Empathy for Our Queen? ( As a Mother)

ReadyMeals - I take it you have no direct experience of working with, or caring for a child who was sexually abused from a tender age?

That photograph puzzles me , thank you for her explanation
ReadyMeals

I just feel sorry for the Queen.

Alright... NOW something's not ringing true.

Extract:
She said: ' I was abused from a very young age. Seven years old and my childhood was quickly taken away from me.

'I was just so mentally scarred already at such a young age and I ran away from that. I found nothing on the streets except for hunger and pain and abuse and it was scary, I wanted to get out of it.'

--------------

So later on, after she is already taken from the streets by Epstein to be abused by him, she is back at home and she has a good enough relationship with her parents to want a photo to take home as a souvenir to show her mother how she met royalty (that's why she said she had it in her possession) and her father is on the news supporting her.

Has the father come out of the woodwork now that he sees there is a chance she could become rich, or did she always have a good relationship with her parents and has over-dramatised the awful start to her life?

She was not being questioned she was making a prepared statement, this the day after Andrews interview.

Well those were press interviews, they may not have been asked whether there were other men or anything about other men. And knowing how the press edit to tell the story they want to tell, even if the girls grabbed the interviewers arm and said you MUST also say Fred Bloggs raped me along with 8 other men the press may simply edit that bit out so the article can focus on Andrew. Much more informative about their motives would be to read their depositions, if we can.

No ReadyMeals I mean odd. I agree the British press are concentrating on Andrew but both girls and the lawyer gave press interviews in America and didn’t mention one American.

And the second girl known as Jane Doe came forward the day
after Andrews interview.

Anniebach are you sure you don't mean "unfair" rather than "odd"? It's certainly unfair but it doesn't seem odd at all since we know newspapers and the broadcast media do like to focus on the more prurient and shocking. They know their readers and viewers are likely to be more fascinated by the idea of a member of the previously stuffy upright royal family getting into this sort of trouble than some other unheard of rich person doing the same thing, so that's what they keep talking to her about and reporting.

Yes, but it’s odd there is never any reporting of her and her
lawyer naming an American. A famous American would be named in the British press.

And there was the young girl who gave a press interview the day after Andrew’s interview, she said Epstein had asked her to
go to his island where she would meet Andrew, she had not
spoken before.

Am listening to an audio book this week, Camilla gives much support to women who have been raped, she has even visited
other countries and is a patron of some.

She didn’t attend Eugenie’s wedding, had an engagement !

It seems its the main name she's questioned about at the current time. Watch this space I'd say. As you've said Anniebach, PA isn't the only man involved with Epstein and his trafficking of children and young people.

Yes, so not ‘reserved’ .

I am in no way excusing Andrew, if guilty he should be sentenced the same as any other man.

I do question her reasons for keeping a photograph of a man who allegedly raped her several times, and the fact that she
names him but no others, she may have done so in statements
but it is one name she keeps speaking of in interviews,

She was trafficked like many of Epstein's other 'girls'. From age 12 for some of them, 14, 15 and 16 for others.

She wasn’t ‘reserved’, she said she had sex with Epstein and many men.

And maybe she was reserved for Andrew. Could you imagine the embarrassment of finding out that one of your girls gave him a STD?

The DM tracked her down a couple of years ago. She told their reporter she wanted to remain out of the spotlight. She also confirmed that PA was one of the men Epstein trafficked her to. The DM recently confirmed this in a leader article, in which they said they hadn't reported on PA's alleged involvement at that time. The paper did after his recent Newsnight interview

ReadyMeals the interviews with her lawyer were televised in America. One on a street with many reporters .

I think the interview on the 2nd will be mostly about Andrew.

Are the Americans allegedly involved being protected ?

I don't know if she was intending to concentrate on Andrew, but since it is British newspapers and British television channel interviewing her, that's probably the side of her experiences they're researching and asking about. If they don't ask about the other men who were abusing her we're not likely to get a chance to hear what she thinks about them or is planning to do about them. We may find out more on the 2nd if the interviewer is not too focused on Andrew

I agree ReadyMeals , I do wonder why she is concentrating on Andrew, there were many men .

We do not know is she was under age, we know she met him in
London , there is the photograph, if they did have sex she was not under age then.

I am not defending Andrew but question why among the many men she had sex with she seems to only be naming him

Anniebach, if the lady is telling the truth - which she might be - and Andrew did cause Epstein to supply her as a service, and she was also underage for the location where it took place, then he definitely is eligible for questioning by police. In fact even if she's not telling the truth, it's still up to the police to question him to find out. They can hardly just elbow her out of the way.

In America the woman and her lawyer seemed to need Andrew to give a statement, surely they have many statements
from fellow Americans. How the royal family are funded has nothing to do with the Americans.

anniebach

There are many articles and photographs of people, other than Andrew, strongly linked to Epstein

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/10/jeffrey-epstein-trump-clinton-friends
www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/jeffrey-epstein-political-connections-sex-trafficker-856642/donald-trump-5-856643/

The emphasis in the US is on people like Trump, Clinton and other well known public figures.

In this country the emphasis is on Andrew because he is part of the royal family, which is funded by the general public and which is - inexplicably since their conduct throughout the centuries has never, in my opinion, been at all exemplary or respectful of its "subjects - held in high esteem by many people.

As to why we're only seeing photos of Andrew it's probably because the newspapers know that there is more shock value when it's a royal and they'll sell more papers with his face than with others we might not have heard of

No one said he was the only one wanted for questioning. Maybe they have already questioned the others. The more evidence they have the stronger their case. Why stop at 6 witnesses when you could have 7? Just linear logic, to me.

I certainly do not think he should avoid questioning , but I do
question why one man should hold the answers, he couldn’t have been the only man involved given the number of woman who were willing to give evidence .

A photograph of him with an arm around a girl , a photograph of him waving to Ms Keating, a photograph of him in a public place with Epstein. Why no other photographs taken over the years of other men.

anniebach It isn't "because of one photograph". It is because he was known to be a friend of Epstein's and had visited him in various locations during that friendship - and even after Epstein had been convicted of a sexual crime. He had also been photographed inside the door of one of Epstein's residences where young women were coming and going.

It is alleged that he had sex with an under age girl who had been groomed into an alleged sexual services network run by Epstein. Surely, that requires police investigation or, because he is part of the royal family, do you feel he should not submit to official questions about issues surrounding the alleged network and the allegations made against him?