Prince Andrew (Allegations of Famous People Engaged in Bad Sex Part 57)

[angrysoba]

Hmm....

There was a thread a few years back about Lawrence Krauss's defence of Epstein and a lot of people thought that Krauss was defending an indefensible man, and not using very good critical thinking skills in his defence. One of the things that was said about Epstein, by some of Krauss's skeptical critics was that Epstein got an easy ride due to a plea bargain.

The Daily Mail says:

The deal meant Epstein – who was suspected for decades of paying for sex with dozens of under-age girls – was only ever convicted and jailed for 18 months on a single charge of soliciting paid sex with minors in 2008.

Documents filed at a court in Florida further allege that Prince Andrew was among those who made ‘efforts’ to secure the paedophile a favourable deal.

That article also shows the photo of Andrew and Virginia Roberts. That is not a good photo to have lying around. Where does that photograph come from? Is it the only one?

 

[Information Analyst]

That article also shows the photo of Andrew and Virginia Roberts. That is not a good photo to have lying around. Where does that photograph come from? Is it the only one?

It seems to be the only one, and I think it's significant that it also seems to be the only one showing Ms Maxwell with either Prince Andrew or Roberts, let alone the three of them together.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

I've often wondered whether Jimmy Savile's personal and work diaries were ever consulted apropos the allegations against him. Certainly in relation to the various reports by hospitals, there's no mention of any corroborately use of them. There are numerous assertions that no record exists of Savile being in specific locations at specfic times as far as the hospitals are concerned, and surely the diaries would clarify whether he was or not.

Ah, but his diaries have been lost by the police! A great boon for JS conspiracy theorists (they tend to congregate on the David Icke forums).

From what I can find, there seem to be two different kinds of diaries involved. Some were seized after Saville's death by Operation Yewtree (that's the Metropolitan Police). The West Yorkshire Police also looked at them in their own enquiry into Saville's relationship with their force. From their report (p.38):

WYP has examined the diaries. The entries in the diaries consist of Savile's experiences in his daily life and they are public knowledge as they are included in his autobiographies.

So there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of useful information in those, and no complete record of where Saville was at any given date over the years. Still, it's pretty astonishing that they were lost, especially in such a high-profile case.

But then there are mentions of a business diary he kept. Saville had no agent or manager, and apparently used a desk diary to keep track of his many appointments. I can't find any mentions of any of those being found. Who knows, maybe he threw them out sometime after January 1st.

In the case of the allegations against HRH, I can't help thinking that the accusations have been specifically constructed around the sole photo of him with his accuser, as well as the third party she also implicates.

What I find so vile about this is that the accusations are being brought up in a civil suit against Epstein, in which Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz aren't parties, where they have to go on media reports to know what it is that is being alleged, and where the person making the accusations is formally anonymous (although very quickly outed by tabloids), and is throwing out their names in an attempt to get in at a late stage on an already-running suit for financial compensation against someone else. I don't know: is it even possible for somebody defamed in this way to sue her, or her lawyers, for defamation in a situation like this (assuming their innocence, of course)?

 

[qayak]

That article also shows the photo of Andrew and Virginia Roberts. That is not a good photo to have lying around. Where does that photograph come from? Is it the only one?

From the article:

One picture, said to have been taken by Epstein during Andrew's first encounter with the girl in March 2001 shows the Prince with his arm around her waist.

According to Roberts:

'After about an hour-and-a-half, we drove back to Ghislaine's. All of us went upstairs and I asked Jeffrey to snap a picture of me with the Prince. I wanted something to show my Mom. Ghislaine and Jeffrey left us after that, and later Andrew left'.

 

[angrysoba]

From the article:



According to Roberts:

Ah, thanks. I missed the sidebar article.

 

[anglolawyer]

Ah, but his diaries have been lost by the police! A great boon for JS conspiracy theorists (they tend to congregate on the David Icke forums).

From what I can find, there seem to be two different kinds of diaries involved. Some were seized after Saville's death by Operation Yewtree (that's the Metropolitan Police). The West Yorkshire Police also looked at them in their own enquiry into Saville's relationship with their force. From their report (p.38):



So there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of useful information in those, and no complete record of where Saville was at any given date over the years. Still, it's pretty astonishing that they were lost, especially in such a high-profile case.

