hedda wrote:
TV "personality" and (alarmingly) "newsreader" India Willoughby is beside herself with excitement as the email sited says it proves Prince Andrew is lying after he said he'd never met the complainant.

But of course it's Willoughby who is lying or being thick as Andrew never said that..he said "he can't recall meeting her " which is entirely credible given the time and the number of people he must have met since and let's face it. the accuser has nil charisma so why would he remember her?

Thus her followers pick up what has become the media's vile habit of subtly changing the narrative and then they all parrot it like a Chorus Line and thus we have..JK's Good Story. ( or a better story)
I noticed a couple of comments on BBC Panorama's Twitter page yesterday by people asking why Prince Andrew would have e-mailed Ghislaine Maxwell about Virginia Roberts if he couldn't remember her. I couldn't follow the logic. He wrote "Virginia Roberts" not "Virginia" and using a person's name, whether one remembers meeting them or not, seems the easiest way of referring to them.

Watched the Panorama programme last night and thought Roberts gave a performance worthy of an Oscar, but still don't believe her.

Was wondering about her claiming that Ghislaine Maxwell instructed her to sleep with Prince Andrew. Wouldn't that have meant that Andrew, instead of approaching Roberts directly, would have asked Maxwell first and wouldn't that have been a bit weird? Assuming that Roberts was implying that Andrew had first asked Maxwell if Roberts would sleep with him. Or was she implying that Maxwell knew by osmosis that Andrew wanted sex from Roberts while also having the same sexual preferences as Epstein (weird)? Or that Epstein and Andrew had discussed their sexual preferences (also weird)? Roberts: "in the car Ghislaine tells me that I have to do for Andrew what I do for Jeffrey". I don't know how the royals organise their sex lives but relaying sexual desires via other people does seem rather odd, especially if one is capable (supposedly) of going clubbing with the object of one's desires without (at least Roberts didn't mention this) first asking a third party to instruct them to do this with you. The idea of Maxwell acting as go-between and dishing out instructions fits with the idea of her as a "madam" but doesn't seem entirely plausible if Andrew's role is considered.

Sheba Bear wrote:
All the references I've seen to the age of consent in New York State put the age of consent at 17. Is New York City different?

One point I haven't seen raised anywhere is whether she is being used as a pawn by the Australian Republican movement. Because if anything has damaged the standing of the monarchy in recent years, this certainly has.

Indeed it is being used by "buffoons" like journalist Peter Fitzsimons ( who nonetheless authors superb history books- he should stick to that).

Fitzsimons likes to think he is a leading campaigner for a Republic along with ex-PM Malcolm Turnbull who ran the last failed attempt. Pretty sure Turnbull sees himself as a possible President.

## Fitzsimon wrote a book about the Eureka Stockade which was a far more important event than I reLised and had direct consequences eventually leading to Australia gaining independence.

However Big Mouth Me has already had a go at Fitzsimons just the other day saying "there will never be a Republic with someone like you leading the charge" (you can talk to him like that even though he's about 6'6" and built like a Brick Sh^t House)

"Why ?" he asked.

"Thinking that is valid? ..Using a sex scandal involving a prince as the basis for a Republic and ..after the lofty ideals written into the US Constitution..now being challenged by the possible Impeachment of Trump)?.. then the Republic of Australia would become a world laughing stock..born out of a tabloid scandal and forever linked to Jeffrey Epstein, "sex trafficking of minors" etc etc and every other pathetic bit of this faux scandal"..like a South American Banana republic

He stopped speaking to me but I'm right. The Republic Movement would lose in a referendum in an even bigger way than before. And the Brexit catastrophe,, whatever side your are on,,the manner in which it has pitted citizens against each other in such damaging fashion would be a leading factor.

MWT has now pitched in (there goes that OBE):

"Can't help but feel the BBC missed a massive opportunity with the #PrinceAndrewInterview @BBCNewsnight got the interview - but @BBCPanorama had the evidence. Did they work in silo? Andrew said he did not know Virginia Robert's- but emails (if real) show he clearly did."
twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1203533081132621825

Prince Andrew's bombshell 5.50am email to Epstein 'madam' about sex accuser

"Prince Andrew emailed his paedophile pal’s alleged “madam” Ghislaine Maxwell for information on his sex accuser after Buckingham Palace was told she was going to speak.

The duke, had been approached for comment on January 2, 2015, as Virginia Giuffre – previously known as Roberts – was due to claim she had been lent out to the royal by his friend Jeffrey Epstein.

The prince has “categorically” denied any sexual contact with Ms Giuffre.

At 5.50am the following day, Andrew emailed his friend, Maxwell, 57, asking: “Let me know when we can talk. Got some specific questions to ask you about Virginia Roberts.”"

How does this show he knew Virginia Roberts? I don't follow the logic.

only to be expected from Mary Williams-Thomas that he gets it all wrong.

Prince Andrew did not say he had never met the complainant..he said he cannot recall meeting her.

