Ghislaine Maxwell

smartcooky said:
My teenage daughters were TXTing and sending pictures to each other and their friends on their Samsung (V20?) flip-style cellphones by shortly after Christmas 2000, and they didn't have a billionaire sugar daddy picking up the tab!!!
Click to expand...

You’re making that up! :D
 
Yeah, I was about to make the same point. There is a billionaire, a millionaire, and and a member of royalty involved here.

The photo in question is the famous one, right? Of Andrew with his arms around Giuffre and apparently taken by Epstein?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Yeah, I was about to make the same point. There is a billionaire, a millionaire, and and a member of royalty involved here.

The photo in question is the famous one, right? Of Andrew with his arms around Giuffre and apparently taken by Epstein?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that one was clearly taken with a conventional camera with a flash. The flash itself is reflected in the window. It definitely wasn’t taken by a primitive early camera phone.

Now maybe it was taken with a digital camera and then sent by computer. Possibly.

I would of course expect that maybe she is confused about the medium. It does seem like a small thing, but it is jarring anyway to hear something that seems out of place.

On the other side of the balance of course we have to put Prince Andrew’s frankly unbelievable story of him being in Pizza Express that apparently literally nobody was around to witness, his inability to sweat and the attempted evasion of a trial by a technicality that would actually require his guilt to be used.
 
smartcooky said:
Seriously, that is what they got for Christmas 2000. I remember it well because those things cost us a bomb!!
Click to expand...

Not surprised. Did you buy them prototypes? :D

Hmmm….

The Samsung SCH-V200, released in South Korea in June 2000, was also one of the first phones with a built-in camera. It had a TFT liquid-crystal display (LCD) and stored up to 20 digital photos at 350,000-pixel resolution. However, it could not send the resulting image over the telephone function, but required a computer connection to access photos.[87] The first mass-market camera phone was the J-SH04, a Sharp J-Phone model sold in Japan in November 2000.[88][87]
Click to expand...
 
angrysoba said:
But what she said was that she texted a damning message and a photograph. This suggests she sent the message by phone. That seems very unlikely to me.
Click to expand...

OK. So what if the she (or Epstein) sent it by e-mail and the recipient is misremembering that detail or didn't even know that detail in the first place? The particular details in question here don't really appear to be relevant to the case. Even if the person claiming this has the dates wrong by a couple years it's still good support for the original claim.
 
GlennB said:
There's a left one? Is that where the commies come out? I had no idea.

MrsB is in bed, but I gotta check this right now!
Click to expand...

Point being that you can dispense with the whole royalty thingy and still have a viable tourist attraction to bring in funds.
 
angrysoba said:
Not surprised. Did you buy them prototypes? :D

Hmmm….
Click to expand...

Spark (then called "Telecom" New Zealand) was selling these in New Zealand in September of 2000. I know this for a fact because I bought three of them (two for the girls and one for the business). I can even remember the bloody phone numbers!!

And yes, I am aware that a computer was required - we used a ******* horrible Windows ME computer - the girls would have to access the phone photos using a weird proprietary USB cable (I've probably still got the cables somewhere too), copy them to the computer and attach them to an email to send them. I know this for a fact also because I spent considerable time with them helping them to figure out how to do this.

By mid 2001, the sending of images over text messaging was routine!
 
Last edited:
Whilst the case highlights the absurd arbitrary age of consent laws, the fact remains the law allows Giuffre to bring her case. I am not sure the lawmakers had anything other than real children in mind, personally. There was a deadline to bring a case under the change in the limitation of statute and it is no surprise she put her claim in, because she could. She has nothing to lose, unless the court orders costs against her. In the meantime, she has played it very well. Prince Andrew has to take responsibility for his own actions. He hid behind Maxwell throughout his incredibly hilarious BBC interview. He made it very clear to all he knew exactly what was going on when Emily Maitlis asked whether he didn't think it strange all these young women walking around Epstein' mansion in New York where Andrew said he made a trip, because, 'My problem is, I am too honourable, I had to tell him to his face it would not be appropriate for me to be seen with him again', when Prince Andrew responded, 'I don't wish to be grand but I live in a Palace and am used to staff wandering about'.

LOL scantily-dressed young ladies, so he admits he saw all of this, yet expects people to believe he had no idea that Epstein and Maxwell were pimps.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
But what she said was that she texted a damning message and a photograph. This suggests she sent the message by phone. That seems very unlikely to me.
Click to expand...

