KhaoYai

Reading Virginia Roberts's (Giuffre) details on Wikipedia, I noticed what I believe to be an important point. Roberts claims that she was tricked by Esptein who told her she would travel around the world as a massuese when in fact he trafficked her for the sexual gratification of his friends and clients. That would imply that she didn't know what was really going on. In most cases of sex trafficking the victims are held against their will or their passports removed until they've 'repaid their debt' etc. etc. Its claimed that Epstein sent her to Thailand to learn the art of massage and to bring back a young Thai girl who he also intended 'trafficking'. It was there that she met her (now) husband and told Epstein that she would not in fact be returning. This took place after she had been 'trafficked' around the world having sex with various clients and friends of Epstein including as she claims, Prince Andrew. Trafficking implies control - indeed it cannot take place without some form of control. If she was under Eptein's control, how was it that she could simply decide that she no longer wanted to be a part of it and travel to Australia with her husband to be? Whatever part she played in Epstein's business it would appear totally voluntary to me - indeed she was assisting in the recruitment of the Thai girl by agreeing to pick her up. Flying around the world, going on training courses, sleeping with customers etc. and doing all this alone, free from any chaperone, does not seem to fit with any notion of control - either physical or mental. She appears to have had plenty of time between clients to consider what she was doing. Could it be that her claims are an attempt to avoid any charges of assisting Epstein in her own right whilst also having a second bite of the cherry by taking Prince Andrew to court where the 'punishment' if her case is found, will be a large financial settlement? This girl knew exactly what she was doing at all times, she's just trying to excuse herself for her former life by claiming that she was a victim. Yeah right! You fly around on private jets, attend parties and events for the rich and famous - ulitmately sleeping with them. One of your 'customers' sexually assaults you but you agree to visit him on 2 further occasions when he 'assaults you again and again - and you're a victim? Get real! I'll await the next lesson on modern thinking on the issues of control, coercion and abuse.

I believe she is claiming that one of the THREE occasions where she was 'assualted' was the US Virgin islands.

I'm fully aware of that, perhaps in your version of English you don't understand that in this context, the word 'they' is used when referring to the establishment. In any case, you're splitting hairs - Giuffre would be the one to report the issue - the DA would decide on the merit of the evidence and its potential to achieve a conviction.

Yes, and why is that? Because the standard of evidence required is much higher and they know criminal charges would probably fail.

If old fashioned means knowing the difference between right and wrong - guilty as charged. I'm not trying to pull any punches or in any way appear superior but I've had an awful lot of experience of different versions and conceptions of life - in other words, I've been around more than most. On my travels - not only physical but as a metaphor for the trip of life, I've come across girls who've been terribly abused by males, one who was then taken into care and then abused by one of her carers! I've also come across girls who've chosen to use their sexuality to earn a living but who would also place the blame very firmly on others in some circumstances. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of that however, it does often give me the advantage of experience. I need no lessons on 'abusive relations or power plays' as you say - I'm fully aware of what can happen. I'm also fully aware that some girls learn how to manipulate men and use their sexuality at a very young age. Does that mean that all girls who work for escort agencies, dance in go-go bars or stand on street corners are victims of abuse? No, some are and others make their own choices - just as Virginia Giuffre did. I do know what is currently accepted as normal so you have no need to feel at all 'sorry' for me. I just don't agree with some of the conceptions. Since when did not agreeing become not understanding? And by what measure do you think that 'current thinking' is correct? I'd guess from your comment on my 'old fashionedness' that you'd also put me in the bracket of people that say girls that wear mini-skirts and revealing clothing when they are out are asking to be raped? I wouldn't but I would say its probably better not to put your hand in the lion's cage because there will always be some lions that bite. I would also state than there's a big difference between appearing 'sexy' and 'overt sexuality' That's life and until we find a way of identifying future rapists, that's the way it is.

What difference would that make - would you put your hand in a fire 3 times if I told you to?

