I think the Palace would have been wiser to have kept silent. It's short statement, filled with all with all the strong emotional words describing what any decent person feels concerning child abuse, only begs the question;
Why now?
Why so strong, now? Everyone knew this a decade ago. Andrew knew his friend had made a deal to avoid these kinds of charges in 2008. Why become so appalled now when he, Andrew, stood by Epstein even after some of his offending came to light?
Epstein died in a New York prison cell on 10 August as he awaited, without the chance of bail, his trial on sex trafficking charges.
In the announcement made on Sunday 18th August, Prince Andrew has said how appalled he is about the sexual behaviour with young girls his former friend Jefferey Epstein is accused of.
Yet he kept in contact with the billionaire sex offender after his 2008 conviction. He knew then that Epstein was on the Sex Offenders Register (USA). The photo of the two men walking in Central Park in 2010 led to serious criticism of the prince concerning his judgement about spending time with a sex offender and staying at his house. He was himself photographed with his arm around 17 year old scantily clad Virginia Roberts at Epstien's house, where he is also filmed smiling and waving through the door at young girls leaving.
To quote Jonny Dymond, BBC Royal Reporter:
"But to see him inside Epstein's house, as young women come and go, looking for all the world as if he was a happy house-guest, is a disturbing sight. And strong though the palace statement may be it, it fails to answer the central question.
Just what was Prince Andrew doing visiting the house of a convicted paedophile?"
It seems far too late, for me, that the Palace issue this statement after the death of Epstein. Why did not the Prince dissociate himself from this man's vile behaviour in 2008?
This was when he received an 18-month prison sentence, after a controversial secret plea deal, when he avoided up to 45 years in prison if convicted of sex trafficking and conspiracy charges, to which he pleaded not guilty, by instead pleading guilty to a lesser charge of soliciting a minor for prostitution.
It is too striking that this public protest of revulsion about the depravity of his erstwhile friend's activities has been made suddenly after that man's death.
Could it be that while Jefferey Epstein was still alive, there was a reason why he could not say, "the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent." ? Would his erstwhile friend, perhaps, have testified with evidence to suggest otherwise?
