consenting. The locations of each "rape" was London, US Virgin Islands and NY. These all took place when she was 17. The Age of Consent (AoC), for each place was 16,16,17.

Then of course, what nobody seems to have picked up on  is how was she able to obtain a passport to travel with Epstein. She was living with her father at the time, and would have needed his consent to obtain the doc. Would the father not have asked why this very wealthy man who was more than twice her age, wanted to fly his daughter 1st class to various destinations. You have to conclude that either the father had an inkling of what was going on, or alternately, that she lied to her father, knowing that what Epstein was doing was illegal. It is difficult to see her as an innocent victim in this especially when it is also considered alongside the AoC issue. 

AoC, presents another issue, in that it is arbitrary. A girl one day short of her 16th birthday, is deemed incapable, but one day later, she has gained the necessary wisdom? During the meantime, there are now witnesses coming forward to say that she asked them about where she could find, "slutty girls", presumably for Epstein. You might ask yourself why she wasn't trying to recruit within her own circle of friends? One explanation of that is that if she considered the girls she was trying to recruit as being "sluts", then she might expect her friends to hold similar views on her. Again, this suggests guilty knowledge on her part, which undermines her suggestions of her being a victim of her own youthful innocence.

Now add to this mix, the several NDA's she has reportedly signed. It would not surprise that those agreements have been reached with the "rich and famous" who would not want these matters exposed, and it's not too difficult to consider that she has found a pretty fool proof way of legally blackmailing these people years after the event.

There is a legal maxim, "He who comes into equity, must come with clean hands". Basically, it is about people acting illegally, then coming to the courts in the hope of suing fellow criminals who they consider have not given them their fair share of the loot. Believe it or not, that did happen  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everet_v_Williams which is also known as "The Highwaymen's Case". Though the case took place in England, it has been used in the US because both jurisdictions use common law.

So putting myself in the place of the Judge in this case, I am listening to what is being said, and the first thing that comes to my mind, is the rape allegation based on AoC. Hmmm? Then there is the question of the passport? The surreptitious  (attempted?) recruitment of "slutty girls". Then there are the multiple NDA's: Did she sue everyone that she had sex with before she was 18, or just those with fat wallets? It is not too difficult to think that maybe she is not coming into court with clean hands, in which case the judge would be in his rights to dismiss the case.

But the NDA's throw up another interesting question. Giuffre is reported to have signed one with Epstein where she agreed not to involve in further similar matters, several of Epstein's friends including Andrew. You might ask why Andrew needed to be included on this if he not been involved? You might also wonder why Epstein needed to tell Andrew that he had in effect, bought him immunity if he done nothing?

On Sep 16, the US court ordered the limited unsealing of this NDA so that it could be examined by Andrews Lawyers. Unless they are very slow readers and knowing the way US trial lawyers like to conduct cases in the media, seven weeks later, we have heard nothing to suggest that his name was on that list. Similarly, if his name was on it, you would have expected Giuffre to come forward by now with an alibi as to why she "forgot" that she was not supposed to go after him. And of course, if his name isn't on it, that then raises the question, "Why should it be if he has done nothing"?

Andrew is not obliged to attend the case in person but can deal with it via his Lawyers. Of course, if he does give evidence, even if he is really innocent, he has to watch out for the risk of a perjury charge.

FWIW, I don't believe Andrew's version of events, but I cannot really see anyway that Giuffre, in all the circumstances, can claim she was victimised by him. Based on what I've read to date, I think she will lose this case. Regardless, I don't think it will change the consensus which seems to have arrived about what sort of person Andrew is when it comes to honesty.

Well based on your excellent overview then it appears she was just some young lady who "put it about" and perhaps now attempting to make money . I just wonder what her husband Robert thinks of all this and their kids hearing about it !!, Did her husband push her into seeking the money option ? who knows and who cares. Both as bad as each other.

[NorfolkandChance]

I met Andrew at RAF Benson after the Falklands at a Beer Call. Top Man.

[JohninDublin]

29 minutes ago, gummy said:

Well based on your excellent overview then it appears she was just some young lady who "put it about" and perhaps now attempting to make money . I just wonder what her husband Robert thinks of all this and their kids hearing about it !!, Did her husband push her into seeking the money option ? who knows and who cares. Both as bad as each other.

By coincidence, I am currently watching the 10-part serial on the Clinton Impeachment. It would appear from watching that, Paula Jones withdrew her agreement to settle with Clinton for $700k when her husband was manipulated into being shamed by those who wanted to see Clinton brought down.

If you haven't done so already, it is worth looking at Giuffre's entry on Wiki. From what I can make out, she was living in Oz when the FBI contacted her regarding them investigating Epstein. She was initially reluctant to get involved, but though it's not been suggested, I would not put it beyond the FBI to have manipulated her into co-operating. Imagine  the scenario, " We don't know if we will be able to keep your name out of it, so It might be better for you to get in front of it before the media finds out you are one of his Innocent victims". What might the husband have said in those circumstances? 

But once the genie was out of the bottle, why not seek compensation? Your life is going to be crap for years to come.

Not sure if you know, but she heads up her own non-profit in defence of trafficked women. Opportunism or regrets? Who knows?

But I have to agree with your conclusion. If there are any victims in this case, it certainly isn't those two.

