Jeffrey Epstein

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:57 am

In the wake of his suspicious death, the Jeffrey Epstein (T-H-L) article is getting quite a lot of edits.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:12 am

I didn't run any stats on it, but it kinda looks like Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories (T-H-L) is getting a bit more action at the moment. Both articles are semi-protected, which is probably just as well...

Another good example of how Wikipedia would benefit from having a rule that would force users to wait at least a week or two before even trying to cover topics like this, not that they'd ever consider such a thing.

C&B · Unread post by **C&B** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:22 am

The best way of enforcing it would be: Can't Edit Current News Until You're Bored.

The current, what, ~2-minute attention span should deal with the problem.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:42 am

Also, why post this in "Off Topic"? Are we assuming this will be the thread in which we actually discuss which Epstein-suicide conspiracy theory is the most likely one to be true?

If so, my money's on the whole thing having been engineered by CrowsNest over on WikipediaSucks.co. Nice job, man! Nobody (other than me) even suspects!

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:50 am

It ought to be covered by the NOTNEWS rules, but they're only enforced when it suits people, as in the Yaniv argument.

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:11 pm

As good a place as any to discuss the conspiracy theories.

The shadowy powers that be had him killed for knowing too much.

Suspiciously, no protocol was followed and there's no video of what happened, and he was taken off suicide watch apparently to aid with this.

Then there are those who believe he's not actually dead and it was an elaborate scheme to aid his escape.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:30 pm

10920 wrote:Then there are those who believe he's not actually dead and it was an elaborate scheme to aid his escape.

Don't forget that he's really Elvis.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:05 pm

@lsanger is really getting worked up about this over on twitter. Why, he had no idea there are so many depraved rich old men who get away with it.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:10 pm

tarantino wrote:@lsanger is really getting worked up about this over on twitter. Why, he had no idea there are so many depraved rich old men who get away with it.

That's very endearing.

I have a bridge he might like to buy.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:57 am

tarantino wrote:@lsanger is really getting worked up about this over on twitter. Why, he had no idea there are so many depraved rich old men who get away with it.

Further proof he’s an idiot/savant with heavy weighting on the first term.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:34 pm

Raising this again, as there is another angle on this:

Jimmy was one of several business figures to support Prince Andrew's business ventures:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prin ... -stbfwnz55

Pitch@Palace, the Duke of York’s business scheme, which has been supported by the great and good of business, including Ron Dennis, the former boss of the Formula One team McLaren and Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia founder.

https://pitchatpalace.com/advice-from-the-audience/

Some soundbites from Jimmy there.

For those in the USA who are unaware, business figures are now deserting Prince Andrew in droves following an interview where he 'tried' to draw a line under his links with Jeffrey Epstein (T-H-L):

Prince Andrew: KPMG ends sponsorship of royal's scheme
Prince Andrew stands by 'car-crash' Jeffrey Epstein BBC interview

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:18 pm

I expect that a few people were supporting HRH in the hope of appearing on the honours list - not that Jimbo could possibly have had such a motive. Anyway, up to now it was probably considered good publicity, but that may no longer be true.

DHeyward · Unread post by **DHeyward** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:51 am

Was Jimbo supporting Prince Andrew before Wikipedia as porn hustler? The timelines match. I wonder if any of the Epstein women/girls ended up on Bomis servers or vice/versa? Epstein as a Bomis subscriber and therefore indirect WP funder would be a predictable twist. Finally an answer to "Why Florida?"

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:44 am

Presumably Jimbo wasn't stupid enough to have underage girls on Bomis, though Epstein apparently didn't restrict himself to teenagers. Lady Victoria Hervey (T-H-L) has said that she thinks Epstein was after her in 1999, when she'd have been 22 or 23. (Funny that the articles on her and her sister Lady Isabella Hervey (T-H-L) include the word "Lady" in the title.)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:24 pm

BOOM!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50496539

The Duke of York says he is stepping back from royal duties because the Jeffrey Epstein scandal has become a "major disruption" to the Royal Family.

Prince Andrew, 59, said he had asked the Queen for permission to withdraw for the "foreseeable future".

That's as close to an admission of guilt as you can make.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:16 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:24 pm
BOOM!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50496539
The Duke of York says he is stepping back from royal duties because the Jeffrey Epstein scandal has become a "major disruption" to the Royal Family.

Prince Andrew, 59, said he had asked the Queen for permission to withdraw for the "foreseeable future".
That's as close to an admission of guilt as you can make.

