It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Prince Andrew named in Pedophile case....Royal Family becoming EXPOSED!!!

page: 23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 08:25 AM
It should be noted that as part of this case involving Epstein some of these girls have already been questioned under oath about Andrews activities.

This is from a court statement, its not just heresay... Its fact!

One court statement lists ten employees and associates of Epstein who, it said, were being represented by lawyers paid for by the convicted sex offender.

They include Nadia Marcinkova, described as “Epstein’s live-in sex slave”, who invoked her right not to incriminate herself, protected by the US constitution’s Fifth Amendment, when she was asked about the Duke of York.

Asked by a victim’s lawyer: “Have you ever been made to perform sexually on Prince Andrew?” she replied: “Fifth.”

Sarah Kellen, Epstein’s executive assistant, whose legal fees were also said to have been paid by Epstein, was asked: “Would you agree with me that Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein used to share under-age girls for sexual relations?” She replied: “On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.”

Epstein himself, questioned under oath, refused to answer the questions: “Did you provide any under-aged girls for sex to Prince Andrew?” and: “Did you fly with Prince Andrew on your plane, or planes, with any under-aged girls, girls under the age of 18?”

Adriana Ross, a former model who worked as Epstein’s diary organiser, refused to answer the question: “Has Prince Andrew ever been involved with under-age minor females to your knowledge?”

Im pointing out the obvious here but if these witnesses genuinely had no knowledge of this, then why are they refusing to answer?

The Fifth:

At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity

Emphasis by me.


Sorry for the shortened URL in the link, for some reason my links are not working so im having to do it this way... The link points to an article in The Telegraph.

edit on 6/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 08:41 AM
Do people realize Alan Dershowitz a high profile lawyer in this case,as well as other politicains are being accused as having sex with this same girl.This is major crazy.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 08:55 AM
a reply to: HumanPLC
Shortened link looks legit to me, just goes to a telegraph article. Sometimes links with long hyphenated titles just don't work for me as well.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 09:01 AM
a reply to: HumanPLC

I posted that article from the Telegraph on the previous page. The long link doesn't work on it. It isn't just your system. ATS system sometimes also writes Telegraph embedded short code as Tele graph.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 09:31 AM
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

@theabsolutetruth My apols for that mate, i hope you didnt mind me sharing it again. That aside, It was a really interesting article!

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 10:03 AM
Alan Dershowitz has today filed a motion for Limited Intervention.

You can read the full motion text here:


Its actually a good read! But for those who want a quick rundown... This is basically it in a nutshell:

WHEREFORE Alan M. Dershowitz respectfully requests that the Court enter an order granting his limited motion to intervene for such purposes as may be appropriate including submitting a motion to strike the allegations made against him and requesting the issuance of a
show cause order against Plaintiffs’ counsel, and awarding such other relief that the Court deems just and proper under these unfortunate circumstances.

edit on 6/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 10:11 AM
a reply to: HumanPLC

No worries. I don't mind at all, it is a good article. The Vanity Fair article is worth a read also.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:23 AM
a reply to: liteonit6969

I am rather disgusted by the first page of comments to this OP. I literally couldn't read any more.

Is this ATS, or did I accidentally land on another site? We ALL know that pedophilia is a huge problem in the upper echelons of society, and not just pedophilia but sex slavery, rape, kidnapping of children...oh, the list goes on.

It is very important that people involved in such horrific acts come forward. We know that these crimes exist---and are committed by people in powerful positions who are well---hypocrites. Many have taken oaths to uphold the law and yet think nothing of engaging in sexual crimes of all variety. This is a huge problem that has effected women and children across the globe and is happening as we speak.

Not a surprise that Bill Clinton's name is being tossed around either. We all know he has sexual addiction problems that have never been curbed.

To be so blase about it, to dismiss the girl, to blame the victim----it makes my stomach turn.

Shame on you ATS.
edit on 6-1-2015 by MRuss because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:33 AM
a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Bravo. I wish I had seen your post earlier.

I don't know what's wrong with some of these ATS'ers. How can they possibly dismiss this so out of hand? Especially when they know what a serious problem this is--across the globe?

Is it okay for women and children to be raped, to be made as sex slaves, for young girls and boys to be kidnapped from their families for the misguided and criminal pleasure of someone else?

This is a huge problem, and anyone here who doesn't step up to the plate of humanity and admit this is not well, IMHO.