Now you are getting to the nub of this matter. Before going further I will repeat that in no way do I condone rape, sexual assault, genuine sex trafficking or any like matter. However, cases like this are not going to change the real wrongs that go on - those who do such wrongs don't think they will get caught. There have been a lot of changes in the law and how some matters are to be considered together with the 'Me too' movement in recent years. Some of those changes are good but others? Well, I'm just glad I'm not 18 now. It seems to me that to be a sexually active male these days you need to take your lawyer out with you and get a potential sexual partner to sign a consent form before taking matters to the bedroom. When the law in the UK changed to mean that having sex with a drunk woman could land you in court on rape charges, there was a debate on the matter on UK TV. One young guy asked a very interesting question - what if he was also drunk? The legal eagles present and almost all of the female panel agreed that it would still be deemed as rape. So, its fine for a female to not know what she's doing because she's drunk but the guy is totally responsible for his actions, even if he's blind drunk. If having sex with a drunk partner is a crime then I and I'd guess a great many members of this website should be worried and waiting for the police to knock on the door at any moment if the female decides at any time in the future that she didn't give her consent. In recent months several women's groups in the UK have been demanding more prosecutions and convictions in rape cases. In most rape cases the attacker is known to the victim and its for that reason that the case often rests on one word against another - therefore extremely difficult to prove. A few years back all sexual assault victims in the UK were granted anonymity for life whereas defendants are always named. As we know, the brown stuff sticks so, as can be witnessed by reading through this thread, many men will have their lives ruined whether they are guilty or not (most cases are brought against men by women). In my opinion the world has gone crazy and none of the measures that have been introduced will help the plight of genuine victims. In this particular matter, its my opinion that Virginia Giuffre (Roberts) knew exactly what she was doing - both when she met Prince Andrew and when she went to work for Epstein. For very sad reasons she was no stranger to sexual activity and more importantly had seen how 'groomers' work before. She was a young woman who may have been influence by the rich and famous and dazzled by the 'high-life'. If Prince Andrew did in fact know Giuffre and did have sex with her on 3 occasions in 3 separate locations, in my opinion all he is guilty of is having sex with a hooker but even then it would be difficult to prove he knew she was being paid. At the time of the alleged offences Virginia Guiffre was not a victim of sex trafficking, she knew what she was getting in to. I believe that whilst there are many cases of genuine sex trafficking around the word, there are also plenty of occasions where its simply either girls feeling bad about their past, trying to have a second bite of the cherry or both. I personally know of 16 (I think it was 16), young Thai girls who along with a lot of others, were caught working in a brothel in Leeds (UK) when it was raided. Due to my Thai connections, I had met some of these young girls at birthday parties etc. and I know for sure that they came of their own volition. Some stayed for 6 months coming and going on tourist visas, some over-stayed. When they were caught, all of them claimed to have been trafficked, said their passports had been confiscated and that they were in debt to the brothel owners. Rubbish - they were making a fortune and were free to come and go as they pleased. Its interesting to note and I'm not excusing his possible actions, but to the best of my knowledge, Epstein was never successfully prosecuted for trafficking.

I doubt the Prince is worried about any further damge to his PR. As you've shown in several unfounded claims, its a little to late for that. As far as you're concerned he's guilty - why don't you offer to take the case on for the girl?

I have no eveidence at all but I suspect that he will have very few assets in the US. He has been aware of possible action for a long time, if his lawyers are worth their salt they will have advised him on this before now. There has been talk that the US court could go for the broader assets of the Royal Family. I very much doubt that, the diplomatic row that would cause would be far bigger than what we are seeing right now.

3 times in 3 locations? Maybe to you.

She was born in the summer of 1983 and first met Epstein in 2000 when she was either 17 or very close to it. According to the text below, she met Maxwell in 2000 and it was Maxwell that introduced her to Epstein. 'In the summer of 2000,[21][22] Giuffre first met Ghislaine Maxwell when working as a spa attendant at Donald Trump's private Mar-a-Lago club while reading a book about massage therapy.[17] Maxwell, a British socialite and daughter of the late media tycoon Robert Maxwell, approached Giuffre, noted the book that she was reading, inquired about her interest in massage, and offered her a potential job working for Epstein as a traveling masseuse with the assurance that no experience was necessary.[17] Giuffre has stated that after Maxwell introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, the two quickly began grooming her to provide sexual services under the guise that she was to be trained as a professional massage therapist.[23]' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre She was working as a spa assistant aged 17 at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in 2000 when she first met Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who recruited her to become his personal travelling masseuse. https://inews.co.uk/news/world/virginia-giuffre-who-jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew-lawsuit-sexual-abuse-1146138

Naa, you know you're old when the girls in the bars start getting choosy and you're allowed to walk past Baccara without being dragged in.

