I'm sure none of you, like me, have any idea of the facts in this case. All we know are claims (true or false or, as likely, somewhere in between) except what the media tells us. And we all know the media automatically inflates and exaggerates (better story). And we all believe virtually every word in the media whilst denying it.
But I do, unfortunately, know the False Allegations Industry.
Whether Andrew ever met Virgina - probably. The photo is exactly like a million other pre-selfies after Polaroid. Fixed grin; arm round shoulders or waist. In the Sixties we were demanded signing bare female breasts with biros (it terrified me in case I punctured one). Often breasts belonging to groupies aged twelve or less (claiming to be 16).
Whether he ever had sex with her? Quite likely. Many men did have sex in those days.
Was it with her consent? If it happened, clearly yes. The woman was obviously desperate to carve names on her bedpost, as millions were when teenagers.
Was she under age? I very much doubt it. Most sensible celebrities were very, very careful about that. Ditto precautions. No dangers of pregnancy for selfish and unselfish reasons. Ditto health. No STD's please.
This entire situation - going right back to Epstein - reeks of greed for cash.
Those are my thoughts.

More likely that Epstein was his gigolo.

Her narrative in relation to Prince Andrew of being absolutely disgusted/forced/scared/abused doesn't fit with the photo of her embracing him and grinning from ear to ear. That suggests to me that she isn't being straight about what actually happened. So why believe a word she says? "All of us went upstairs and I asked Jeffrey to snap a picture of me with the Prince. I wanted something to show my mom." An abuse victim getting a souvenir photo for her mum of an abuser makes no sense either. Less unlikely if she was willing and he was a "John", but still weird to be getting her mum a souvenir photo of one, unless her mum was in on it. Perfectly normal and not weird, on the other hand, to be getting her mum a souvenir photo of her looking chuffed to bits alongside a prince she she did not have sex with.

The part of her "memoir" (PDF pages 39/40/41) dealing with her alleged encounter with Prince Andrew in London tells how terribly special and utterly irresistible he supposedly found her (and doesn't say anything about Ghislaine giving her instructions or her being disgusted/forced/scared/abused). It screams juvenile fantasy to me.

"Still trying to ascertain a surreal dream a young girl once held but no longer the same girl I was no longer sure that the dream was even real anymore."

I think she's making it up completely and has decided to spin the fantasy as abuse for financial gain.

That's exactly my feeling, Jo. Mind you, we know nothing. But that is the point. In matters like this there is rarely any evidence and, as such, those cases must NOT come to court - legal or civil. When there IS evidence it needs examination (DNA; photos of sex) and if found genuine, prosecution and conviction. If manufactured, equally, prosecution of the False Accuser. This is a relatively new crime, kind of replacing Blackmail.

Of course, the photo could be fake and the accusations true, and vice versa.

Yes absolutely Honey; we all agree that. But the point is - without evidence a conviction cannot and should not happen and WITH evidence it still would and should require a jury (or judge) to examine that evidence.
Evidence of whether or not somebody had a selfie taken is NOT evidence of anything else.

JK2006 wrote:
Yes absolutely Honey; we all agree that. But the point is - without evidence a conviction cannot and should not happen and WITH evidence it still would and should require a jury (or judge) to examine that evidence.
Evidence of whether or not somebody had a selfie taken is NOT evidence of anything else.

Exactly. However, stupid people who look at all the fuss the newspapers are making will assume guilt, The photo has done its job, even though it might as well have been a snap of a can of beans.

And precisely the reason my crusade continues that GLOBALLY our laws need changing, as the world gets more and more simplistic and people believe the slogans and headlines. It all reminds me of the Jimmy Tarbuck case where a photo of him at a church fete with a child on his lap was claimed to be evidence of abuse.

JK2006 wrote:
And precisely the reason my crusade continues that GLOBALLY our laws need changing, as the world gets more and more simplistic and people believe the slogans and headlines. It all reminds me of the Jimmy Tarbuck case where a photo of him at a church fete with a child on his lap was claimed to be evidence of abuse.

And the film of Jimmy Savile doing what was clearly nothing at all "in plain sight" on Top Of The Pops, proving that people see whatever they are told to.