What is this backlash about people? Defending your country? Defending men? Why are you protesting so much what seems to be a very serious situation?

We need to applaud the people who come forward and bring these things to light. How many stories do you need to be convinced? There are hundreds upon hundreds of stories that highlight these criminal acts by powerful people.

I thought this website stood for truth.

I am so disgusted by some of the comments on here that I am sick.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: MRuss

For what it's worth, from everything I have read, I believe this young woman.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:50 AM
Well what do you know…. the perennially broke Fergy has thrown her hat into the ring on Andrew.

She has been staying at a £14,000 per week chalet skiing with daughter and apparently Andrew who has left now though.

She is saying he is a wonderful man - best day of her life when she married him. Huh! why divorce then?

Is this posh holiday a pay off for her support one wonders? She is linked with andrew knowing epstein also and has been missing from our press for some time. I cannot get over the lifestyle of lower royals £14,000 a week and I doubt that covers any security they would have, which is what many earn in a year in the UK. No wonder her accolade has not hit the media and tv as royal stuff usually does.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:44 PM
a reply to: MRuss

Thankyou for your view on this matter. I have been continually fighting with other posters who have tried to claim his girl to be a gold digger and is lying etc. Which is disgusting.

The only reasoning behind such comments is that the persons must have an agenda. Because i cant contemplate how some of these arguments are formed in the minds of these people when they know full well the problems that we are facing as a society

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:46 PM
a reply to: Shiloh7

I wouldn't be surprised she got Andrew and Epstein together in the first place seeing as she has been caught going round the US and International billionaire arena scouting for golden introductions to her ex husband as a means of lining her own pockets.

Rather suspicious that Epstein paid off her debts. £15,000 that she admitted to but reports are it was hundreds of thousands and she is reportedly known for getting between Andrew and potential partners because she wouldn't be gaining financially from him.

The Verbiers chalet reportedly is £21,000 a week so they needn't claim hardship nor moaning about finances.

Maybe that was on a 'golden handshake' introduction deal also.
edit on 6-1-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:39 PM

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: Anyafaj

Nice and concise overview there mate!
I was just gonna sit down and put one together myself so thanks for that, you saved me the trouble, lol.

Thank you. I was a little late coming in to the party (so to speak), because my phone wouldn't access ATS, but I could at least keep up with Brit news. I'm part Brit myself by heritage, so I like to keep up with what's going on over the pond. I'm also half Irish and quarter Hungarian. I adore your word Winge and have stolen it. Do hope you don't mind!

Back to the topic at hand. I think of this like the Cosby situation we have here. Tons of women coming out of the woodwork years later, ( a few possibly new ones being investigated now!) A few years ago, it was trotted out, but the story was killed by his lawyers and here we're seeing a resurgence of it, either of new women, or old mixed with new because survivors saw the old and came forward as well.

Also, in a few stories regarding the Prince, like him or not, it clearly states he may not have known she was a victim. Epstein KNEW, the Prince may or may not. Whether the Prince knew or not, the state of Florida in the US, where she was 17 at the time, she was ILLEGAL, whether it was consensual or not, therefore, the Prince committed a crime. Though, if it was sex trafficking as Epstein is accused of, or prostitution as he was convicted of, in many states, the buyer of the prostitutes time, or the "john" will get arrested and get his picture in the paper to "shame" him publicly to try and get them to "never do it again". At least, that's how it works for us commoners. LOL

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:43 PM
To be honest with you i cant see Prince Andrew getting involved in all of this. He a Fat Poof.
edit on 6-1-2015 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:56 PM

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: MRuss

For what it's worth, from everything I have read, I believe this young woman.

I do as well. Sometimes you see something that just boggles the mind to the point where you know it's not made up. If I'm wrong, I will happily eat my words.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:19 PM

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Tangerine

I think one question you should be asking yourself is, are you happy with wealthy and powerful men being able to acquire very young and children to enjoy sexual exploits with - especially when they are married and may well have mistresses in tow also?

This is above the normal moans about the powerful that rule us, its about a sickness within our society that we need to address. Thjere are victims here and should we treat themwith less respect because the perpetrator is an elite? We are diligent in going after the John Smiths' of the world.

Slightly off topic, if you ever watch world news channels in India they are having to face the idea of police raping women and then when told about it, having to hunt for their missing police - that is currently going on there. So the world is waking up to this particular abuse of power and we should surely be reminding those who benefit from positions of power, that they have a responsibility of duty to give of their best, not their sleaziest.