I would just like to make one thing clear - as the matter of Epstein and Maxwell has been brought into the frame several times. I am not disputing the matter of Epstein and Maxwell's alleged 'grooming' here. It is reported that they have been involved with girls as young as 14 and there appears to be quite a lot of evidence supporting the claims about their activities. Prince Andrew is not facing charges of grooming. As somewhat of an aside, I am disputing is whether or not this particular girl could be considered as 'groomed' - having met Maxwell at the age of 17. There have been several cases of 'grooming' in the UK in recent years - some quite shocking. In all of those cases the facts and methods used were very different as were the ages. In my opinion a human being changes considerably between the ages of 14 and 17 - mainly in regard to growing up and taking responsibility. At 17, Roberts was a young adult in my opinion and should have been fully able to make her own decisions - she should also have been responsible for the consequences. The girl appears to have had a sad and troubled early life, her parents broke up, she'd been molested by a family friend from a very early age and had some involvement with a sex trafficker previously. She'd been a runaway and lived in various foster homes. That would suggest she wanted to be away from the abuse - naturally. The girl seems to have had a horrible time and endured things that no youngster should ever have to - that is beyond dispute. However she seems to have got away from all that when she was re-united with her father at the age of 14. Her father worked at one of Donald Trumps properties and at 17, he got her a job there. That is where she met Epstein and Maxwell and its alleged that Epstein cajoled her by telling her he could help her to become a professional masseuse and she could travel the world 'massaging people'. Just a few weeks later she was off around the world - not giving massages but having sex with various hi-so's. Had she learned nothing from her previous experiences or was it the promise of big dollars and the high life? She seems to have readily turned her back on her dad at the promises. How much responsibility should she take for a decsion made at 17? If she'd actually believed Epstein, could she not have simply refused or quit after the first time and returned to her father? The case, if it goes ahead is not claiming Prince Andrew was responsible for her grooming - the charges are sexual assault.

Regardless of whether the photos are real or not, and on the basis that the Prince did in fact meet Roberts and may be lying about that - how does that prove sexual assault? If being photographed with a pretty girl can mean facing charges 20 years later, a hell of a lot of us should be worried. That the Prince was associated with Epstein and Maxwell is not in dispute - sorry to repeat this but the crux of this matter is a girl claiming sexual assault by the same person on 3 separate occasions at 3 different locations. Can you not see anything wrong with that?

Just as well if the juror's attitude's are anything like yours - you've tried and convicted him already without hearing any evidence.

People have said that its most likely that Prince Andrew will settle the matter out of court. That's probably correct and as a 'damage limitation' measure, it would probably be best for him. I'm not a particular fan of the man but it seems to me that, without evidence to the contrary, all he's guilty of is being a 'lad' - albeit at a higher level than most of us can afford. I don't for one minute believe that Virginia Roberts was 'groomed' - her actions at the time appear pretty voluntary. If the case does go ahead it may be interesting if the defence to ask to see her bank statements for the time The sad part is that if the case is not heard, we will never get to hear any evidence from either side and as is apparent from comments on this thread, the Prince's reputation is already tarnished by this woman's claims. Groomed? Sexually assaulted by the same person on 3 separate occasions in 3 different locations. If I tell you its OK to put your hand in a fire, will you put it in 3 times even though you got burned? Sorry, I don't buy it. As I said in an earlier post, I know someone who worked for an agency that provided 'entertainment' for celebs and the like when she was not much older than Roberts and told me a little of what goes on. Parties for rich Arabs, trips on mega-yachts, picked up by private jets etc. etc. In no way would she ever claim that she was groomed. Dazzled by the money and the high life, misguided perhaps but groomed? No way. All Roberts is doing is having a second bite of the cherry and probably regretting her past choices.

And that makes her firstly go to a nightclub and then back to a house to be assaulted again? You should talk to my ex who used to work in the same line - she'll tell you how much these girls are groomed. In my opinion there is a very real difference between this girl and those who are genuinely groomed. Why is the Prince not being charged with sexual assault by the US authorities?

Should the case come to court and a conviction achieved based on depositions and statements rather than hard evidence, I would expect that decison to be easily overturned at appeal. In this case, at the moment it appears (nothing has been revealed as yet) that the plaitiff's case is based on her own claims and the only evidence she is able to offer is based on the actions of Epstein and Maxwell. Just because somebody says something happened does not make it so. Should a jury (if indeed it is decided by jury) convict based on that I would consider such a decision easy to overturn. Whereas the Prince's claims that he didn't know the girl may go against him - the girl's case is equally weakened by the fact that the said assaults took place 3 times and on at least one of those occasions it appears she went with the Prince voluntarily. One of the main reasons that rape trials in the UK have a low conviction rate is because they are often based on one word against another. Rape and sexual assault are very difficult to prove but that does not mean they do not take place.

Because in that particular discussion we were refering to both systems.

Are you saying that a judge cannot direct a jury to aquit if they consider a conviction is unsafe? Cannot advise them as to the strength of the evidence provided? Where you say 'While the decisions of a court, whether by a judge or a jury, are subject to reversal upon successful appeal, the standards themselves are certainly not'. Do you accept that the court of appeal can decide whether or not the standard of evidence was met? Its also important to note that in the UK, it is extremely rare for a jury to sit in civil cases.

