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

The woman who accused Prince Andrew in her lawsuit (but, you'll note, did not sue him)

False fact... You and i discussed this back on page 22.

is likely motivated by the publicity accusing him will provide.
...
Your lack of concern about actual evidence is puzzling.

As actual evidence is important to you, can you back up that claim with some.

raved about the gifts and world travel he lavished on her. He even financed her travels on her own. Sound like a case of trafficking?

All you say is correct, you left out one important element... She was legally still a child during some of this!

Imagine this possible scenario: She solicited sex from Andrew, for money or not, telling him that she was of legal age. She did so for purposes of blackmailing him in collusion with Epstein, the man she called her mentor. Whether or not Andrew actually had sex with her or whether or not he paid her, she was committing a crime. That would be ample motivation for her to plead the fifth. Again, this is just a possibility but it would explain why she used the fifth.

Whoah!!!! She? It was they! Several of them! I assume you will now come back and state the same could still apply to all of them... C'mon now matey!

Imagine it was aliens, imagine she was possessed... We can imagine anything we like and make all kinds of assumptions along the way. But at the moment the facts of this case tie in with the most obvious reason why they would have taken the fifth.

I have not debated the points of other posters? Huh? I've been debating them for days. Are you sure you've read the entire thread?

Mate you arnet debating! What you are doing is stating a view, and then, when that view gets shown to be incorrect you move onto another view. You then continue to use those same views in other arguments, despite them already being shown to be incorrect.

Ive shown an example of this in this post, and have also previously pointed it out earlier in this thread.

Thats not debating mate, its just deliberately contradicting someone... Im not saying its wrong or bad in any way, sometimes its good to play devils advocate, but its not debating.

If what she has accused people of is true, why didn't she sue Dershowitz and Prince Andrew so that they could defend themselves in court?

Arggghhhhhh again! lol... Ive already answered this in a discussion with YOU! on page 22.

Neither Prince Andrew nor Dershowitz have been sued or charged with a crime. You know that, right?

Again...... lol

Exactly what do you refer to when you say "the current investigation of abuse at Westminster"? Please be specific and name the specific people accused of crimes, the nature of the crimes, when they occurred, and who accused them. What do you mean by "at Westminster"? In other words, what is meant by Westminster. Do you refer to the Queen? The Prime Minister? Prince Andrew? Or are you simply alleging vague crimes committed by generic, unspecified people? If you can't name the specific people, the specific crimes, when they allegedly occurred and the actual evidence, it's pretty difficult to take seriously.

Do you realise what you are asking of that user, that information is only privvy to those involved in the case and besides, even if we knew, it would take months to assemble and present the kind of information you are asking for.

Im pleased about your repeated emphasis on the need for facts and evidence though, im sure you wont mind providing some to back up the claims that you have made.

The issue is whether her allegations against Prince Andrew , Dershowitz and other parties (not Epstein) are true. That's what we're discussing.

So, based on your comments above. Why are you asking the user to supply facts about the Westminster enquiry which is something completely unrelated.

As for Epstein's plea bargain, you may not be aware that plea bargains happen all the time and are given to people without a dime just as they're given to the wealthy.

C'mon this was no normal plea deal and to say otherwise is being deliberately blind to the facts.

a reply to: HumanPLC
I already demonstrated that he lied twice, and he never addressed it. And that he replied without reading the thread. Its all claims of envy and wealth-racism now. Still waiting for an excuse as to why befriending and supporting a pedophile is acceptable.

a reply to: Tangerine

“According to a sworn deposition by Juan Alessi, a former employee at Epstein’s Palm Beach estate, Andrew attended naked pool parties and was treated to massages by a harem of adolescent girls,” the magazine claimed. “At least three of the girls were questioned under oath about whether Andrew had had sexual contact with any of the masseuses.”