This should be even obvious for a goat and failed "investigator" like Mark Williams-Thomas (who bizarrely claims that at age 44 he "had 30 years as an investigator" meaning he joined The Met at age 14) that someone like Prince Andrew must meet 100s of people every year. What a prize goose ! (Mark..not Andrew )

FFS.
MWT 30 years as an investigator? Nah.
Most of his policing experience would have been meaningless stuff. Pen pushing, taking statements which he may have been happy to give the nod to even if it was bollocks.
Still, MWT wanted to depart the police force and better his chances of crime fighting.
Off he went and set up his own chewing gum removal business. What was he trying to do, build up his own DNA bank?
I guess that may have been his attempt at undercover work.

His attempts were not totally worthless though. He actually found an opened packet of Wrigleys gum and pulled out a strip, slid off the wrapper, looked into the foil displaying his own reflection and said, "Do you know what, you are useless."

Yeah, we know, and we weren't there!

hedda wrote:
only to be expected from Mary Williams-Thomas that he gets it all wrong.

Prince Andrew did not say he had never met the complainant..he said he cannot recall meeting her.

This should be even obvious for a goat and failed "investigator" like Mark Williams-Thomas (who bizarrely claims that at age 44 he "had 30 years as an investigator" meaning he joined The Met at age 14) that someone like Prince Andrew must meet 100s of people every year. What a prize goose ! (Mark..not Andrew )

God, please anyone who is on the same train with him. He thinks he's the only one who has meetings to go to.

Most tend to think that Andrew is a goose, also!

Some of his relationships - recently closely scrutinised - were unfortunate, misjudged and questionable.

However naivety, the desires to have a good time - and to make money - aren't illegal.

MWT and his tabloid journalist cronies are probably trying to resurrect the "royal in a paedophile ring" story of early 2015.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-cop-cla...dophile-ring-5379159

Barney wrote:
Most tend to think that Andrew is a goose, also!

Some of his relationships - recently closely scrutinised - were unfortunate, misjudged and questionable.

However naivety, the desires to have a good time - and to make money - aren't illegal.




oh he's a goose alright. Yet apparently his Mum's favorite?

wonder if there's any truth to Kitty Kelley's Royal Family book from the 1980s where she says Andrew is the spitting image of a certain Lord that Liz was very fond of

I mean he doesn't really look like the others does he? Muck bulkier and he has hair.

AND FOR THE RECORD:

"As a former detective and with ­nearly 30 years of experience in ­investigating child abuse, including the Jimmy Savile scandal, what I found in Brazil made me shudder."

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/child-p...cash-in-fans-3660354

Hedda, don't start that.
Andrew is much like the Queen in looks. As the males get older though, they all seem to look more like Prince Phillip. Especially around the eyes.

You don't really want to side with hate.

Another alleged Epstein victim (flanked by Gloria Allred, naturally) grinning from ear-to-ear in a photo with her alleged abuser.

Prince Andrew urged to contact US investigators 'without delay or condition'

"Teala Davies described how Epstein had preyed on her when she was a teenager, sexually abusing her at his various homes around the world.

She said she had been trafficked to New York, New Mexico, Florida, the US Virgin Islands and France, but refused to be drawn on whether she had ever met the Duke of York on her travels. ...

Miss Davies said: “I was only 17. I was the perfect victim. I was on my own and I needed help. Jeffrey Epstein preyed on me. He put me in a vulnerable situation and he preyed on me. I was only 17. I was a little girl.”

Miss Davies released a picture of her with Epstein in his helicopter flying over the US Virgin Islands.

She said she was smiling in the picture because at that time she had been unaware of Epstein’s predatory intent."
One would have thought that with all that trafficking and abuse, she'd have been able to find a photo where she wasn't looking as if she was having a whale of a time.

JK2006 wrote:
Hedda as usual brings up an interesting answer; if you want to have sex legally with a 17 year old girl, don't do it in New York (Age of Consent 18) fly her to London or Florida if you can afford to (Ages of Consent 16). So then "they" have to prosecute you for "trafficking" or "procuring" or Prostitution".

A couple of factual corrections... Age of consent in New York is 17. In Florida it's 18. It is indeed 16 in London.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

But the point is a fair and interesting one. Has a 17 year old Floridian who has sex on holiday in New York been sexually abused, or not?

Something else that annoys me is jurisdictions that claim extraterritorial force for their laws. Not sure about the USA, but the UK does this with age of consent. If a UK citizen has sex with a 15 year old in France, the British person has committed a crime in Britain - but not in France. Apart from being fucking stupid, this kind of legal imperialism very arrogantly dismisses the sovereignty of other jurisdictions. We'd soon hear the UK government whining if an Iranian man came to London on holiday, had gay sex, and then was prosecuted for it when he returned home.

Exactly Randall, do state laws of citizenship follow a person wherever they go across the globe?
Last time I looked, being a citizen anywhere didn't bind them to the laws in that country even when they left the country to go elsewhere.
If she could go from a state where consent is aged 18 to one where it is aged 17, then it makes sense that they can go cross country and do what the law states there.


Another one to think about: If somebody in the UK – where the legal age of consent is 16, had phone sex or skype sex with somebody in a European country (or the Vatican) where the age of consent is below 16, it still couldn't be classed as illegal because both persons would have to be on UK soil for it to be an illegal act.