But then there are mentions of a business diary he kept. Saville had no agent or manager, and apparently used a desk diary to keep track of his many appointments. I can't find any mentions of any of those being found. Who knows, maybe he threw them out sometime after January 1st.



What I find so vile about this is that the accusations are being brought up in a civil suit against Epstein, in which Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz aren't parties, where they have to go on media reports to know what it is that is being alleged, and where the person making the accusations is formally anonymous (although very quickly outed by tabloids), and is throwing out their names in an attempt to get in at a late stage on an already-running suit for financial compensation against someone else. I don't know: is it even possible for somebody defamed in this way to sue her, or her lawyers, for defamation in a situation like this (assuming their innocence, of course)?

Assuming English law, no, I don't think so. Her downside would be perjury. And I find the very idea of anybody suing lawyers just for doing their job deeply, deeply offensive!

 

[Information Analyst]

Ah, but his diaries have been lost by the police! A great boon for JS conspiracy theorists (they tend to congregate on the David Icke forums).

Police do, though, have a habit of losing evidence that might undermine their intentions. I wouldn't subscribe to the idea that the diaries were full of stuff that incriminated other "powerful" people, but I would imagine that they might be enough to determine Savile's movements occasionally, if not all the time. For example, if someone says he interfered with them in Exeter at a specific event on a known date, but the diaries show he was in Inverness, and this subsequently leads to local news reports confirming him being in Scotland. On the other hand, if the diary says, "had a great time meeting the kids at the West Country festival!!!" it would work the other way.

From what I can find, there seem to be two different kinds of diaries involved. Some were seized after Saville's death by Operation Yewtree (that's the Metropolitan Police). The West Yorkshire Police also looked at them in their own enquiry into Saville's relationship with their force. From their report (p.38):

That seems a strange claim, given that it seems unlikely that his dairies were reproduced verbatim and unabridged in his autobiography. It's not unusual for people to mine thier diaries for such a purpose, but for any serious scholar it's no substitute for sight of the original diaries themselves.

So there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of useful information in those, and no complete record of where Saville was at any given date over the years. Still, it's pretty astonishing that they were lost, especially in such a high-profile case.

Indeed. One would think that with alleged offences spanning so many years, a priority would have been trying to reconstruct a time-line of where he was known or thought to be on any given date, and the diaries - especially the professional one - should have been the cornerstone of that. Instead, hospitals dealing with allegations of assaults on their premises had to resort to trawling local newspapers and current and ex-staff's memories to see if any reports or recollections matched the claims, and more often than not failed to do so. This is an anomaly that the press do not seem very interested in....

But then there are mentions of a business diary he kept. Saville had no agent or manager, and apparently used a desk diary to keep track of his many appointments. I can't find any mentions of any of those being found. Who knows, maybe he threw them out sometime after January 1st.

I was under the impression that the professional diaries was maintained by his personal assiatnt/secretary, who retained possession of them after his death.

 

[lobosrul]

The Royals are thusly:

1. The Queen (she's the main one) Elizabeth II, aka "Buffy", aka "Trixxxie Love"
2. The Prince Consort (her dude) Oberyn Martell, aka "The Red Viper", aka "Not the Face!"
3. King Arthur (their eldest son)
4. Prince William of the Endless Forehead (Arthur's eldest son)
5. Prince Harry (William's younger, sexier brother)
6. Prince, aka "the artist formerly known as Prince"
7. Fergie (not the one you are thinking of)
8. Joanna Lumley
9. Fergie (the one you are thinking of)
10. Princess Serenity of the Silver Millenium Moon Kingdom, aka "Sailor Moon"
11. Wilberforce Claybourne Humphries

Where does Lord Blackadder aka Mr Bean fall in the succession? Surely he's top 10

 

[Craig B]

I don't know: is it even possible for somebody defamed in this way to sue her, or her lawyers, for defamation in a situation like this (assuming their innocence, of course)?

They can ignore her (assuming their innocence, of course).

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

Police do, though, have a habit of losing evidence that might undermine their intentions. I wouldn't subscribe to the idea that the diaries were full of stuff that incriminated other "powerful" people, but I would imagine that they might be enough to determine Savile's movements occasionally, if not all the time.

One of the less paranoid bloggers commenting on this also pointed out that the police have a tendency to lose possibly exculpatory evidence more often than they lose incriminating evidence.