[Bob20]

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

By coincidence, I am currently watching the 10-part serial on the Clinton Impeachment. It would appear from watching that, Paula Jones withdrew her agreement to settle with Clinton for $700k when her husband was manipulated into being shamed by those who wanted to see Clinton brought down.

If you haven't done so already, it is worth looking at Giuffre's entry on Wiki. From what I can make out, she was living in Oz when the FBI contacted her regarding them investigating Epstein. She was initially reluctant to get involved, but though it's not been suggested, I would not put it beyond the FBI to have manipulated her into co-operating. Imagine  the scenario, " We don't know if we will be able to keep your name out of it, so It might be better for you to get in front of it before the media finds out you are one of his Innocent victims". What might the husband have said in those circumstances? 

But once the genie was out of the bottle, why not seek compensation? Your life is going to be crap for years to come.

Not sure if you know, but she heads up her own non-profit in defence of trafficked women. Opportunism or regrets? Who knows?

But I have to agree with your conclusion. If there are any victims in this case, it certainly isn't those two.

I was just watching "Life of Brian". But although born nextdoor, not much has any resemblance to the original

Just saying.

[JohninDublin]

7 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

I was just watching "Life of Brian". But although born nextdoor, not much has any resemblance to the original

Just saying.

Just in case you missed it, my mention of Paula Jones and her hubby was inspired by @gummyquerying how Giuffre's might have felt. 

[Bob20]

7 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Just in case you missed it, my mention of Paula Jones and her hubby was inspired by @gummyquerying how Giuffre's might have felt. 

You'll have to ask Andrew

[Soidog]

On 11/2/2021 at 3:11 AM, Rookiescot said:

Yes they all have to serve in the military but few see conflict. Phil the Greek, Andrew and Harry being the exceptions.

I saw a picture a while back of William and Harry in their dress uniforms. William had more medals than Harry.

Almost as many as the young lady on desk 3 at my local Thai immigration office.

[JohninDublin]

11 hours ago, mickkotlarski said:

Greetings John

The "lawsuit" is a quote from a Reuters article that Stonker posted. Civil case is indeed what is relevant. Both parties have very suspect tales being told and neither is truly reliable. There are several factors I didn't consider. The passport issue is relevant to both parties and throw in the NDA's and eyebrows are being raised.

Perjury is also a serious concern for Prince Andrew. I would be very surprised to see him attend court personally. But still though even with so many loose areas in the prosecutions case Andrew's reputation is toast.

Thank you for the message  

I don't see him attending court for the hearing.

Jut heard on the radio this evening: Trial judge tells both parties to expect the matter to come to trial in the last quarter of next year.

[JohninDublin]

On 10/31/2021 at 1:05 PM, gummy said:

Prince Andrew was recently reported when questioned about his fondness of young women to say " I wish I could put all this to bed"  

I'm reminded of a joke that was doing the rounds last year: 

Charles is in bed with Covid 19. Andrew is in bed with Jennifer 14.

[Philly]

On 11/1/2021 at 7:08 AM, Soidog said:

I’m also struggling to see the case he has to answer. If she was 17 at the time and the legal age was 17 or older then no case in my book. May be a naughty man taking advantage of a much younger girl, but how many other people could be guilty of that. If the age of consent where it happened was older than 17 then a case to be made. I’m just not clear at all. I thought the alleged event took place at Epstein’s place in New York when she was 17? 

Apparently 3 places

[gummy]

4 minutes ago, Philly said:

Apparently 3 places

You mean to put into the modern vernacular she was a 3-holer because I never read about that. Or did I misinterpret what you were meaning ?

[Philly]

10 minutes ago, gummy said:

You mean to put into the modern vernacular she was a 3-holer because I never read about that. Or did I misinterpret what you were meaning ?

Apparently 

She says she was sexually assaulted by Prince Andrew at the London home of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and at Epstein's homes in Manhattan and Little Saint James, in the US Virgin Islands

source the bbc

[AussieBob]

13 hours ago, gummy said:

Well based on your excellent overview then it appears she was just some young lady who "put it about" and perhaps now attempting to make money . I just wonder what her husband Robert thinks of all this and their kids hearing about it !!, Did her husband push her into seeking the money option ? who knows and who cares. Both as bad as each other.

It all reminds me of Linda Lovelace, and so many other women these days - the 'me too' generation.  Linda became extremely famous for a sex act in a movie (Deep Throat) - and lived off that fame for a long long time.  Then later in life she claimed she was 'exploited' and taken advantage of - poor little me.

Andrew was stupid getting involved with this sort of stuff, and even stupider to get caught.  He needs to make this go away very soon, or he might end up like Epstein himself.   By the way, what ever did happen in that cell - was the investigation concluded yet?

[gummy]

17 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

It all reminds me of Linda Lovelace, and so many other women these days - the 'me too' generation.  Linda became extremely famous for a sex act in a movie (Deep Throat) - and lived off that fame for a long long time.  Then later in life she claimed she was 'exploited' and taken advantage of - poor little me.

Andrew was stupid getting involved with this sort of stuff, and even stupider to get caught.  He needs to make this go away very soon, or he might end up like Epstein himself.   By the way, what ever did happen in that cell - was the investigation concluded yet?

 "By the way, what ever did happen in that cell - was the investigation concluded yet?"

I suspect the real truth will never be known. People in high places I suspect ensured that they were not exposed. Similar scenario to Thailand, money can get anything and anyone silenced.