You and me both. However, this is more about what's going on than who's involved. When you start looking at what's been made public, the girl's case seems incredible - literally. The Prince's reputation, no matter what our opinions of him may be, has been severely damaged yet its entirely possible that he is not guilty. The girl is claiming she was trafficked and sexually assaulted - he may well have had sex with her but the assault and trafficking part appears to be pure fantasy. She will no doubt appear in court, dressed very politely, devoid of make-up etc, etc, - the whole thing will be stage managed. If the girl is motivated by money, she will no doubt have made claims privately before making the matter public. Clearly any such claims must have been refused.

OK, I guess it was naive of me to expect this thread to remain about the legal context and to refrain from passing an opinion so I'll show my colours and throw this into the pot: None of us know the facts on this case and very few, if any, will have had full access to the Epstein case. With that in mind, the best any of us can do is to form an opinion based on what we do know. However, we should also be aware that the media has an agenda and is therefore more likely to publicise matters that support that agenda - in other words, the news is slanted and biased towards sensationalism so we should be careful with that. I do have an opinion but that opinion is not on the Prince's guilt or innocence because I have no evidence, and as far as I know, neither does the court, of the events that took place between Prince Andrew and the girl. I do though, have an opinion on the overall concept that has brought about this casse. Realating purely to the girl known at the time as Virginia Roberts. Roberts was stated as being 17 at the time she was photographed standing with Prince Andrew but in all, fairness, if it was stated that she was 21, it would be entirely credible. We are told this girl was 'trafficked' - flown around the world to attend parties and events and have sex with celebrities and other such hi-so's. . Flown around the world in a private jet by the way. It would appear that she was not handcuffed at any time or forced to do anything. By her own admission she had sex with Prince Andrew on 3 occasions, each at different locations yet now she claims it was assault? I'll word this delicately but is it not entirely possible that this girl was actually taking part in the world's oldest profession? Living the high life, attending the best clubs, restaurants etc. etc. and getting paid for it? It then takes her 20 years to make her claim that she was sexually assaulted. If she'd been assaulted, why did she go back for more? Why did she agree to go back to a house with the Prince after visiting a nightclub of her own volition? Was she kidnapped at the club, bundled into the back of a car and taken to the house? I know what I think. In my opinion there is only one motive behind these charges and that is to make money. During my teen years I had an on/off relationship with a girl who went off, supposedly to work on a cruise ship. I didn't see her for almost 20 years until I arrived at Changi airport in Singapore one day and someone called my name. To cut a long story short we spent a day together drinking and catching up. We were close enough from the past for her to talk quite frankly to me - it even seemed as if she was glad to be able to speak freely about what she had been doing. She had not joined a cruise ship at all, she'd spent a large part of the last 20 years doing exactly what I suspect the girl in this case was doing - nobody forced her, trafficked her etc. etc. When she got older and became 'less in demand' she married one of her clients and moved to Singapore. It happens and according to me ex gf, there are agencies all over the world that provide such services for those that can afford it. I would state that in no way do I condone sex with monors, sexual assault, rape, sex trafficing or any other such activity but I think there is a very big difference between consensual sex and sexual assault. Would Virginia Giuffre (Roberts) be making the same claims if she'd slept with you or I 3 times?

I do not agree.

OK, I was trying to be polite but let's put it a different way. Can you remember every girl you had sex with? I certainly can't. I appreciate that some have sexual relationships with just a few people whereas others have been with a lot. I don't know which category Prince Andrew falls into. In the case of the allegations of sexual assault that took place in London - the girl met the Prince in a Hi-So nightclub in London and then went back to a house (Maxwell's I think) where she claims to have had sex with him. Does that sound like assault to you or something that happens every night all over the country? It certainly did in my clubbing days. I didn't say he met her at a party by the way - not that it changes anything.

On the face of it, I would agree with you on that to a certain extent. However, in court that would be explored in depth. I think what he said was that he had no recollection of 'meeting that young lady' - he had already been presented with photos of himself posing with the girl. I don't think it would be too difficult for the Prince's lawyers to put that point forward Because he is a Royal its not unreasonable for any of us to jump to the conclusion that he must remember meeting her. But, think about it - can you remember every girl you ever met? Every occasion where you were photographed with others? I certainly can't - not from 20 years ago. The memory can be jogged when a photo is presented but even that is not always the case. Case in point - a friend recently sent me a photo where I am playing the drums at some gig or other about 30 years ago (I was standing in for an injured drummer supposedly). I can't remember playing with that band, the venue, the clothes I was wearing or anything at all about that night. The photo was a complete surprise. It must be remembered that we are talking about Royalty - celebrity status. Attending parties, concerts, meeting people and being photographed with them is an almost everyday occurrence. The Prince's lawyers should not have much difficulty is presenting the point that he meets thousands of people at hundreds of events, he cannot be expected to remember all of them.