JK2006 wrote:
And precisely the reason my crusade continues that GLOBALLY our laws need changing, as the world gets more and more simplistic and people believe the slogans and headlines. It all reminds me of the Jimmy Tarbuck case where a photo of him at a church fete with a child on his lap was claimed to be evidence of abuse.
Unbelievable. I wasn't aware of that, though I had remembered he was accused. Found this:

'You find out who your real mates are': Jimmy Tarbuck weeps as he talks about historical sex abuse claims that saw 14 police raid his house and even seize his golf videos

Tarbuck was arrested at his home in Kingston-upon-Thames, South-West London, in April 2013 and questioned by North Yorkshire Police over claims that he sexually assaulted a six-year-old boy in Harrogate in the Seventies.

After news of the arrest became public, several women came forward to claim to police he had made ‘inappropriate’ advances towards them.

However, following 11 months on bail, the charges against the father of three were dropped.

Tarbuck said he had been the victim of ‘false and malicious claims’ and that he had suffered the ‘worst year imaginable’.

He complained about how long it took to clear his name of the ‘baseless’ allegations, and hit out at the women who accused him of making sexual advances on them while on Top Of The Pops in 1963.

He added: ‘Not only have I never met these women, I have never appeared on Top Of The Pops – which in any event didn’t start until 1964.’

Yes Jo, even those interested in all the miscarriages of justice tend not to understand the incredible weight of evidence AGAINST False Allegations. Despite these days not remembering where I put anything, the numerous facts since 2000 are firmly in my brain (for obvious reasons). None of these will assist my appeal against my own wrongful conviction in 2001 (which I hope will be reversed due to fresh evidence) but my hope is that they WILL help change the law so real victims of BOTH crimes get justice in the future.

Honey wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
And precisely the reason my crusade continues that GLOBALLY our laws need changing, as the world gets more and more simplistic and people believe the slogans and headlines. It all reminds me of the Jimmy Tarbuck case where a photo of him at a church fete with a child on his lap was claimed to be evidence of abuse.

And the film of Jimmy Savile doing what was clearly nothing at all "in plain sight" on Top Of The Pops, proving that people see whatever they are told to.

Watch the film again..... I would really like to find the girls watching the so called "abuse" - they don't look shocked or disgusted do they? If we could find just one of these women to confirm he was just tickling the accuser in the ribs it would be a start.

Amanda wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
[quote]JK2006 wrote:


Watch the film again..... I would really like to find the girls watching the so called "abuse" - they don't look shocked or disgusted do they? If we could find just one of these women to confirm he was just tickling the accuser in the ribs it would be a start.

The start of nothing I fear Amanda.

Anyone making an accusation and their proxies (which they shouldn't be but too often are) - The CPS & Police - have to produce the evidence of abuse and have it tested in a Court. This is the system we have, and I struggle to think of a "fairer" one, on paper. When it works. Or is attempted.

The trouble now is the weight given to the concept of a victim and the moral judgment attached to any view on the subject means that the whole system and concept of innocence is subverted.

The desire to project "goodness" is subjective and seemingly all-consuming, but it erodes the objectivity central to the notion of a "justice" system.

SJS was found guilty of nothing. So legally he is innocent. Others may be found guilty but are innocent or found innocent but are guilty; because any system is flawed, and always will be.

But guilt by media is an abomination; and deeply unhealthy to society. However, someone coming forward to question a detail of what SJS did or didn't do in 1982 will never be heard.

No one can listen because the clamour of self righteous indignation is too loud; society has passed a point. Society, broadly, is no longer concerned with justice applied at the level of the individual but in individuals proving their credentials by "right thinking". Group thinking.

So the "cause" is all. It can be seen everywhere; and clouds everything.

From being "good" (lockdown to save one life!) about Covid and ignoring more people dying from restrictions than the virus. From championing BLM to forgetting that it may have been about a violent officer. To letting men into women's toilets because trans responsively trumps the individual safety or rights of women. To the rights of a writer to publish snuffled because one of their characters said a racist word.

In all, the individual is sacrificed to the ideology.

Stalin and Mao "perfected" this approach. The radical left has lost the economic battle; but continues the collective ideological war. In it, people are numbers, dispensible. From the glasses-wearing professor shot by Mao's thugs, to the football pundit sacked for saying the wrong word.

personally..I don't believe the claims.

Why?..she was a plain little thing.

