Oops! The Prince formerly known as Duke drops another clanger!

Catching up here
Thanks Doodledog, ferry and others who attempt to set the scene victims live in and, who have experience of the treatment (alleged ) victims are subjected to,

Sorry wrong thread! 🙈

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HelterSkelter1

I wonder if Andrew is making money ie blackmailing other guests he saw at the parties. That could be a source of his income. I doubt if the other guests would want to report him as that would incriminate them.

I just have that feeling that there's so much more to this than we're ever likely to know. Much of it gone to the grave with Epstein and Virginia Giuffre. And if Ghislaine Maxwell was going to talk she would have done it by now.

There was a thread recently on here about "what your Mother would have said" - or similar. One of the posts was something like ...

"...when men take off their trousers, their brains fall out"

I realise that's very politically incorrect, sexist and of course is a very swingeing statement, but ..........

ferry yes an awful life .

Well said, ferry23. I've seen at first hand just how brutal it can be for victims to be put through a court ordeal - especially for victims of any kind of sexual abuse or rape.

I wonder if Andrew is making money ie blackmailing other guests he saw at the parties. That could be a source of his income. I doubt if the other guests would want to report him as that would incriminate them.

Oh Annie. A court procedure for the alleged victim of any kind of sexual abuse can be absolutely brutal. If I were in her shoes I'd take the pay off. She had a rotten life - she may not have been perfect (can any of us say we are?) but she put her head above the parapet and genuinely spoke out for those who had been trafficked and sexually abused.

She must have been completely drained mentally. One of the reasons she may have accepted it was to guarantee some kind of future for her children.

Quote Sarnia Sat 01-Nov-25 18:15:42
Anniebach
If Andrew paid to avoid giving evidence why not Virginia accepted money to avoid giving evidence .?

She accepted her rightful compensation from a guilty man.

But avoided giving evidence ?

Anniebach

If Andrew paid to avoid giving evidence why not Virginia accepted money to avoid giving evidence .?

Because she brought the case? Why would she want to avoid giving evidence?

But IMO there shouldn't be room for a payoff anyway. Maybe it's ok in purely financial cases where people settle so that huge court costs are avoided, but probably not otherwise.

Smileless2012

But why only Andrew Doodledog? There were others so why only him?

I suppose because he is the one who has been named. If Ronnie Biggs had been the only train robber to be named should the police have held off charging him utilising they had all the others in custody?

Or is to because this is the UK and most of the offences happened on US soil?

I don't know, but I'm not sure it's relevant. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise though.

Anniebach

If Andrew paid to avoid giving evidence why not Virginia accepted money to avoid giving evidence .?

She accepted her rightful compensation from a guilty man.

Anniebach

If Andrew paid to avoid giving evidence why not Virginia accepted money to avoid giving evidence .?

Good point Annie.
What didn’t she want revealing?

I’d actually like Andrew to tell us who he saw there. I’d like to know the names of all the other guests he met while in their company.
I’d like him to say he is willing to do that before they start demanding he testify.

That's a fair point Annie.

If Andrew paid to avoid giving evidence why not Virginia accepted money to avoid giving evidence .?

Our justice service isn't always fit for purpose I agree Galaxy.

Doodledog if I remember rightly had very similar conversations to these on the Huw Edwards threads. She wasn't wrong then, and was, as were all of us, roundly criticised at the time. It is a very difficult issue to balance, strangely enough I don't want legal systems turned on their head in terms of presumption of innocence, but in particular for women and children this means justice is often in short supply.

But why only Andrew Doodledog? There were others so why only him?

Annie it must have been beyond terrible for the family of the man who was hanged, and for the man himself, obviously. It doesn't bear thinking about how it must feel to go through that. That is why I would never support the death penalty.

The way I see it it though, is that for a victim, letting a perpetrator go free is also a terrible thing, particularly if it happens as a result of the victim's testimony not being believed. These days there is no death penalty, and whilst being jailed for something you haven't done must be dreadful, at least people do get out on appeal.