If any satirist had designed an interview to show him up in the worst possible light in his Newsnight interview they could not have written a script better than the one he provided himself.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:04 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:24 pm
BOOM!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50496539
The Duke of York says he is stepping back from royal duties because the Jeffrey Epstein scandal has become a "major disruption" to the Royal Family.

Prince Andrew, 59, said he had asked the Queen for permission to withdraw for the "foreseeable future".
That's as close to an admission of guilt as you can make.

No, it just means the Queen thinks that for her own good he should be hidden away. Prince Charles is in New Zealand at present. Apparently, he was asked if one of his sons could be the next Governor General of New Zealand. Maybe Andrew could do that instead?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:18 pm

Because he's a child rapist who would be getting prosecuted if he weren't a member of the royal family.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:41 pm

Read it and weep.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-an ... itter_page

Royal briefings are making it clear the duke was fired—and the termination is permanent, as he prepares to speak to investigators about his ties to the dead American pedophile.

In the end, of course, the interview had the opposite effect, and by his haughty manner, extraordinary denials, provably false claims, unwillingness to regret his friendship with Epstein, and failure to express any sympathy for Epstein’s victims, Andrew dug his own grave.

Andrew was told he would no longer to have any frontline duties representing the family. He was told he was to stand down immediately from his 200 charitable patronages. He was told that he would immediately lose his £250,000 per annum grant.

The Daily Telegraph reported Thursday that Buckingham Palace is braced for U.S. authorities to issue the duke with a subpoena, requesting he gives testimony under oath about his friendship with Epstein.

Following his statement, Andrew would have little choice but to comply.

Gloria Allred, the celebrity lawyer representing some of Epstein’s alleged victims, was quick to demand Andrew voluntarily contact U.S. authorities “without conditions and without delay,” asking the question: “Is he insisting that he be served with a subpoena to testify, or is he willing to speak to law enforcement without being legally required to do so?”

Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.

Child rapist is getting subpoenaed to the USA.

What do you say now...?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:03 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:18 pm
Because he's a child rapist who would be getting prosecuted if he weren't a member of the royal family.

We've been through this before. We only have the uncorroborated word of one person, no charges have been laid against him, and even a member of the Royal Family is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

el84 · Unread post by **el84** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:35 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:41 pm
Read it and weep.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-an ... itter_page
Royal briefings are making it clear the duke was fired—and the termination is permanent, as he prepares to speak to investigators about his ties to the dead American pedophile.

In the end, of course, the interview had the opposite effect, and by his haughty manner, extraordinary denials, provably false claims, unwillingness to regret his friendship with Epstein, and failure to express any sympathy for Epstein’s victims, Andrew dug his own grave.

Andrew was told he would no longer to have any frontline duties representing the family. He was told he was to stand down immediately from his 200 charitable patronages. He was told that he would immediately lose his £250,000 per annum grant.

The Daily Telegraph reported Thursday that Buckingham Palace is braced for U.S. authorities to issue the duke with a subpoena, requesting he gives testimony under oath about his friendship with Epstein.

Following his statement, Andrew would have little choice but to comply.

Gloria Allred, the celebrity lawyer representing some of Epstein’s alleged victims, was quick to demand Andrew voluntarily contact U.S. authorities “without conditions and without delay,” asking the question: “Is he insisting that he be served with a subpoena to testify, or is he willing to speak to law enforcement without being legally required to do so?”
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.

Child rapist is getting subpoenaed to the USA.

What do you say now...?

I'm waiting for someone to suggest that we swap him for that diplomat's wife who killed someone here and then claimed diplomatic immunity.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:33 am

Poetlister wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:03 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:18 pm
Because he's a child rapist who would be getting prosecuted if he weren't a member of the royal family.
We've been through this before. We only have the uncorroborated word of one person, no charges have been laid against him, and even a member of the Royal Family is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Did you read the article?
He is effectively being fired from the royal family.

Say what you will about the royals, but they have a first rate intelligence service working for them.
There's simply no way this sanction gets handed down by the queen to her second born son unless there's incontrovertible guilt.

Is child rape apologist the brand you want to wear?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:09 pm

That's nonsense. They know that Prince Andrew is a colossal embarrassment. That does not mean that they know or think that he is guilty of any offences for which he has not even been charged; his incompetent interview was ample grounds.

One of Britain's most notable politicians, Alex Salmond (T-H-L), was in court this week charged with sex offences against umpteen women. However, nobody on this site is calling him a sex offender, maybe because he is not a member of the royal family.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:29 pm

When it finally comes out, your tears are going to be delicious.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:25 am

The story around Randy Andy is so bad that commercial and non profit are publicly distancing themselves from him.

