Prince Andrew - Court

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

Now you are funny, US Marshals have no jurisdiction in UK. 

 

Boies is probably researching assets belonging to the Windsors in the US right now...

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

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.

Roberts met Epstein at the age of 15

I think you maybe confused with Sjonborg who was 17 and has also claimed Andrew was a participant in massages

Edited September 16, 2021 by cleopatra2

[cmarshall]

20 minutes ago, DaLa said:

Let me explain my position which simply places lawyers (especially ambulance chasers) below that of royalty; in fact pretty well at the bottom of any barrel.  

None of this matters.  What matters is that Giuffre has the power to apply the pressure, the effects of which are too damaging to the whole family for them to permit it to continue.  If it goes to trial he will have to testify to deny her claims personally.  But he is wholly incapable of giving a credible account as we have already seen.  She is believable.  He isn't.  So, it won't be allowed to come to that.  The family will pay and then they will file him away, out of sight from then on. 

 

She can't lose and he can't win.

[cleopatra2]

12 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

None of this matters.  What matters is that Giuffre has the power to apply the pressure, the effects of which are too damaging to the whole family for them to permit it to continue.  If it goes to trial he will have to testify to deny her claims personally.  But he is wholly incapable of giving a credible account as we have already seen.  She is believable.  He isn't.  So, it won't be allowed to come to that.  The family will pay and then they will file him away, out of sight from then on. 

 

She can't lose and he can't win.

Andrew's defense team will try to argue that the previous settlement, that Roberts entered into does not permit her to bring this case.

I think this point will win. Thus no trial or settlement, leaving Andrew and the Palace insisting no basis to the accusation and Roberts continuing the accusation.

[KhaoYai]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

Roberts met Epstein at the age of 15

I think you maybe confused with Sjonborg who was 17 and has also claimed Andrew was a participant in massages

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

Edited September 16, 2021 by KhaoYai

[cmarshall]

47 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Andrew's defense team will try to argue that the previous settlement, that Roberts entered into does not permit her to bring this case.

I think this point will win. Thus no trial or settlement, leaving Andrew and the Palace insisting no basis to the accusation and Roberts continuing the accusation.

The agreement referred to remains secret, but no one is claiming that A. Windsor was a party to the agreement since that in itself would be an admission of guilt.  If that is the case then how could a contract exist between Giuffre and Windsor since there is no quid pro quo or exchange of benefits between them?  In other words if in exchange for some benefit I promise Bill that I will not sue Bob, can Bob sue me to enforce the promise I made to Bill even though Bob and I never entered into a contract.  Even if the agreement is enforceable, it might not be enforceable by someone who is not a party to it

 

Apparently, the agreement in question is a release that Giuffre signed in 2009 in a Florida case, covering "claims against persons associated with Jeffrey Epstein."  It's hard to know how strong the claim of immunity deriving from the secret agreement is if even Bettler, Windsor's attorney, has apparently not read the agreement which he requested that Judge Kaplan release to his client.  On the other hand, Boies knows what the agreement says since Giuffre signed it.

 

Sounds like a Hail Mary play to me.

[KhaoYai]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

She is believable.  He isn't. 

3 times in 3 locations? Maybe to you.

[KhaoYai]

3 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Boies is probably researching assets belonging to the Windsors in the US right

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.

Edited September 16, 2021 by KhaoYai

[cmarshall]

7 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

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.

If he has divested US assets in anticipation of a judgment against himself, the public relations part of Boies Schiller will trumpet that about as an admission of guilt.  He cannot win the public relations contest.  In fact, he has already lost when his stupid lying on the BBC forced the family to fire him from the family business.  He blundered in letting Giuffre's lawsuit get this far instead of just paying her off.  

[KhaoYai]

16 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

If he has divested US assets in anticipation of a judgment against himself, the public relations part of Boies Schiller will trumpet that about as an admission of guilt.  He cannot win the public relations contest.  In fact, he has already lost when his stupid lying on the BBC forced the family to fire him from the family business.  He blundered in letting Giuffre's lawsuit get this far instead of just paying her off.  

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?

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

3 times in 3 locations? Maybe to you.

My understanding the allegation is on 3 occasions in three different locations was at the request of Epstein

[Kwasaki]

10 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

I doubt the Prince is worried about any further damage 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?

Agree at the end of the day Andrew is a lucky guy who still has privilege though, we will see how it will pan out.

20 years ago I would say he was influenced too into being in situation and got into the wrong company with the likes of Epstein.

 

Its the 20 year wait to make allegations that I don't get and after reading about this woman making alleged claims it brings to front the saying " Hell has no fury like a woman scorned".

If she had sex with Prince Andrew and it were true I think the bit about him designing it has stopped any compensation claims she may of got if any. 