I do recognise the importance of getting it right, but the idea that if there is no actual evidence the accused is assumed to be innocent means that so long as crimes against the person are carried out in private they are beyond the law, and that can't be acceptable, can it? It seems to me very one-sided, particularly if it extends to people being criticised for even discussing the probabilities on a forum like this.

The reason we don't know what happened is that Andrew bought his way out of giving evidence that could be contested. It was hush money. Yes, VG accepted the payment, but if it is too dangerous for Andrew, with all his connections and the eyes of the world on him, to give evidence in court, wouldn't VG have been in danger too? By taking the money she brought the case to public attention, showed that Andrew was willing to pay her off (as near to an admission of guilt as anything) and cushioned her family against the inevitable backlash the case would bring. Given the options available to her, and given that Andrew, then a prince, would have enormous advantage over her, can she really be blamed for her choice?

I'm sorry Madgran but that doesn't mean he partook of Epstein's offerings.

Wanting any contact with a convicted sex trafficking paedophile is abhorrent and promising to play again soon is disturbing but not proof that he had sex with someone he knew was a victim of sex trafficking, or had sex with her at all.

Smileless2012

^There are very few cases which are totally black and white^ well this one appears to be ViceVersa; Andrew's guilty .

I have to say sending an email to Epstein saying it would be good to catch up and he'll try to come to NY etc AFTER Epstein had pleaded guilty to procuring under age girls does rather suggest he had previously been "partaking" of Epstein's "offerings"!! No no proof per se but dear me it is pretty obvious really me thinks. Oh and ofcourse he also promised they would "play" again soon!! 🙄🙄

Doodledog

Labradora I have no doubt that the worms you mention will try to wriggle away, but in what other legal cases has there been an 'all or nothing' approach? If a gang of crooks can't all be prosecuted, do we let the others go? I can't think of a time when that has ever been suggested.

Also, knowing that Andrew's life is likely to be in danger would mean that precautions could be taken to protect him in the (unlikely) event that he went to the US to give evidence. Or maybe he could do it over Zoom or something? These days people don't have to be physically present, so unless he was sentenced to jail (again, unlikely, IMO) he could stay here.

Your "all of the gang" is , of course, an unanswerable point for the prosecution, Doodledog.
I don't know what process everyone enviseages for Andrew to communicate with the Americans but a one that includes his not actually going to the US is a good one IMO.
Andrew has always seemed to me to be an obnoxious character but even he is entitled to what the Americans call "Due Process" , particularly now that he's an ordinary citizen.
There is strong circumstantial evidence for the London "incident" with Guiffre and her account has the ring of truth IMO .
Or did her lawyers advise her to fit-up the most embarrasable of the wealthy "clients" the better to ensure "shut-up " money ?
At the moment we don't know.

Smileless2012

^There are very few cases which are totally black and white^ well this one appears to be ViceVersa; Andrew's guilty .

We may never know for sure - unless there are more bombshell revelations to come.
There are far too many armchair detectives (I'm not talking about GN in particular here - more the wider social media in general) who have clearly never been in a courtroom in their lives and have no idea how the law works in practice.

There are very few cases which are totally black and white well this one appears to be ViceVersa; Andrew's guilty .

Quote ViceVersa Sat 01-Nov-25 16:03:16
Anniebach, that argument could apply to many, many court cases. As I explained in another post, especially when it comes to offences of a sexual nature, especially historic cases, then there is often a lack of physical evidence and yes, it can doe down to 'he said/she said' and which witness is the more credible. I've sat on a jury, but also reported on court cases for more than 40 years, so I've seen it from various angles. There are very few cases which are totally black and white.

Yes I accept that but it does mean ‘probably’ is enough. May I ? the many, many times I have read of his anger re teddy bears, not once has OCD been suggested for his anger , always his disrespect of staff