The Queen of False Allegations has died. Well; first reaction has to be sadness at the death of any human being - especially by suicide. But the second is that KARMA can be ruthless. It took my False Accuser Enabler Max Clifford. And I felt terrible at that. Nobody deserves to die, no matter how appalling their crime.

I'm certain that Giuffre/Roberts died because - as a teenager - she saw the possibility of wealth by selling her body. Then, as that declined, she saw ways of making even more money by lying or exaggeration. Assisted by lawyers and media, of course.

I believe she was convinced that she only spoke the truth. She said "only two people know the truth". But there are levels of truth. She may well have had consexual sex for money but has chosen to forget the money part.

Media and even family and friends choose to praise her as a noble warrior. Many discovered years ago that she was a liar. I suspect it finally dawned on her. Liars tend to exaggerate more and more, the more they get away with it, until even media starts to spot the truth. Again it was the Daily Mail that started to question her integrity. As it is doing with Lucy Letby. And has done (to a very limited degree) on myself.

I reckon, on her death bed, she knew she had sex with many people - totally consensual, in return for money or favours (like flying to Thailand to train as a "masseuse").

RIP Virginia. But let's hope people start seeing the truth and not just the media story.

The majority seem to be going along the "do not speak ill of the dead" route also known as the "it's still a better story that she was an abused child rather than she was a liar and a fantasist".

Death seems to have given her immunity from criticism. Lady Victoria Hervey put the boot in, and was roundly condemned, e.g. by the Daily Mail and readers. Andrew isn't commenting publicly and not even Alan Dershowitz has reacted on his YouTube channel The Dershow.

Prince Andrew's ex Lady Victoria Hervey sparks fury with vile post about Virginia Giuffre after her suicide

Prince Andrew's Ex Backtracks After Virginia Giuffre Death Remark

The last days of Virginia Giuffre as Prince Andrew's accuser feared enemies 'were out to get her'

Sources close to Andrew said yesterday that he intends keeping his thoughts on the death of his accuser to himself.

They said he resolved to draw a veil over the Epstein scandal long ago, conscious that any public intervention would be foolhardy in light of his humiliating 2019 Panorama TV interview, which resulted in nationwide ridicule and criticism for failing to express regret for his involvement with Epstein or sympathy for the victims.

One source said: 'What can he say now? [Ms Giuffre] is a mother of three children. It's a tragedy.'
But that photo does puzzle me and Prince Andrew's reaction to it. I still believe she exaggerated her interaction with him, with inconsistencies in her story, like saying it was a scary time in her life and feeling "absolutely disgusted" at the prospect of sex with him, yet looking perfectly at ease and happy in the photo, taken she said as a souvenir for her mum, another odd aspect that didn't fit her story of abuse. The photo looks genuine to me and I suspect that if she was expert at creating fake photos she wouldn't have stopped at Prince Andrew and would most likely have created other photos of herself with other men she accused, like Alan Dershowitz. Moreover, in the expanded version of the photo, it's clear from the stairwell and bannister on the left that they're upstairs and from the window in the background that it's dark outside, both of which fit with her story. What were they all doing upstairs if the public rooms were downstairs? Why did Prince Andrew admit it was himself in the photo but suggest it was faked ("That's me but whether that's my hand or whether that's the position I… but I don't… I have simply no recollection of the photograph ever being taken... I don't remember going upstairs in the house... Oh it's definitely me, I mean that's a picture of me...I don't believe it's a picture of me in London because when I would go out to… when I go out in London, I wear a suit and a tie... I'm terribly sorry but if I, as a member of the Royal Family, and I have a photograph taken and I take very, very few photographs, I am not one to, as it were, hug and public displays of affection are not something that I do. So that's the best explanation I can give you and I'm afraid to say that I don't believe that photograph was taken in the way that has been suggested." Transcript)?

Why didn't he say, I have had lots of photos taken with people over the years and don't remember every one? Why didn't he say, I can remember all my sexual partners and she wasn't one of them?

Agreed Jo, he should have said that but I must tell you, when accused of such awful crimes your common sense tends to get affected. Every celebrity has millions of "selfies" taken and autographs demanded. I remember in the 60s we had to sign female breasts which I refused to do, fearing a biro might penetrate the tissue!

That makes sense, JK. These accusations must be mindblowing and it must be difficult to know how to respond. I had forgotten that he said this, but it seems a roundabout way of saying he'd have remembered her if he'd had sex with her, as if he's calling on some kind of outside psychological expertise on not forgetting "positive action" to justify not remembering her. Still valid but a bit convoluted.

EM: For the record, is there any way you could have had sex with that young woman or any young woman trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein in any of his residences?

PA: No and without putting too fine a point on it, if you're a man it is a positive act to have sex with somebody. You have to have to take some sort of positive action and so therefore if you try to forget it's very difficult to try and forget a positive action and I do not remember anything. I can't, I've wracked my brain and thinking oh… when the first allegations, when the allegations came out originally I went well that's a bit strange, I don't remember this and then I've been through it and through it and through it over and over and over again and no, nothing. It just never happened.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-50449339

My personal suspicion is that Andrew may have had perfectly legal sexual interaction with her. She was probably paid a lot (by Epstein or Maxwell). He may just have met her and not been interested (I was always very wary of hookers - not just the danger of STDs but I only got aroused when the other person was genuinely turned on - and not by the prospect of cash). But whether or not an adult had sex with another adult is not important - it's the road leading to crime - to blackmail and false allegations, the crimes of this century.

Granted the royals are a bit odd, but I find the whole scenario as described by Giuffre distinctly odd and hard to believe: 1. Ghislaine Maxwell inserting herself into Prince Andrew's sex life by instructing Giuffre to do for him what she did for Epstein, which also suggest that Prince Andrew and Epstein shared the same sexual preferences and had discussed that; 2. Giuffre and Prince Andrew having sex in Ghislaine Maxwell's bathroom while she and Epstein did whatever.

As far as I'm aware, Giuffre was the only Epstein alleged victim to have claimed to be farmed out to other people. Would he really have had a gang of girls but have farmed out only one? And would Epstein's guests/friends/acquiantances really have been having sex as part of their association with him, including sharing his preferences? Most people's interaction with their hosts/friends/acquaintances doesn't involve sex. I suspect that, whatever Epstein's personal activities, and no matter how rich or powerful the people he associated with were, the same most likely applied to them. But that's a pretty boring story.

And never forget the enablers - those who encouraged Giuffre to re-invent her experiences. Lawyers - and possibly even friends and family who may genuinely have believed the media coverage of - first - Epstein, then Prince Andrew, then Ghislaine Maxwell. Who can blame them? Why should we disbelieve media coverage? We have neither the time nor the inclination. A good story is a better story if slightly inflated. Someone who finds girls attractive can easily be painted as a predator (and quite often they are - even if less aggressive than described). Anyone who is happy to have sex - either through desire or for reward - can be painted as a victim. It only takes a tweak. No harm done.
That is the prevailing morality of the century.