For example,
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-yor ... e-50565190

That almost certainly means that the evidence will shortly become public.

Otherwise, what's the point of doing this publicly?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:32 am

Short eyes Andrew even got his fucking birthday cancelled.

https://www.newsweek.com/queen-cancels- ... ty-1473745

Surely this points to an eventual acquittal... Surely.

The queen must be mistaken, right?!
It's not like FVEY would have been watching, right?!

You do realize that you are an actual child rape apologist?

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:33 am

Poetlister wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:09 pm
That's nonsense. They know that Prince Andrew is a colossal embarrassment. That does not mean that they know or think that he is guilty of any offences for which he has not even been charged; his incompetent interview was ample grounds.

One of Britain's most notable politicians, Alex Salmond (T-H-L), was in court this week charged with sex offences against umpteen women. However, nobody on this site is calling him a sex offender, maybe because he is not a member of the royal family.

Randy Andy was involved with Jeffrey Epstein's underage pimping and he stupidly self-destructed in an interview so badly that he was fired by his mother.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:44 am

Oh, ho!
What's this?!

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/p ... p-20967531

A source said: “Charles has taken his time to really examine all the evidence.

“There is pressing business to deal with Andrew and his place in the family. There is a deep feeling in the camp that he may have left him open to such a position that there is no way back into the fold for him.”

It must be a minor thing, eh?

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:12 am

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:44 am
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/p ... p-20967531
A source said: “Charles has taken his time to really examine all the evidence.

“There is pressing business to deal with Andrew and his place in the family. There is a deep feeling in the camp that he may have left him open to such a position that there is no way back into the fold for him.”
It must be a minor thing, eh?

Prince Charles must be turning into a republican ...

or suffer from Royalist self-hatred.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:01 am

Here it comes...

https://nypost.com/2019/11/28/prince-an ... ebauchery/

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:50 pm

Lady Victoria Hervey has already said “Andrew has something very naive about him. I honestly don’t think Andrew knew what was going on.”

Daily Mirror

Giraffe Stapler · Unread post by **Giraffe Stapler** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:52 pm

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. At least three of the girls were questioned under oath about whether Andrew had had sexual contact with any of the masseuses. One of them, Sarah Kellen, refused to answer, citing her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Another, Adriana Ross, was asked, “Has Prince Andrew ever been involved with underage minor females to your knowledge?” She reportedly replied, “I refuse to answer.”

Vanity Fair

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:39 pm

I find it hard to believe that not a one of these powerful men were horrified at being offered a 16 year old prostitute and didn’t rat his scumbag ass out. It’s not like Epstein had a “down with some 16 year old ass vetting process”.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:31 pm

Earthy Astringent wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:39 pm
I find it hard to believe that not a one of these powerful men were horrified at being offered a 16 year old prostitute and didn’t rat his scumbag ass out. It’s not like Epstein had a “down with some 16 year old ass vetting process”.

Referrals from other pedophiles.

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:05 am

Clinton certainly isn’t indiscriminate about what he sticks his dick into, but I can’t believe he’d plug a girl younger than his own daughter. If someone offered me that and could guarantee with metaphysical certainty there would be even no whiff of a blowback it would still make my skin crawl. I feel sorry for pedophilles, because that’s a horrible temptation to be afflicted with.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:03 am

Earthy Astringent wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:05 am
Clinton certainly isn’t indiscriminate about what he sticks his dick into, but I can’t believe he’d plug a girl younger than his own daughter. If someone offered me that and could guarantee with metaphysical certainty there would be even no whiff of a blowback it would still make my skin crawl. I feel sorry for pedophilles, because that’s a horrible temptation to be afflicted with.

There's a reason they break up rings of pedophiles.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:04 pm

Read Primary Colors (novel) (T-H-L) or watch Primary Colors (film) (T-H-L), paying attention to the non-miraculous pregnancy of the teenage girl, Loretta McCollister.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:48 pm

Well, well, well...
https://nypost.com/2019/12/01/prince-an ... ll-report/

Completely the actions of an innocent man...

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:58 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:48 pm
Well, well, well...
https://nypost.com/2019/12/01/prince-an ... ll-report/

Completely the actions of an innocent man...

The New York Post rehashing a piece in The Sun?!?

Ummm, creepers may well be creepers, but that's not the sort of documentation that would fly at a volunteer-run online encyclopedia.

RfB

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:19 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑
Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:58 pm
Ummm, creepers may well be creepers, but that's not the sort of documentation that would fly at a volunteer-run online encyclopedia.