 

I have 3 daughters and at 17 years old they would know and knew exactly what was what so to speak at that age, her actions with Prince Andrew if something did happen were consenting. 

 

 

[robblok]

16 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

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?

Maybe you should really read more into abusive relations and power plays. I am sorry that your still so old fashioned that you don't understand what currently is accepted as normal. There are multiple cases like this where men have been convicted so it happens. Does it make sense some males, no it does not. But does it make sense to therapists and others who have actually studied for the anwser is yes. It does make a case harder but certainly not impossible. 

[robblok]

12 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

3 times in 3 locations? Maybe to you.

To her and many therapists and psychiaters world round. Convictions have been made in cases like this. I understand that some males think this is impossible. But it is not some girls can be mentally broken or influenced or pressured so much that they even go back after rapes. Why do you think for instance kids often keep it secret when they are molested by family and come back to that family member ?

 

Anyway not my case to argue but if you look into this you will see its possible. 

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Agree at the end of the day Andrew is a lucky guy who still has privilege though, we will see how it will pan out.

20 years ago I would say he was influenced too into being in situation and got into the wrong company with the likes of Epstein.

 

Its the 20 year wait to make allegations that I don't get and after reading about this woman making alleged claims it brings to front the saying " Hell has no fury like a woman scorned".

If she had sex with Prince Andrew and it were true I think the bit about him designing it has stopped any compensation claims she may of got if any. 

 

I have 3 daughters and at 17 years old they would know and knew exactly what was what so to speak at that age, her actions with Prince Andrew if something did happen were consenting. 

 

 

It hard for some males to accept but power and manipulation work real good on some woman. Don't forget many cases like this have now surfaced and men have been convicted for it. Just look it up if you don't believe me im not really in the mood to figh old male ideas. 

 

Why the long wait, maybe because it took that long for a powerful figure like Epstein to fall. I think you really don't have a clue about the power these people have and how they can ruin you with money. 

 

Just look at how Andrew avoided to get the court papers. Having his sercurity refuse and hiding. If normal people do it they get punished for it and it looks bad. Seems for royals its ok to play dirty. So do you really think people like that would not mess the other party up to get their revenge.

[Kwasaki]

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

It hard for some males to accept but power and manipulation work real good on some woman. Don't forget many cases like this have now surfaced and men have been convicted for it. Just look it up if you don't believe me im not really in the mood to figh old male ideas. 

 

Why the long wait, maybe because it took that long for a powerful figure like Epstein to fall. I think you really don't have a clue about the power these people have and how they can ruin you with money. 

 

Just look at how Andrew avoided to get the court papers. Having his sercurity refuse and hiding. If normal people do it they get punished for it and it looks bad. Seems for royals its ok to play dirty. So do you really think people like that would not mess the other party up to get their revenge.

What you think and what I think doesn't matter, as said it will be seen to pan out.

I do find your quotes of what I have a clue about strange.

 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

What you think and what I think doesn't matter, as said it will be seen to pan out.

I do find your quotes of what I have a clue about strange.

 

Yes I agree because it will be a hard case to prove. I was just pointing out that psychiatrists can explain why she did not come forward and that many cases like this exists. Its really hard for some people to understand and accept this. Even judges but its becomes more clear now.  Just look at people in abusive relations and so on. We don't always act logical and not everyone responds the same in certain situations. 

 

 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181102-why-dont-rape-and-sexual-assault-victims-come-forward

[DaLa]

21 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes I agree because it will be a hard case to prove. I was just pointing out that psychiatrists can explain why she did not come forward and that many cases like this exists. Its really hard for some people to understand and accept this. Even judges but its becomes more clear now.  Just look at people in abusive relations and so on. We don't always act logical and not everyone responds the same in certain situations. 

 

 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181102-why-dont-rape-and-sexual-assault-victims-come-forward

Whilst I agree with a great deal of your post , will you also consider that manipulation in relationships is not purely a 100% male trait. In fact playing the victim is one of the signs of manipulation and a standard get out for not taking responsibility for one's actions.

 

A study by Andrew J Durbin on Sex and Gender Differences in Tactics of Influence, full paper here 

 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1991.68.2.635?journalCode=prxa

 

found that half of the manipulative methods reported were used equally by both sexes in a study of 292 men and 231 women.

Ale 

[Kwasaki]

50 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes I agree because it will be a hard case to prove. I was just pointing out that psychiatrists can explain why she did not come forward and that many cases like this exists. Its really hard for some people to understand and accept this. Even judges but its becomes more clear now.  Just look at people in abusive relations and so on. We don't always act logical and not everyone responds the same in certain situations. 