No, of course I'm not happy about anyone exploiting anyone, especially children (although this case is not about children, despite the claims of some). But I see some (not all) of the posters attacking Prince Andrew, in particular, because he is wealthy and powerful and a royal by accident of birth. Clearly, they hate him and the other royals simply for being born royal to the point where they accuse them of heinous crimes absent any evidence.

Sex crimes are committed by people in all economic classes of society. I suspect that most of us have had an opportunity to commit crimes of some sort at one point or another in our lives that we could probably have gotten away with. Some people chose to commit those crimes and others did not chose to commit those crimes. Our economic class was not the deciding factor. The notion that being royal means that you are a degenerate criminal is not all that different from racism in which your moral character is judged not by your individual behavior but by an accident of birth.

Yes, victims should be treated with respect and that includes people who have been accused but not yet found guilty. If and when evidence is produced proving that someone is guilty of a heinous crime such as this, I will join you in vilifying them. The problem in this case is that some of the accused, including Prince Andrew and Dershowitz, have neither been charged with crimes nor sued so they can not defend themselves in court. I will give a lot more credence to the accuser's claims if and when she and her attorneys state in public that these people have committed these crimes. At that point, they will be able to sue her and her attorneys for making false claims, if they so choose, and the case will be settled in court based on actual evidence not trial by media. You will note that she and her attorneys have not taken this route and you have to ask yourself why.

I absolutely agree with you that the sexual exploitation of women is rampant. Sadly, some people are exploiting the sex trafficking of women to vent their hatred for the royals. If this case blows up and no evidence exists to prove that Prince Andrew, Dershowitz and the others (Epstein being the likely exception) have committed these heinous crimes, it will be exponentially more difficult for someone who has really been trafficked to be taken seriously. That will be a "crime".

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:26 PM
a reply to: HumanPLC

Has it occurred to you that committing perjury is also a crime? They were also under pressure from the prosecution. If answering yes was committing perjury, taking the fifth was a way out. Yes, it could work the other way, too, but there is no evidence that was the case. IF this is all you've got, you've got nothing. You want to convict people based on no evidence and no testimony.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:31 PM
Most of the comments on here are a case of #She says, #He says
and #They say ... The following is taken from an interview that
was given to Sharon Churcher a reporter for the Mail on Sunday
by Virginia Roberts, the girl herself. No doubt if there is no truth
in it, she will be able to sue and make more shed loads of money!!

In the article she is pictured at 15 (1998)in the grounds of her
mothers Palm Beach home, and she was working as a changing room
assistant at the spa in Donald Trumps palacial Florida country club
where her father was a maintenance manager.
This is where she met Ghislaine Maxwell, friend of Jeffry Epstein.
She leapt at the invitation from Ghislaine to work for Epstein, who
was looking for a travelling masseuse, she'd get trained and be
paid large amounts of money.

Sounds more like a JOB offer than slavery?

In 2001 (which would make her 18) she flew to London (private jet?)
and drove straight to Ghislaine's home. The next day they went on
a shopping spree, purchases included a £5,000 Burberry bag! ( yes I
double checked three 000's) designer dresses (yes plural) toiletries
and perfume.
"To be honest" she says "I was sort of excited to meet the Prince ...
That was the lifestyle to which Jeffry had accustomed me"

Doesn't sound like much pressure/slavery there then?

In August 2002 for her 19th birthday Epstein bought her a plane ticket
to Thailand and enrolled her on a massage course. When asked if she
had planned to escape, she blushed ... despite the degradation she
endured she insists that she would never have lied to her 'mentor'
(note the use of 'mentor' not 'slave owner') "I really did think that I
could give him better massages if I studied in Thailand" she said.

Shortly after arriving in Thailand she met an Australian martial arts
expert, and they married within 10 days and went on to live in
Up to date and 11 years later they moved to the U.S. where she is
now working on her "Memoirs"!!??

Hmmmn.... KERCHING ...Methinks the coffers are very low!
Calls for a court case and substantial pay outs!! There was no
where in her story that she couldn't have left at anytime?
am I missing something?

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:44 PM
a reply to: HumanPLC

Thank you for posting the link to Dershowitz's motion. Everyone posting here should read it although I doubt that most will and fewer will understand it.

new topics

top topics

<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in