RfB

However, this site makes no pretence to be an encyclopaedia, online or otherwise.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:57 pm

Ex-Prince Andrew the child rapist soon won't be able to travel to the US.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50633640
He better be very careful about any overseas travel.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:39 am

Virginia Giuffre came off as being rather more believable IMO than Prince Andrew in her BBC interview, and a lot more sympathetic (though it would be hard not to be, really). The least credible thing she said was probably "I just didn't expect that from royalty" — though when you think about it, it's not completely implausible, especially since she's a product of the American secondary educational system and therefore probably has a deeply-held misunderstanding (and possibly no understanding at all) of British history, especially regarding the aristocracy.

That said, unless something pops up that proves he's lying, it's still likely to boil down to a "he said she said" situation in terms of dealing with any criminal charges. So as much as many of us would love to see it, not much chance of him ever seeing the inside of a jail cell.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:51 am

Prince Andrew’s Accuser Takes Her Case to the BBC

For the first time Virginia Roberts Giuffre told a British television audience about a trip she took to London in 2001, during which she says she was ordered to have sex with Prince Andrew.

Dec. 2, 2019
Updated 8:52 p.m. ET

LONDON — Virginia Roberts Giuffre recalled a whirlwind trip to London with her employer, the financier Jeffrey Epstein, when she was 17. It began at a townhouse where Prince Andrew was talking about his ex-wife, the Duchess of York. It moved on to a club, where she said she and the prince danced, and he sweated profusely. And it ended when, she said, she was ordered to have sex with him.

“It was disgusting,” Ms. Giuffre said in an interview broadcast Monday by the BBC. “I sat there in bed and felt horrified and ashamed.”

“I had just been abused by a member of the royal family,” she continued. “These powerful people were my chains.”

Ms. Giuffre’s account of the trip in 2001, and of two other incidents when she said she had sex with Prince Andrew at Mr. Epstein’s homes in New York and in the Caribbean, was the first time she described her story for a British audience.

It is likely to deepen the scandal surrounding the ties between Mr. Epstein, a convicted pedophile who killed himself in a Manhattan jail cell in August, and Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II.

The interview did not break new ground in the allegations against Prince Andrew, which are contained in legal documents. But it put a face to the woman who has accused a member of the royal family of being involved with sexual trafficking. And it drew another flood of revulsion from the British public, many of whom posted their reactions on social media.

Prince Andrew has denied the allegations, saying in his own recent BBC interview that he had no recollection of meeting Ms. Giuffre.

“I’m calling B.S. on this,” she said. “He knows what happened. I know what happened. There’s only one of us telling the truth, and I know it’s me.”

Ms. Giuffre acknowledged that the passage of time may have fogged her memory about the dates or places of certain events. But she said she had a vivid memory of dancing with Prince Andrew. “He is the most hideous dancer I’ve ever seen in my life,” she said. “His sweat was like, ‘it’s raining everywhere.’”

For Prince Andrew, whose public career has already been ended by the scandal, the interview may be most significant because it underscores his potential legal exposure in the criminal cases involving Mr. Epstein.

The BBC program, Panorama, reported that David Boies, a lawyer representing five women who say they were abused by Mr. Epstein, plans to serve subpoenas to force Prince Andrew to testify as a witness in those cases.

“One of the things we have tried is to interview Prince Andrew and to try to get what his explanation is,” Mr. Boies said. “He was a frequent visitor. They ought to submit to an interview. They ought to talk about it.”

Ms. Giuffre’s interview was a bookend of sorts to an interview Prince Andrew gave last month. In denying that he had sex with her, the prince offered as an alibi that he had taken one of his daughters to a pizza restaurant in suburban London on a night in March 2001 when she says they had the encounter.

He said her memory of him sweating on a dance floor could not have been accurate because he suffered from a medical condition, dating back to his combat duty in the Falklands War, that made it impossible for him to perspire at that time.

Prince Andrew evinced little sympathy for the victims of Mr. Epstein’s predatory behavior in the interview. He said he had stayed with his friend at his Manhattan mansion, even after Mr. Epstein had served prison time for soliciting a minor for prostitution, because it was “convenient.”

The reaction to Prince Andrew’s remarks was swift and overwhelmingly negative. Several charities with which he was associated distanced themselves from him, he was urged to testify under oath to the F.B.I. and his brother, Prince Charles, urged the queen to strip him of his public duties, which she did.

For the royal family, it was the worst public relations debacle since the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana in a car crash — stirring questions about the aging queen’s control over her family and drawing calls from the British news media for Prince Charles to take a more central role at Buckingham Palace.