It could be that no photo was ever sent but they genuinely remember that one was sent. Got to always factor in humans’ memory storage and retrieval systems, notoriously bad.
 
Bob001 said:
What's bollocks? Andrew is claiming he never had anything to do with her. She is claiming that she was manipulated and trafficked as a 17-year-old. Nobody is claiming she was kidnapped at gunpoint. Even if she had consensual sex then, she may well have come to realize as an adult that she was abused by skillful, experienced predators. This is a civil case, not a criminal trial, and Andrew is doing everything he can to keep her case from being heard by a jury.

And from the above link:


There really is a contradiction there. How could he rely on the Epstein agreement to protect him if he had never done anything that it would cover?
Click to expand...


There is that. OTOH one also has to look at it from the complainants POV. She did agree not to sue Epstein and his list of chums (presumably as though he was signing on behalf of some kind of corporate body) so there should be a question as to whether she is entitled to have 'another bite of the cherry', as it were, having taken $500K to walk away.

It is not necessarily an admission of guilt by Prince Andrew, as being in the public eye, it could be said he has an interest in just paying someone off to go away, to protect his reputation. Having said that, it was his own stupidity mixing with gangsters like Epstein that put him in a vulnerable position of blackmail and exploitation in the first place. That is the real reason he went to talk to Epstein, because Epstein had something on him, that 'something' being deeply unsavoury. Who did take that picture of Andrew in the park with Epstein, after all?

Like most of the Royal Family, Prince Andrew is pretty dim.
 
Vixen said:
Whilst the case highlights the absurd arbitrary age of consent laws people to believe he had no idea that Epstein and Maxwell were pimps.
Click to expand...

The age of consent laws are not absurd - they are in place to afford some measure of protection for young people from sexual predators, as well as from people who think the way that you have just demonstrated you do.

The age of consent laws are not arbitrary - they have been reached from a societal understanding gleaned over many years as to what age a young person is mature enough to make a decision about their sexuality

Different countries may have different ideas about what the point is, and their laws will reflect that. Disagreement with those law is no excuse for breaking them.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Yeah, I was about to make the same point. There is a billionaire, a millionaire, and and a member of royalty involved here.

The photo in question is the famous one, right? Of Andrew with his arms around Giuffre and apparently taken by Epstein?
Click to expand...

WAIT! Prince Andrew assured Emily Maitlis of the BBC that he had never seen Epstein holding a camera.
 
smartcooky said:
The age of consent laws are not absurd - they are in place to afford some measure of protection for young people from sexual predators, as well as from people who think the way that you have just demonstrated you do.

The age of consent laws are not arbitrary - they have been reached from a societal understanding gleaned over many years as to what age a young person is mature enough to make a decision about their sexuality

Different countries may have different ideas about what the point is, and their laws will reflect that. Disagreement with those law is no excuse for breaking them.
Click to expand...

It is absurd insofar as statistically a large number of people are having sex in that age group.

Whilst I despise and detest lawyer Alan Derschowitz, he is right about the absurd age of consent laws.

As an example, the witness, 'Carolyn' - the one recently interviewed - was already in a relationship with a 38-year-old guy when she embarked on a four-year relationship with Epstein, returning 'hundreds of times'. She says she's worked as a stripper and sex worker. How do you force 'Carolyn' to wait until she is 18?

Of course there needs to be protection from predators but how?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
The age of consent laws are not absurd - they are in place to afford some measure of protection for young people from sexual predators, as well as from people who think the way that you have just demonstrated you do.

The age of consent laws are not arbitrary - they have been reached from a societal understanding gleaned over many years as to what age a young person is mature enough to make a decision about their sexuality

Different countries may have different ideas about what the point is, and their laws will reflect that. Disagreement with those law is no excuse for breaking them.
Click to expand...

That was expressed very well.
 
smartcooky said:
Spark (then called "Telecom" New Zealand) was selling these in New Zealand in September of 2000. I know this for a fact because I bought three of them (two for the girls and one for the business). I can even remember the bloody phone numbers!!

And yes, I am aware that a computer was required - we used a ******* horrible Windows ME computer - the girls would have to access the phone photos using a weird proprietary USB cable (I've probably still got the cables somewhere too), copy them to the computer and attach them to an email to send them. I know this for a fact also because I spent considerable time with them helping them to figure out how to do this.