 

 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181102-why-dont-rape-and-sexual-assault-victims-come-forward

Thanks for the many hundreds of articles on the matter. 

I was studying Psychiatric social work for about 2 years and realized early on that I was never going to be any use. ????

[robblok]

1 minute ago, DaLa said:

Whilst I agree with a great deal of your post , will you also consider that manipulation in relationships is not purely a 100% male trait. In fact playing the victim is one of the signs of manipulation and a standard get out for not taking responsibility for one's actions.

 

A study by Andrew J Durbin on Sex and Gender Differences in Tactics of Influence, full paper here 

 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1991.68.2.635?journalCode=prxa

 

found that half of the manipulative methods reported were used equally by both sexes in a study of 292 men and 231 women.

Ale 

If you had even read the article i posted part was about a male in a abusive relationship. So I am not sure why you think that i am of the opinion that males are always to blame.

 

I myself was in an abusive relationship (mainly mental became physical just once with a knife) but I was young and stupid learned from it. If it was not for the kids I would have ended it earlier. So I am certainly not of the opinion that males are always at fault.

 

In this case however, i think there is a good chance that the prince is guilty. Will be hard to prove but if they can prove the pics to be real and if the GF of Epstein also testifies and does so in a way to incriminate Andrew then his credibility will be really low. Especially given his denial of even knowing the girl. Its a fact that Epstein shared his girls had a network so the prince his friendship makes it plausible that has happened on this occasion too. 

 

But in the end im making some speculations about evidence as I don't know what Epsteins Ex will say I think a lot depends on her. Plus like others have said its hard to prove rape in these kinds of situations where she met him 3 times. But its not impossible so it all depends a bit on other evidence. 

 

So lets wait and see, i would not bet on one side or the other at least not with confidence too many unknowns. 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Thanks for the many hundreds of articles on the matter. 

I was studying Psychiatric social work for about 2 years and realized early on that I was never going to be any use. ????

I know i did not post hundreds of articles but if you want i can look for more. Problem is most people will never read the links anyway. 

 

Why did you realize you were never going to be of any use ? (if your not being sarcastic)

 

I would never want to work in that field, im a numbers man I doubt im suited for it. But i do like reading about applied psychology. 

[Kwasaki]

45 minutes ago, robblok said:

I know i did not post hundreds of articles but if you want i can look for more. Problem is most people will never read the links anyway. 

 

Why did you realize you were never going to be of any use ? (if your not being sarcastic)

 

I would never want to work in that field, im a numbers man I doubt im suited for it. But i do like reading about applied psychology. 

I read many things at study and you cannot simplify what people do and what people can't do, and are unable to do by reading any one article, I would say for sure you know that and as I have said thanks it was a good article. 

 

I was involved with the NSPCC and it was of interest at the time but began finding psychology too complex, I eventually found my vocation in the building industry and went as far as possible to the top of my profession working within a company. 

 

[couchpotato]

4 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

I read many things at study and you cannot simplify what people do and what people can't do, and are unable to do by reading any one article, I would say for sure you know that and as I have said thanks it was a good article. 

 

I was involved with the NSPCC and it was of interest at the time but began finding psychology too complex, I eventually found my vocation in the building industry and went as far as possible to the top of my profession working within a company. 

 

And what does this have to do with Andrew?

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

I read many things at study and you cannot simplify what people do and what people can't do, and are unable to do by reading any one article, I would say for sure you know that and as I have said thanks it was a good article. 

 

I was involved with the NSPCC and it was of interest at the time but began finding psychology too complex, I eventually found my vocation in the building industry and went as far as possible to the top of my profession working within a company. 

 

Your right you can't know that from one article, i have read quite a few more as i was really interested why people do such things. Stay in a abusive relation, don't report rape, see their rapist again and how pressure from powerful figures can make you do stuff. I remember one experiment in the US where students were tricked into giving people shocks while they knew this could be deadly but they did it if someone else accepted responsibility. After having seen that one I never looked at stuff the same because i thought nobody would do such a thing but they did and they were not psychopaths. 

 

Talk about something totally opposite  of what you set out too do. Funny how life can take turns. I ended up doing pretty much what i expected to be doing.

 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, couchpotato said:

And what does this have to do with Andrew?

It was about the (alleged) victim and why she did not accused  him right after it happened and why she came back. That is where they psychiatry angle came in.

[DaLa]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

If you had even read the article i posted part was about a male in a abusive relationship. So I am not sure why you think that i am of the opinion that males are always to blame.

 

I myself was in an abusive relationship (mainly mental became physical just once with a knife) but I was young and stupid learned from it. If it was not for the kids I would have ended it earlier. So I am certainly not of the opinion that males are always at fault.