The reality is someone like Prince Andrew would have his choice of sexy women from a certain class.

I've met a well connected, titled very attractive woman several times in Sydney who has long been reliably reputed to be a girlfriend of Charles on all his early visits. Never said a word.

The British Royals are if anything..highly practical. They know the chaps will get up to antics and nature must run it's course. They tutor them from an early age..keep it within the right circles.

Have you ever heard any of Charles, William, Harry's etc etc exes ever speak to the media?

I reckon this trial (if it gets to that) will show Andrew was no great friend of Epstein's any more than 100 other high profile ex-presidents etc.

I mean the media paints this entire episode as though every person who was in Epstein's little black book must have sat in on his "rub & tug" episodes and it's absurd.

Amanda wrote:
Honey wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
And precisely the reason my crusade continues that GLOBALLY our laws need changing, as the world gets more and more simplistic and people believe the slogans and headlines. It all reminds me of the Jimmy Tarbuck case where a photo of him at a church fete with a child on his lap was claimed to be evidence of abuse.

And the film of Jimmy Savile doing what was clearly nothing at all "in plain sight" on Top Of The Pops, proving that people see whatever they are told to.

Watch the film again..... I would really like to find the girls watching the so called "abuse" - they don't look shocked or disgusted do they? If we could find just one of these women to confirm he was just tickling the accuser in the ribs it would be a start.

Yes it was a surreal moment when I watched the clip and thought "what am I supposed to be looking at?" and saw nothing unusual. Then it dawned on my that the king had no clothes on. How very true that tale is.

Also the clip where his hand is a bit too close to Colleen Nolan's breast as he draws her in.
This happens all the time when people misjudge the distance, and women do it too.
Yet I have heard people say this is a clip of him "abusing" her.

I am unsure if people genuinely see something that I believe is not there, or if they know full well and are frightened to say?

hedda wrote:
personally..I don't believe the claims.

Why?..she was a plain little thing.

The reality is someone like Prince Andrew would have his choice of sexy women from a certain class.

I've met a well connected, titled very attractive woman several times in Sydney who has long been reliably reputed to be a girlfriend of Charles on all his early visits. Never said a word.

The British Royals are if anything..highly practical. They know the chaps will get up to antics and nature must run it's course. They tutor them from an early age..keep it within the right circles.

Have you ever heard any of Charles, William, Harry's etc etc exes ever speak to the media?

I reckon this trial (if it gets to that) will show Andrew was no great friend of Epstein's any more than 100 other high profile ex-presidents etc.

I mean the media paints this entire episode as though every person who was in Epstein's little black book must have sat in on his "rub & tug" episodes and it's absurd.

Yes, it is daft to think everyone must have been joining in or knew about it.
People who are up to no good usually hide it very well, because it benefits them to appear trustworthy.

Nobody suspects friends and family of serial killers to have known, do they?

Honey wrote:
Amanda wrote:
Honey wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
And precisely the reason my crusade continues that GLOBALLY our laws need changing, as the world gets more and more simplistic and people believe the slogans and headlines. It all reminds me of the Jimmy Tarbuck case where a photo of him at a church fete with a child on his lap was claimed to be evidence of abuse.

And the film of Jimmy Savile doing what was clearly nothing at all "in plain sight" on Top Of The Pops, proving that people see whatever they are told to.

Watch the film again..... I would really like to find the girls watching the so called "abuse" - they don't look shocked or disgusted do they? If we could find just one of these women to confirm he was just tickling the accuser in the ribs it would be a start.

Yes it was a surreal moment when I watched the clip and thought "what am I supposed to be looking at?" and saw nothing unusual. Then it dawned on my that the king had no clothes on. How very true that tale is.

Also the clip where his hand is a bit too close to Colleen Nolan's breast as he draws her in.
This happens all the time when people misjudge the distance, and women do it too.
Yet I have heard people say this is a clip of him "abusing" her.

I am unsure if people genuinely see something that I believe is not there, or if they know full well and are frightened to say?

Also why did any one buy the Nolan's music ? Landlords bought Daniel O'Donnell CD's and played them to clear out the pubs when punters refused to go home at night. I used to play Black Lace and it was funny seeing the drunks doing the actions of the Birdie Song on the way out or sometimes forming a so-called Conga line.