I don't know anything about Andrew although I am no fan of the idea of royalty. I find her story credible as everything I read on the internet seems to support it. Now I am not saying Prince Andrew is some sort of paedophile rapist or some such but the idea of him attending sex parties arranged by the likes of Epstein I don't find so far fetched.

I am aware that neither Dershowitz or Andrew have been sued or charged with anything. Her case is about Epstein and unfortunately names have been named in pursuit of that case. She may not wish to pursue anyone else. It may be impossible to prove against such as Andrew even if her allegations are true...for various reasons.

Dershowitz could easily have come out and vigorously denied her claims but he has attacked her lawyers who have now filed suit. Their request for copies of his passport pages are indicative of a particular type of evidence against him.

Exactly what do you refer to when you say "the current investigation of abuse at Westminster"? Please be specific and name the specific people accused of crimes, the nature of the crimes, when they occurred, and who accused them. What do you mean by "at Westminster"? In other words, what is meant by Westminster. Do you refer to the Queen? The Prime Minister? Prince Andrew? Or are you simply alleging vague crimes committed by generic, unspecified people? If you can't name the specific people, the specific crimes, when they allegedly occurred and the actual evidence, it's pretty difficult to take seriously.

I was referring to the current investigation into paedophile rings at Westminster. I will be specific and name Lord Brittan as a paedophile and currently under the protection of the establishment, amongst others.

When I say Westminster I am referring to what is known as the crown. At least in the sense that Tony Benn used the word when he said it is the word that ministers use when referring to the established institutions inside Westminster.

I don't really care if you take me seriously, this is just a chat on an internet forum. It's all good.

midicon.

a reply to: Ridhya

I noticed it too matey.

Everyone is entitled to voice an opinion; however i think there comes a time when you have to start asking yourself, is this still an opinion or is it disinfomation?

@tangerine... You do need to start backing up some of your accusations/allegations matey.

originally posted by: t?

The problem with the picture is that she does not appear to be under any duress. If she was in London then how did no one know she was missing?

Rapists don't usually photograph smiley pictures with their victims.

This photo proves one thing, he at least met her once. That is all. Now if they have a photo of them in the act,, that would be different . She knew full well what prostitution was, but I will bet her parents knew Epstein.

Rapists don't usually photograph smiley pictures with their victims.

That's a massively uninformed comment! A significant number of rapes are perpetrated by someone already known by the victim.

Women are often advised to avoid sexual violence by never walking alone at night. But in fact, only around 10% of rapes are committed by 'strangers'. Around 90% of rapes are committed by known men;

Source: www.rapecrisis.org.uk...

She knew full well what prostitution was

Im not sure what you mean by that, would you be so kind as to explain, please!

You know what, I'm gonna lay my cards on the table.

Its only speculation but I think Epstein was already blackmailing pretty much everyone!

I think how it worked was simple:
1. Epstein invites powerful people over to his luxury locations.
2. Gives them the opportunity to indulge.
3. Some take this opportunity, some don't,
4. Those that do are recorded and then blackmailed.

I think Andrew is one of his victims who succumbed, chose to indulge and was then blackmailed.

This would explain Andrews alleged involvement (as well as others) in the lobbying for this deal. That would also explain why this specific deal was crafted in such a way that it prevented all others named in the allegations from any further action and the associated gag order ensured it was all kept out of the media.

Although I state blackmail, I think the way we tend to think of blackmail (do this or else, grrrrrrr) would have been to crude for Epstein. I imagine it being more like a subtle hint or comment to the individual he had recorded, possibly at a later date when he needed to call in that favour.

Don't get me wrong when I say Andrew is a victim... He has a lot to answer for, and I do believe there is enough evidence regarding his activities to warrant further investigation.

One thing I am confident of; after spending my last few days reading everything I can about Epstein, I can say without any shadow of doubt that the man is pure scum!

originally posted by: HumanPLC
You know what, I'm gonna lay my cards on the table.