By mid 2001, the sending of images over text messaging was routine!
Click to expand...

It sounds as though you were one of the earliest of early adopters, and that the process of getting photographs from phone to phone was elaborate if not impossible at the time. Also, while New Zealand may have been ahead of the game, it seems that the US (where one of the girls involved was living) and the UK (where the other girl was sending an image from) didn't have camera phones until 2002.

UK/Euope:
2002 - Europe's first camera phone
NEC e606, the UK's first 3G phone
The Nokia 7650 was something really special. It was Europe's first phone with a Symbian operating system and Europe's first phone with a built-in camera. Expensive at the time at £200 and only available on contract, it was a huge success with young mobile users eager to adopt the latest trend from Japan. Read more about the first camera phones.
Click to expand...

US
It took a while for the camera phone trend to hit the United States. In November 2002, over two years after the Samsung SCH-V200 launched in South Korea, the Sanyo SCP-5300 (also known as the Sanyo Katana) went on sale in this country, via Sprint. It cost about $400, had a clamshell design, and a camera that could take 0.3MP images. Time magazine once put the phone on its list of the most influential gadgets.
Click to expand...

I think it is highly unlikely that one of them texted the other a photograph. Given that fact, if this is an argument that is going to be used in a court case, they should be really careful that they have their facts straight. If they mess it up, they could lose the case if Prince Andrew has a lawyer who can undermine the credibility of the witness.

Darat said:
It could be that no photo was ever sent but they genuinely remember that one was sent. Got to always factor in humans’ memory storage and retrieval systems, notoriously bad.
Click to expand...

This is more likely, but again, it is really important for them to avoid making and repeating claims that might end up sounding incredible.

Regarding the famous photograph that Prince Andrew disputes is real. Does anyone know if that could have been a digital photograph or would it have to have been on film for that level of resolution? Could it be a scanned picture? Or one that came out of a digital camera?
 
I think the mystery is solved.

Although the Guardian story claims the photograph was sent by text, which I consider near impossible for the time, the Daily Mail, which got the interview says Giuffre showed Andriano the infamous photograph when she was back in Florida and the only thing sent by text was her saying she was in London at the time meeting Prince Andrew.

Anyway, sorry about that. It raised red flags for me, but it turns out it was a red herring after all. I blame the Grauniad but I really should have tracked down the initial report from the apparently more sensible, on this occasion, Daily Mail (which for once did not Fail).
 
Vixen said:
......
As an example, the witness, 'Carolyn' - the one recently interviewed - was already in a relationship with a 38-year-old guy when she embarked on a four-year relationship with Epstein, returning 'hundreds of times'. She says she's worked as a stripper and sex worker. How do you force 'Carolyn' to wait until she is 18?
....
Click to expand...


You don't force her to do anything. If she is underage, she is the victim. You prosecute her abusers. "Romeo & Juliet" laws protect high school sweethearts, but "Carolyn's" testimony is that Epstein and Maxwell latched on to her when she was 14. That's a crime by any rational standard, hardly a relationship, and it certainly shaped her subsequent life choices.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/07/us/ghislaine-maxwell-trial/index.html

And if at age 14 she was in a "relationship" with a 38-year-old man -- who says so? -- that would also be statutory rape and possibly trafficking if he introduced her to anybody else.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
It sounds as though you were one of the earliest of early adopters, and that the process of getting photographs from phone to phone was elaborate if not impossible at the time. Also, while New Zealand may have been ahead of the game, it seems that the US (where one of the girls involved was living) and the UK (where the other girl was sending an image from) didn't have camera phones until 2002.

UK/Euope:


US


I think it is highly unlikely that one of them texted the other a photograph. Given that fact, if this is an argument that is going to be used in a court case, they should be really careful that they have their facts straight. If they mess it up, they could lose the case if Prince Andrew has a lawyer who can undermine the credibility of the witness.



This is more likely, but again, it is really important for them to avoid making and repeating claims that might end up sounding incredible.

Regarding the famous photograph that Prince Andrew disputes is real. Does anyone know if that could have been a digital photograph or would it have to have been on film for that level of resolution? Could it be a scanned picture? Or one that came out of a digital camera?
Click to expand...