 

In this case however, i think there is a good chance that the prince is guilty. Will be hard to prove but if they can prove the pics to be real and if the GF of Epstein also testifies and does so in a way to incriminate Andrew then his credibility will be really low. Especially given his denial of even knowing the girl. Its a fact that Epstein shared his girls had a network so the prince his friendship makes it plausible that has happened on this occasion too. 

 

But in the end im making some speculations about evidence as I don't know what Epsteins Ex will say I think a lot depends on her. Plus like others have said its hard to prove rape in these kinds of situations where she met him 3 times. But its not impossible so it all depends a bit on other evidence. 

 

So lets wait and see, i would not bet on one side or the other at least not with confidence too many unknowns. 

Apologies Rob, I didn’t read the BBC link you provided. I prefer to obtain my information from research papers rather than journalists. Either way you agree then that it is possible for Ms Roberts to have been influential in the proceedings between her and Prince Andrew.

 

If you have read my posts you will notice I have not once stated that I believe Prince Andrew is innocent, but there are a few on here that fervently believe he is guilty. So, guilty as you believe, of what? Her lawyers have filed a lawsuit specifying that she was forced to have intercourse with Prince Andrew and the charges include ‘rape in the first degree’.

 

I hope someone (all) the jurors look closely at that picture of them together and compare it with that of true rape victims and see how ridiculous the claim is. This action devalues the word, the same as the current media and generations have devalued the word racist. I trust they all see through the appeal to pity the lawyers have used when they refer to her as a child. I know that her lawyers will know that the youngest female to give birth was 5 years 7 months old, and using the word child is incorrect in this case as a child is defined biologically as a human between birth and puberty.

 

If she wins this case then look out anyone with a few cents in their pockets for some money grabber with an ambulance chasing lawyer to come knocking at your door.

[robblok]

39 minutes ago, DaLa said:

Apologies Rob, I didn’t read the BBC link you provided. I prefer to obtain my information from research papers rather than journalists. Either way you agree then that it is possible for Ms Roberts to have been influential in the proceedings between her and Prince Andrew.

 

If you have read my posts you will notice I have not once stated that I believe Prince Andrew is innocent, but there are a few on here that fervently believe he is guilty. So, guilty as you believe, of what? Her lawyers have filed a lawsuit specifying that she was forced to have intercourse with Prince Andrew and the charges include ‘rape in the first degree’.

 

I hope someone (all) the jurors look closely at that picture of them together and compare it with that of true rape victims and see how ridiculous the claim is. This action devalues the word, the same as the current media and generations have devalued the word racist. I trust they all see through the appeal to pity the lawyers have used when they refer to her as a child. I know that her lawyers will know that the youngest female to give birth was 5 years 7 months old, and using the word child is incorrect in this case as a child is defined biologically as a human between birth and puberty.

 

If she wins this case then look out anyone with a few cents in their pockets for some money grabber with an ambulance chasing lawyer to come knocking at your door.

Shame you did not read it, because it does link to research papers. That is what good journalist do they provide links and facts from research to their article. 

 

You obviously have not read the article as what you think are true rape victims are actually not that common. Anyway what i state has already happened and people have been found guilty in similar cases. So you might not agree with it but its already happening. Its not a done deal that is for sure as its a topic that is controversial. 

 

Im not so worried that this will mean that people will go after the common man, the people who should worry are the powerful who have abused their power. You know that it used to be pretty normal to have sex with a woman who is drunk and now its considered rape as she could not consent in her state. Its a sign of how the law is evolving. It might not fit YOUR definition of rape but it is happening.

 

I certainly think that having sex with a drunk woman can be considered rape in some cases. But of course this has to be viewed on a case to case base. 

[lungbing]

10 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Agree at the end of the day Andrew is a lucky guy who still has privilege though, we will see how it will pan out.

20 years ago I would say he was influenced too into being in situation and got into the wrong company with the likes of Epstein.

 

Its the 20 year wait to make allegations that I don't get and after reading about this woman making alleged claims it brings to front the saying " Hell has no fury like a woman scorned".

If she had sex with Prince Andrew and it were true I think the bit about him designing it has stopped any compensation claims she may of got if any. 

 

I have 3 daughters and at 17 years old they would know and knew exactly what was what so to speak at that age, her actions with Prince Andrew if something did happen were consenting. 

 

 

Would you let any of your three daughters fly across the atlantic with somebody they have only just met?

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, lungbing said:

Would you let any of your three daughters fly across the atlantic with somebody they have only just met?

Whats the question.

[KhaoYai]

10 hours ago, robblok said:

I certainly think that having sex with a drunk woman can be considered rape in some cases. But of course this has to be viewed on a case to case base. 

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.

Edited September 17, 2021 by KhaoYai