Its only speculation but I think Epstein was already blackmailing pretty much everyone!

I think how it worked was simple:
1. Epstein invites powerful people over to his luxury locations.
2. Gives them the opportunity to indulge.
3. Some take this opportunity, some don't,
4. Those that do are recorded and then blackmailed.

I think Andrew is one of his victims who succumbed, chose to indulge and was then blackmailed.

This would explain Andrews alleged involvement (as well as others) in the lobbying for this deal. That would also explain why this specific deal was crafted in such a way that it prevented all others named in the allegations from any further action and the associated gag order ensured it was all kept out of the media.

Although I state blackmail, I think the way we tend to think of blackmail (do this or else, grrrrrrr) would have been to crude for Epstein. I imagine it being more like a subtle hint or comment to the individual he had recorded, possibly at a later date when he needed to call in that favour.

Don't get me wrong when I say Andrew is a victim... He has a lot to answer for, and I do believe there is enough evidence regarding his activities to warrant further investigation.

One thing I am confident of; after spending my last few days reading everything I can about Epstein, I can say without any shadow of doubt that the man is pure scum!

I agree with your assessment of this situation, except that I seriously doubt that Dershowitz was involved. If he had been he never would have given up his protection under the statute of limitations. I also tend to believe that the woman in question was a free will participant in Epstein's scheme. I do not for a minute believe she was a trafficked sex slave. I do believe that Epstein is loathsome and exploited her due to her youth and, at that time, naivete', but that is a far cry from trafficking. Now that she is an adult and far removed from Epstein's control, she is 100% responsible for her behavior and I think she is trying to cash in and is using the names of high profile people like Dershowitz and Prince Andrew to get publicity. Without those names, we wouldn't be discussing this and it wouldn't be headline news. As for Andrew, he may or may not have indulged but even his presence in a home while such things were going on (whether or not he knew any underaged females were involved) put him at risk for blackmail. There's also the question of the woman's age at the time. Even if she was of legal age, the taint of such activities would be blackmail material to use against Andrew in a way that they could not be used against others.

originally posted by: HumanPLC


@tangerine... You do need to start backing up some of your accusations/allegations matey.

Which specific accusations/allegations? I think I've explained my reasoning for each thing I've said. I've also made clear that I do not know what happened and I'm purely speculating.

a reply to: midicon

The sworn statement you cited is a mile from the woman's allegations that she was a trafficked sex slave which is the foundation of her allegations. The statement that at least three of the girls were questioned about Andrew doesn't reveal what they said, does it? It's suggestive without actually stating any facts.

You keep saying you find her credible but you don't say why. I took the time to answer your questions in some detail. Won't you do the same by explaining why you find her credible?

You see nothing wrong with the woman accusing people of heinous crimes in a format that prevents them from defending themselves in court? I see a great deal wrong with that.

Dershowitz did what he had to to get into court to definitively prove there is no evidence against him. He could deny until the cows come home and his name still wouldn't be cleared unless done so legally. The woman's lawyers' request for copies of his passport pages do not indicate any evidence against him. Do not confuse a records request with the existence of evidence. It's routine fishing. As Dershowitz pointed out, they should have checked flight manifests to determine whether he was even present before accusing him. You are aware, aren't you, that Dershowitz was hired to represent Epstein so he had a legitimate reason to have visited him. We have probably all met people before who have committed crimes. That does not mean that we are guilty of those crimes. Lawyers routinely meet people who have committed crimes. Tell me exactly how Dershowitz could clear his name definitively without doing what he has done.

Regarding Westminster and the current investigation into alleged (don't forget that word) pedophile rings, you're casting a very wide net. I would guess that hundreds, maybe thousands, of people could be categorized as part of Westminster. Any group containing that many people likely includes people who are up to no good. You have named one person (was he convicted?) while implying that everyone in that larger group is implicated. Is that really fair? You have also employed a tool of implying that lack of conviction proves a coverup. Perhaps it actually proves that someone is not guilty. Have you considered that possibility?