That seems a strange claim, given that it seems unlikely that his dairies were reproduced verbatim and unabridged in his autobiography. It's not unusual for people to mine thier diaries for such a purpose, but for any serious scholar it's no substitute for sight of the original diaries themselves.

No. But if he only kept extremely partial diaries, just jotting down the things he thought might be included in an autobiography some day (he had the ego for that), and no boring everyday stuff, it's possible that there was nothing in there that added to already available information. That same West Yorkshire Police report notes that some of the entries weren't even dated.

Indeed. One would think that with alleged offences spanning so many years, a priority would have been trying to reconstruct a time-line of where he was known or thought to be on any given date, and the diaries - especially the professional one - should have been the cornerstone of that. Instead, hospitals dealing with allegations of assaults on their premises had to resort to trawling local newspapers and current and ex-staff's memories to see if any reports or recollections matched the claims, and more often than not failed to do so. This is an anomaly that the press do not seem very interested in....

It is very strange that so little media attention seems to have been paid to these diaries, or rather their loss. There certainly have been posthumous claims made putting events at times and places where they couldn't possibly have happened. Such as tapings of Top of the Pops before that show existed, tapings at BBC Television Centre of other shows that were never made there, Saville being a nightclub manager at a time when he was still in the mines as a Bevin boy, and the like. These all seem to have surfaced after a compensation scheme paid from the estate was announced. One can only try to imagine how his real victims must feel about things like that.

I was under the impression that the professional diaries was maintained by his personal assiatnt/secretary, who retained possession of them after his death.

Which would make it even stranger that they're never mentioned - if they still exist, surely they should have been seized at the earliest possible opportunity, and be pretty central to the investigation?

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

Assuming English law, no, I don't think so. Her downside would be perjury. And I find the very idea of anybody suing lawyers just for doing their job deeply, deeply offensive!

I was perhaps influenced by the spectacle of a certain kind of American lawyer, the kind that seem to spend more time sending out press releases and giving press conferences than doing actual lawyer stuff. Like the one that was behind the allegations against Bryan Singer and others last year. At one point, he tried to add a British plaintiff to his case, with the brilliant legal argument that even though the alleged "sexual abuse" took place in London when the guy was 17, Singer lives in California, and therefore the California age of consent of 18 should apply. The case in question was about alleged incidents in Hawaii, BTW, where the age of consent is 16, too. And oh yes, the lawyer who announced all this at several press conferences in LA isn't even licensed to practice in California.

They can ignore her (assuming their innocence, of course).

Sadly, they can't make the media ignore them, or her. In this case, that doesn't just include the ignorable tabloid media.

As an amusing aside: the Daily Mail article goes into great detail about the chalet where Andrew goes on skiing holidays. That includes this bombshell: "The chalet also has its own ski changing room so visitors can ski from the slopes to the privacy of their own home, without mixing with hoi polloi." Wow! Such sybaritic excess! Has it ever occurred to them that all places rented out for skiing holidays, even the cheapest ones, have such "ski changing rooms"? Where the hell else do they think people keep their skis and boots? Outside in the snow? In their bedrooms?

 

[Craig B]

As an amusing aside: the Daily Mail article goes into great detail about the chalet where Andrew goes on skiing holidays. That includes this bombshell: "The chalet also has its own ski changing room so visitors can ski from the slopes to the privacy of their own home, without mixing with hoi polloi." Wow! Such sybaritic excess! Has it ever occurred to them that all places rented out for skiing holidays, even the cheapest ones, have such "ski changing rooms"? Where the hell else do they think people keep their skis and boots? Outside in the snow? In their bedrooms?

[url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896994/The-remote-holiday-home-Prince-Andrew-staying.htm"l]This one[/url] allegedly has other facilities too.

Prince Andrew was tucked away with his closest friends and family in an opulent £22,000-a-week Swiss chalet when the sex scandal broke.
The Queen's son heard news of the serious challenge to his reputation while staying in the exclusive ski resort of Verbier with his former wife Sarah Ferguson and their younger daughter Eugenie.
Prince Harry’s ex-girlfriend Cressida Bonas, a close friend of Eugenie, and Eugenie's boyfriend, nightclub boss, Jack Brooksbank were also staying with the family.
Located in one of the most exclusive and remote parts of Verbier, the chalet boasts seven bedrooms, its own heated indoor swimming pool with an opulent entertaining area and a sauna.

