Jo wrote:
You make excellent points, Sheba Bear. I suppose they're not saying they were women, though, but underage girls. What I'd like to know and haven't come across an explanation of is what "sex slave", "forced" and "trafficked" are supposed to mean here. If these are exaggerations of what really happened, what else is exaggerated? Could Epstein actually have been innocent of criminality and just pleaded guilty in the plea deal to avoid a lengthy sentence?
hedda, Roberts claims the photo was taken before she slept with Andrew. And I was wrong in thinking he'd said in the interview that it was taken on an upper floor of Epstein's home; it was apparently taken on an upper floor of Ghislaine Maxwell's home.
The photograph that WON'T go away: Anatomy of the infamous image of Prince Andrew with Jeffrey Epstein's teenage 'sex slave' Virginia Roberts... that Duke of York insists he 'can't recall being taken'
I've been wondering whether Andrew, in staying at Epstein's home, had possibly invited himself there, in the style of Princess Margaret (and possibly other royals?).
"Over the years Princess Margaret came to rely on the largesse of rich friends like the Aga Khan and Imelda Marcos to provide villas and yachts for her pleasure. She especially enjoyed visiting Italy and regularly invited herself to stay with Harold Acton at La Pietra in Florence and Gore Vidal in Ravello". (The Royals by Kitty Kelly)
The photo is completely immaterial. It's the claimant who said it is a "photo of a photo" (this is in a deposition) and she doesn't know if she has the original.
It cannot ever be used as evidence in anything..a criminal trial or civil case. Only a genuine original or negative would be accepted.
The media are of course dredging up photos of Andrew hugging other girls BUT.. and a very big BUT !!!.. they are all friends of Andrews if anyone bothered to see who they are and..as I said previously.
.they are all SLOANE RANGERS within his social circle.
In fact they make the supposed photo look very dodgy..it's an odd pose for a Royal with someone..stiff.. I believe it will be eventually shown to be a fake.( but I could be wrong)
Again too much ridiculous media chatter and balderdash in what is a CIVIL COURT CASE claiming compensation and as (as though reading my mind)
Lawyer Mark Stephens says
victims' lawyers will want the duke ..as a high-profile witness in the Epstein case to bring attention and “magnify the damages” in this Victoria Derbeyshire interview.
twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/1197459150571048960
## Remember ..the same Andrew accuser also accused lawyer Alan Dershowitz who is now suing her ( I have no doubt Dershowitz will win)...but what isn't in this article is that he claims he has audio recording of the accuser saying she didn't know Dershowitz with lawyers encouraging her to say she did..(don;t know if it's true)
### This IS a compensation claim and nothing else. It's a Civil court case, I reckon the accusers have gone to far and will never get a penny of Epstein's estate which his brother will have tied up from now until eternity. They should never have accused Andrew (even if it was true)
Just as O.J.Simpson never paid a penny after his civil loss in the murder case(even though he is every wealthy)