For Ms. Giuffre, who described a history of abuse dating back to her childhood, the alleged encounters with Prince Andrew left her, she said, even more sickened than those with Mr. Epstein, whom she described as “having a sickness that could not be cured,” or with his girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is accused of procuring teenage girls for him, and who Ms. Giuffre described as vicious.

“This is not some sordid sex story; this a story of being trafficked,” she said. “This is a story of your guys’ royalty.”

This thing still has long legs.

el84 · Unread post by **el84** » Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:20 am

I'm surprised he hasn't been granted immunity yet. That's the US way of dealing with murderers.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:32 pm

Poetlister wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:19 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑
Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:58 pm
Ummm, creepers may well be creepers, but that's not the sort of documentation that would fly at a volunteer-run online encyclopedia.

RfB
However, this site makes no pretence to be an encyclopaedia, online or otherwise.

One would hope it doesn't consider itself two cuts below Wikipedia...

RfB

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:57 pm

It seems that nobody is saying that Prince Andrew himself received massages, still less that he had sex with anyone.

Ms Giuffre is reported as saying "He is the most hideous dancer I've ever seen. It was horrible and this guy was sweating all over me, his sweat was like it was raining basically everywhere." I have seen film of Prince Andrew dancing, and he looked OK. Obviously, that would never have been on TV if he were a horrible dancer. And has anyone ever seen anyone sweating like that?

She also said "In the car Ghislaine tells me that I have to do for Andrew what I do for Jeffrey". i tis not clear that this is having sex. but even if it were, this was in London and she was 17 while the age of consent is 16. Obviously, forcing someone to have sex against their will is rape, but in this case it could not have been child rape.

I suggest that accusing a living person of a crime for which he has not been charged, much less tried, is defamatory, and anyway this thread has long ceased to be relevant to Wikipedia, so it might be better in the Off-topic forum.

People who like to accuse others of child rape seem to be oblivious of the person who is, according to Elon Musk, a "pedo guy" and child rapist. But maybe that's less fun?

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:24 pm

Poetlister wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:57 pm
It seems that nobody is saying that Prince Andrew himself received massages, still less that he had sex with anyone.

[....]

She also said "In the car Ghislaine tells me that I have to do for Andrew what I do for Jeffrey". It is not clear that this is having sex, but, even if it were, this was in London and she was 17 while the age of consent is 16. Obviously, forcing someone to have sex against their will is rape, but in this case it could not have been child rape.

FFS, the 17 year old was being pimped. She was told to service Prince Andrew.

Did Eppstein and Ghislaine have control of the passport of the 17-year-old?
Did they go through normal customs, or did they have a way to avoid customs?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:31 pm

Moral Hazard wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:24 pm

Poetlister wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:57 pm
It seems that nobody is saying that Prince Andrew himself received massages, still less that he had sex with anyone.

[....]

She also said "In the car Ghislaine tells me that I have to do for Andrew what I do for Jeffrey". It is not clear that this is having sex, but, even if it were, this was in London and she was 17 while the age of consent is 16. Obviously, forcing someone to have sex against their will is rape, but in this case it could not have been child rape.
FFS, the 17 year old was being pimped. She was told to service Prince Andrew.

Did Eppstein and Ghislaine have control of the passport of the 17-year-old?
Did they go through normal customs, or did they have a way to avoid customs?

"I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN, MS. GUIFFRE!"

He said so himself.

God save the King!

RfB

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:36 pm

Today as in the years of our forefathers, British law shall fairly judge the virtue of Prince Andrew, a man who has devoted his life to the defense of Britain and to charity for its people, and the scurrilous, defamatory, slanderous allegations by the dirty foreign tart.

Peter Cook wrote: “We have heard for example from a Mr Bex Bissell, a man who by his own admission is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile, and a self-confessed chicken-strangler. You may choose if you wish to believe the transparent tissue of odious lies which streamed on and on from his disgusting, reedy, slavering lips. That is entirely a matter for you ...

We have been forced to listen to the whinings of Mr. Norman St. John Scott, a scrounger, a parasite, a pervert, a worm, a self-confessed player of the pink oboe, a man, who by his own admission, chews pillows ...

The so-called hitman, Mr. Olivia Newton John, is a piece of slimy refuse, unable to carry out the simplest murder plot ...

You are now to retire, as indeed should I, carefully to consider your verdict of Not Guilty.” Peter Cook's satiric interpretation of a judge during the Jeremy Thorpe trial (1979)

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:40 pm

Oh, I see what you did there...