I know this aspect has now been resolved so this is a bit OT, but your quote about camera phones in the UK specifies a built in camera. The first phone I had (in the UK) that could take photos was a clamshell, Samsung iirc, with a small external camera that clipped onto the serial port. I don't remember exactly when I had it but at the time I got it this was considered a cool new thing not a work around for an older device that lacked a critical feature (& while I like to be an early adopter, for budget reasons I'm generally jumping on board once the prices have started to drop) so it was definitely before built in cameras were widespread, whether it was before they were available at all I couldn't swear.
 
Vixen said:
It is absurd insofar as statistically a large number of people are having sex in that age group.
Click to expand...

Just because people do illegal things does not mean the laws governing them are "absurd". Lots of people commit burglaries, car thefts and murders. That does not make the laws governing those crimes "absurd".

Vixen said:
Whilst I despise and detest lawyer Alan Derschowitz, he is right about the absurd age of consent laws.
Click to expand...

Oh, of course he would say that. He's in the firing line so he has a considerable self-interest in this issue.

Vixen said:
As an example, the witness, 'Carolyn' - the one recently interviewed - was already in a relationship with a 38-year-old guy when she embarked on a four-year relationship with Epstein, returning 'hundreds of times'. She says she's worked as a stripper and sex worker. How do you force 'Carolyn' to wait until she is 18?
Click to expand...

You can't, so you enforce the laws by prosecuting those who exploited her.

If she is a sex worker, you prosecute the pimp.
If she is pimping herself out, prosecute the Johns (in most jurisdictions, ignorance is not a defence against statutory rape).
If she is working as a stripper, prosecute the strip club owners.

A sexual relationship between a 14 year old girl and a 38 year old man (as it was in this case) is against the law. It is also immoral.

NONE OF THIS should need to be explained to a grown-up!! If you believe that such a relationship is acceptable, then that makes you and people who think like you part of the problem - you become enablers for scum like Epstein and Maxwell.

Bob001 said:
You don't force her to do anything. If she is underage, she is the victim. You prosecute her abusers. "Romeo & Juliet" laws protect high school sweethearts, but "Carolyn's" testimony is that Epstein and Maxwell latched on to her when she was 14. That's a crime by any rational standard, hardly a relationship, and it certainly shaped her subsequent life choices.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/07/us/ghislaine-maxwell-trial/index.html

And if at age 14 she was in a "relationship" with a 38-year-old man -- who says so? -- that would also be statutory rape and possibly trafficking if he introduced her to anybody else.
Click to expand...

Yup. I have had it with Vixen's disgraceful "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" attitude to this. Children and young people can and do reach maturity at different rates. The laws are there to protect them from exploitation by the likes of Epstein and Maxwell
 
smartcooky said:
Just because people do illegal things does not mean the laws governing them are "absurd". Lots of people commit burglaries, car thefts and murders. That does not make the laws governing those crimes "absurd".
Click to expand...
Of course not. But for any given law, those who don't like it will always call it absurd.

smartcooky said:
Oh, of course he would say that. He's in the firing line so he has a considerable self-interest in this issue.
Click to expand...
As the saying goes, he must be coughing in his panties by now.

smartcooky said:
You can't, so you enforce the laws by prosecuting those who exploited her.

If she is a sex worker, you prosecute the pimp.
If she is pimping herself out, prosecute the Johns (in most jurisdictions, ignorance is not a defence against statutory rape).
If she is working as a stripper, prosecute the strip club owners.
Click to expand...
It varies in different jurisdictions, of course. But one applies the law of the land, whichever land that might be. Disagree with it? Then one is free to campaign for a change in whatever law in whatever land.

smartcooky said:
A sexual relationship between a 14 year old girl and a 38 year old man (as it was in this case) is against the law. It is also immoral.
Click to expand...
I find that whole thing a bit creepy.

smartcooky said:
NONE OF THIS should need to be explained to a grown-up!!
Click to expand...
Agreed in principle, but the evidence seems to indicate it does need to be explained for some reason that I cannot fathom.

smartcooky said:
If you believe that such a relationship is acceptable, then that makes you and people who think like you part of the problem - you become enablers for scum like Epstein and Maxwell.
Click to expand...
Also agreed.

smartcooky said:
Yup. I have had it with Vixen's disgraceful "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" attitude to this. Children and young people can and do reach maturity at different rates. The laws are there to protect them from exploitation by the likes of Epstein and Maxwell
Click to expand...
Yes. Quick mention of the Romeo and Juliet laws in various places. Those exist because we all know damn well that teens are going to be experimenting. It's what I did when I was a teen same as pretty much any other teen. But with another teen. Not a 38 year old. That would be gross.
 
Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer lobbied Donald Trump to pre-emptively pardon Ghislaine Maxwell during the final days of his presidency after talks with her family.

Alan Dershowitz, 83, a former Harvard Law School professor, represented Epstein during the noughties and Trump during his first impeachment trial. He has since been accused of abuse by one of Epstein’s under-age victims, which he denies.
Click to expand...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ghislaine-maxwell-trial-lawyer-asked-donald-trump-pre-emptive-pardon-3666htt66

More egg on the face for the BBC for hosting this creep without a huge disclaimer about his obvious personal interest in the case.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Just because people do illegal things does not mean the laws governing them are "absurd". Lots of people commit burglaries, car thefts and murders. That does not make the laws governing those crimes "absurd".



Oh, of course he would say that. He's in the firing line so he has a considerable self-interest in this issue.



You can't, so you enforce the laws by prosecuting those who exploited her.

If she is a sex worker, you prosecute the pimp.
If she is pimping herself out, prosecute the Johns (in most jurisdictions, ignorance is not a defence against statutory rape).
If she is working as a stripper, prosecute the strip club owners.

A sexual relationship between a 14 year old girl and a 38 year old man (as it was in this case) is against the law. It is also immoral.

NONE OF THIS should need to be explained to a grown-up!! If you believe that such a relationship is acceptable, then that makes you and people who think like you part of the problem - you become enablers for scum like Epstein and Maxwell.



Yup. I have had it with Vixen's disgraceful "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" attitude to this. Children and young people can and do reach maturity at different rates. The laws are there to protect them from exploitation by the likes of Epstein and Maxwell
Click to expand...

Where did I say a relationship between a 38-year-old and 14-year-old is acceptable? It was a statement of fact which 'Carolyn' herself stated in the witness stand. Nor do I have a ""old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" attitude.

I think you just like working yourself up into a hysteria over something that is completely imaginary to yourself.
 
Vixen said:
Where did I say a relationship between a 38-year-old and 14-year-old is acceptable? It was a statement of fact which 'Carolyn' herself stated in the witness stand. Nor do I have a ""old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" attitude.
....
Click to expand...


Here is what you said:
Vixen said:
.....
As an example, the witness, 'Carolyn' - the one recently interviewed - was already in a relationship with a 38-year-old guy when she embarked on a four-year relationship with Epstein, returning 'hundreds of times'. She says she's worked as a stripper and sex worker. How do you force 'Carolyn' to wait until she is 18?.....
Click to expand...

Your claim plain as day is that "Carolyn" began voluntary "relationships" with Epstein and a 38-year-old man when she was 14, and it's her behavior that needs to be discouraged. The legal and practical fact is that she is a victim of skillful, experienced predators. She is not responsible for what others have done to her. You clearly think otherwise.
 
Vixen said:
Where did I say a relationship between a 38-year-old and 14-year-old is acceptable? It was a statement of fact which 'Carolyn' herself stated in the witness stand. Nor do I have a ""old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" attitude.

I think you just like working yourself up into a hysteria over something that is completely imaginary to yourself.
Click to expand...


As Bob001 points out, what you said indicated that you did. You took a position that...

a. Blames "Carolyn" for the relationship

b. Uses that relationship to justify Maxwell and Epstein's actions

The meaning of what you said seems clear.
 
Bob001 said:
Here is what you said:


Your claim plain as day is that "Carolyn" began voluntary "relationships" with Epstein and a 38-year-old man when she was 14, and it's her behavior that needs to be discouraged. The legal and practical fact is that she is a victim of skillful, experienced predators. She is not responsible for what others have done to her. You clearly think otherwise.
Click to expand...


Where did I say it was 'acceptable'? It took the FBI twenty years to prosecute Maxwell. Scotland Yard, the social services and Carolyn's mother, in the UK, did absolutely nothing about 14-year-old Carolyn's 38-year-old boyfriend, and you are attacking me simply for making a bland statement of fact citing Carolyn herself in the witness stand?

A thing is neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so. ~ Shakespeare
 
smartcooky said:
As Bob001 points out, what you said indicated that you did. You took a position that...

a. Blames "Carolyn" for the relationship

b. Uses that relationship to justify Maxwell and Epstein's actions

The meaning of what you said seems clear.
Click to expand...