Think about it. If someone is found guilty they're guilty. If someone is not found guilty, there's a coverup and they're guilty. Not only that but everyone in Westminster is guilty. Do you really want to live under that standard?

I'm not sure why you're bringing the taint of alleged pedophile rings into this discussion. This case is not about pedophiles. As has been explained repeatedly, pedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. The woman in question was not a pre-pubescent child. This seems to be an attempt to further slur the accused by associating them with an especially offensive predilection for which none have even been accused.

originally posted by: Tangerine


You keep saying you find her credible but you don't say why. I took the time to answer your questions in some detail. Won't you do the same by explaining why you find her credible?

LOL!!!....

I bet he wouldn't find her so credible if she wasn't pretty!!?

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Tangerine


You keep saying you find her credible but you don't say why. I took the time to answer your questions in some detail. Won't you do the same by explaining why you find her credible?

LOL!!!....

I bet he wouldn't find her so credible if she wasn't pretty!!?

I suspect that has little to do with it. This is likely about hating the royals and nothing more.

**snip**

Radio 4 this morning (7,20am ish), out of nowhere they announced they had a gentleman on from Huddersfield who 'Would like to speak up in Prince Andrew's name'. It was a two minute section with this man explaining how PA had helped the local Huddersfield education community and this means he is a good man and innocent.

The presenter questioned the gentleman about PA's relationship with Epstein, nothing much more was said. "Everybody makes mistakes".

Being that this is Radio 4 and they don't talk calls it seemed strange for me that this unknown gentleman was promoting PA.

Upon listening back it is blatantly a PR setup by his team to sway the suspicious middle classes who are, in the main, clever enough to know what's going on.

It's worth trying to find if can.

a reply to: and14263

I suspect we will hear precious little about 'handy'Andy for a while because the royals will be blessing the horror in Paris for taking the limelight off of our wayward prince.

However, it is nearly impossible to sue a royal - Crown v Crown in the courts and all that. There as a note that the queen had put her family out of the reach of the public suing any member, but that suddenly disappeared from the web so there is a lot of manipulation and damage limitation going on - which tells me he was guilty and also that the royals will do anything using our money to defend their actions against us - their rights and access to the public purse and £14,000 a week chalets for ski ing holidays for fergy before her trill of what a marvellous man handy andy is. should say it all to us.

a reply to: and14263

Again you imply people here are pedo sympathizers.
Just because we will not fall for the obvious royal family haters on this thread you should not imply members of ATS are pedo sympathizers.
Also got any proof this is a PA stunt seeing he has actually done stuff for Huddersfield.
The caller was right also people make mistakes.

originally posted by: Shiloh7


I suspect we will hear precious little about 'handy'Andy for a while because the royals will be blessing the horror in Paris for taking the limelight off of our wayward prince.

I'm surprised you didn't say that the Queen actually orchestrated

the events in France to take the heat off Andrew!

a reply to: Shiloh7
It wouldnt be Crown v Crown. In a civil case (such as this one with the Prince) it would the plaintiff v the defendants last names, the prince isnt actually the defendant so his name would not be on the case.

In the situation that a criminal charge was laid against the prince in England, it would be Wessex v Crown (I THINK Wessex is the last name they use??)...

a reply to: boymonkey74

Sorry to rile you. I didn't suggest YOU were a sympathiser or a Royalist.

Merely that these were the type people who would be riled with my post so I suggested they ignore it.

Just trying to keep it civil.

Edit to add: Obviously I have no proof, this is my opinion on what I heard. I've worked in the media though and have a vague idea how Radio 4 functions with regards to schedule and things they HAVE to sound out as opposed to things they'd like to.

a reply to: boymonkey74
If being friends with a pedophile once is a mistake, what do you call doing it for 7 years?

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Twitter, #OpDeathEaters