 

[jimbob]

Which translates as rich person spends money on extravagances. It's not in the same league as the legendary Queen's toilet seat or the job of Charles's toothpaste squeezer

 

[Arcade22]

I was perhaps influenced by the spectacle of a certain kind of American lawyer, the kind that seem to spend more time sending out press releases and giving press conferences than doing actual lawyer stuff. Like the one that was behind the allegations against Bryan Singer and others last year. At one point, he tried to add a British plaintiff to his case, with the brilliant legal argument that even though the alleged "sexual abuse" took place in London when the guy was 17, Singer lives in California, and therefore the California age of consent of 18 should apply. The case in question was about alleged incidents in Hawaii, BTW, where the age of consent is 16, too.

Well the way laws against "child sex tourism" are written typically make it an offence to have sex with a minor under the "age of consent" in the country where the court has jurisdiction even if it isn't a crime in the country/state where they had sex. For example, according to Swedish law, if one were to have sex with someone who is 14 years old but is over the local age of consent one could still be sentenced for "sexually exploiting a child" in a Swedish court as it's a crime to have sex with someone who is under 15 years old under Swedish law.

 

[Craig B]

Well the way laws against "child sex tourism" are written typically make it an offence to have sex with a minor under the "age of consent" in the country where the court has jurisdiction even if it isn't a crime in the country/state where they had sex. For example, according to Swedish law, if one were to have sex with someone who is 14 years old but is over the local age of consent one could still be sentenced for "sexually exploiting a child" in a Swedish court as it's a crime to have sex with someone who is under 15 years old under Swedish law.

Whether that is so in English law or not, the allegations include that Andrew had sex with a seventeen year old in the Virgin Islands (sic) where the age of consent is eighteen years. Presumably that jurisdiction could seek to pursue a case against him under local laws, extraditing him if need be. That, if it were possible, would be embarrassing to the Royal Family.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

Well the way laws against "child sex tourism" are written typically make it an offence to have sex with a minor under the "age of consent" in the country where the court has jurisdiction even if it isn't a crime in the country/state where they had sex. For example, according to Swedish law, if one were to have sex with someone who is 14 years old but is over the local age of consent one could still be sentenced for "sexually exploiting a child" in a Swedish court as it's a crime to have sex with someone who is under 15 years old under Swedish law.

Several countries have extraterritorial laws introduced to try and crack down on child sex tourism, yes.

But the case I mentioned involved a lawyer trying to sue someone in a civil suit in Hawaii, over offences allegedly committed in Hawaii but for which the criminal statute of limitations had long run out (as well as the civil statute of limitations, if it hadn't been for a nearly-elapsed one-time extension), and adding a plaintiff from London to that case. Who, if the alleged event actually happened, wouldn't have been underage either in Hawaii or in England.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

Which translates as rich person spends money on extravagances. It's not in the same league as the legendary Queen's toilet seat or the job of Charles's toothpaste squeezer

My point was that the Daily Mail thinks that a skiiing chalet having a place to store skis and boots is one of those extravagances. But then, elsewhere in the article they also enviously note: "The master bedroom has its own en-suite bathroom". Such decadence!

 

[Craig B]

My point was that the Daily Mail thinks that a skiiing chalet having a place to store skis and boots is one of those extravagances. But then, elsewhere in the article they also enviously note: "The master bedroom has its own en-suite bathroom". Such decadence!

And my point is that these modest facilities to which you allude are not all the chalet has.

Prince Andrew was tucked away with his closest friends and family in an opulent £22,000-a-week Swiss chalet when the sex scandal broke.
The Queen's son heard news of the serious challenge to his reputation while staying in the exclusive ski resort of Verbier with his former wife Sarah Ferguson and their younger daughter Eugenie.
Prince Harry’s ex-girlfriend Cressida Bonas, a close friend of Eugenie, and Eugenie's boyfriend, nightclub boss, Jack Brooksbank were also staying with the family.
Located in one of the most exclusive and remote parts of Verbier, the chalet boasts seven bedrooms, its own heated indoor swimming pool with an opulent entertaining area and a sauna.

ETA Allegations of avarice and extravagance have surrounded Prince Andrew for many years.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So what does it mean? Because he can afford a nice Chalet he is guilty?

 

[anglolawyer]

So what does it mean? Because he can afford a nice Chalet he is guilty?

Yes.