I haven't justified Maxwell's and Epstein's actions at all. If Carolyn's own mother, Scotland Yard, La Gendarmie, FBI, Social Services, teachers, family and friends did nothing at all to intervene in 14-yer-old Carolyn's relationship with the 38-year-old man and the middle-aged Epstein, how does that translate into my 'finding it acceptable' and believing 'if they bleed they are ready to breed,' using your own vulgar terminology?

If anyone is a hypocrite, it is all of those people who had underage sex and are now claiming with shock and horror that other people are also doing it. At least I am one of the very - I suspect - tiny minority of people here who has never had underage sex in my life.

Take the beam out of your eye. Put your own house in order.

Don't insinuate I am an 'enabler of predators' ever again.

Get the issue into perspective.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
I know this aspect has now been resolved so this is a bit OT, but your quote about camera phones in the UK specifies a built in camera. The first phone I had (in the UK) that could take photos was a clamshell, Samsung iirc, with a small external camera that clipped onto the serial port. I don't remember exactly when I had it but at the time I got it this was considered a cool new thing not a work around for an older device that lacked a critical feature (& while I like to be an early adopter, for budget reasons I'm generally jumping on board once the prices have started to drop) so it was definitely before built in cameras were widespread, whether it was before they were available at all I couldn't swear.
Click to expand...
Several of the phone/PDA combos of the early '00s had camera options via expansion slots, including the Aero, Journada and iPaq. Treo too IIRR. There was a camera module for MMC slots such as the Communicator.
 
Vixen said:
I haven't justified Maxwell's and Epstein's actions at all. If Carolyn's own mother, Scotland Yard, La Gendarmie, FBI, Social Services, teachers, family and friends did nothing at all to intervene in 14-yer-old Carolyn's relationship with the 38-year-old man and the middle-aged Epstein, how does that translate into my 'finding it acceptable' and believing 'if they bleed they are ready to breed,' using your own vulgar terminology?

If anyone is a hypocrite, it is all of those people who had underage sex and are now claiming with shock and horror that other people are also doing it. At least I am one of the very - I suspect - tiny minority of people here who has never had underage sex in my life.

Take the beam out of your eye. Put your own house in order.

Don't insinuate I am an 'enabler of predators' ever again.

Get the issue into perspective.
Click to expand...
That's a whole lot of straw you're spewing.
 
Vixen said:
.....
If anyone is a hypocrite, it is all of those people who had underage sex and are now claiming with shock and horror that other people are also doing it. At least I am one of the very - I suspect - tiny minority of people here who has never had underage sex in my life.
.....
Click to expand...


Your own words betray your prejudice. The issue is not "underage sex." The issue is not what randy teens do when the 'rents are away. The issue is adult predators manipulating and abusing vulnerable children for their own sexual gratification. It's just breathtaking that you refuse to grasp the distinction.
 
Bob001 said:
Your own words betray your prejudice. The issue is not "underage sex." The issue is not what randy teens do when the 'rents are away. The issue is adult predators manipulating and abusing vulnerable children for their own sexual gratification. It's just breathtaking that you refuse to grasp the distinction.
Click to expand...

... but not unexpected.
 
Bob001 said:
Your own words betray your prejudice. The issue is not "underage sex." The issue is not what randy teens do when the 'rents are away. The issue is adult predators manipulating and abusing vulnerable children for their own sexual gratification. It's just breathtaking that you refuse to grasp the distinction.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered the question, where were Scotland Yard, the Social Services, her mother, her school teacher, her other relatives, la gendarmerie, the FBI, when all of this was going on between 14-year-old 'Carolyn' and her 38-year-old boyfriend and middle-aged part-time friend Epstein?

You claim you have the answers.
 
angrysoba said:
I think the mystery is solved.

Although the Guardian story claims the photograph was sent by text, which I consider near impossible for the time, the Daily Mail, which got the interview says Giuffre showed Andriano the infamous photograph when she was back in Florida and the only thing sent by text was her saying she was in London at the time meeting Prince Andrew.

Anyway, sorry about that. It raised red flags for me, but it turns out it was a red herring after all. I blame the Grauniad but I really should have tracked down the initial report from the apparently more sensible, on this occasion, Daily Mail (which for once did not Fail).
Click to expand...
The Grauniad article has been updated, with this note:

This article was amended on 9 January 2022. Andriano said Giuffre showed her the picture of her with Prince Andrew in person, she did not send it via text as stated in an earlier version.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom