Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case
Discussion
Guam said:
don'tbesilly said:
So it's in the papers so it must be true, is that really what you're suggesting?
Why would the Royals not deny it, if it's not true, do you know otherwise?
It's obvious that some elements of the story are true for the reasons you've stated, but do you really need an explanation of what the prostitute stands to gain by hawking the story to everyone/anyone who will listen and no doubt pay.
Just as well she doesn't have a book coming outWhy would the Royals not deny it, if it's not true, do you know otherwise?
It's obvious that some elements of the story are true for the reasons you've stated, but do you really need an explanation of what the prostitute stands to gain by hawking the story to everyone/anyone who will listen and no doubt pay.
......................oh wait she does 
don'tbesilly said:
MarshPhantom said:
don'tbesilly said:
Hardly surprising is it.
A story needs legs for it to run, this story had stumps to begin with.
It's hardly a nonstory - it's still on the front page of all the papers today.A story needs legs for it to run, this story had stumps to begin with.
The Royals will just continue issuing denials until people get bored and move on to something else.
There is no doubt that this woman's story is true, people have gone to prison in the states as a result, so what does she have gain by lying about Prince Andrew?
Why would the Royals not deny it, if it's not true, do you know otherwise?
It's obvious that some elements of the story are true for the reasons you've stated, but do you really need an explanation of what the prostitute stands to gain by hawking the story to everyone/anyone who will listen and no doubt pay.
Royals have denied it, end of story. Do you not think they would also deny it if it was true?
You admit some elements of the story are clearly true, so why not the part about Andrew?
Vaud said:
MarshPhantom said:
There is no doubt that this woman's story is true, people have gone to prison in the states as a result, so what does she have gain by lying about Prince Andrew?
Vast quantities of money?MarshPhantom said:
Why Prince Andrew then - she could have named anyone if it was total fabrication.
If you were bringing a book out in the US, a Royal would create a special fascination. They loath the idea of a monarchy in the US, but love the UK Royalty - anything Royal related is a guarantee for airtime. MarshPhantom said:
don'tbesilly said:
MarshPhantom said:
don'tbesilly said:
Hardly surprising is it.
A story needs legs for it to run, this story had stumps to begin with.
It's hardly a nonstory - it's still on the front page of all the papers today.A story needs legs for it to run, this story had stumps to begin with.
The Royals will just continue issuing denials until people get bored and move on to something else.
There is no doubt that this woman's story is true, people have gone to prison in the states as a result, so what does she have gain by lying about Prince Andrew?
Why would the Royals not deny it, if it's not true, do you know otherwise?
It's obvious that some elements of the story are true for the reasons you've stated, but do you really need an explanation of what the prostitute stands to gain by hawking the story to everyone/anyone who will listen and no doubt pay.
Royals have denied it, end of story. Do you not think they would also deny it if it was true?
You admit some elements of the story are clearly true, so why not the part about Andrew?
It's highly unlikely the Royals would admit wrongdoing in any circumstances, but based on the story the prostitute is hawking it's hardly surprising that the stance their taking is the correct one.
I admitted parts of the story were true as there has been court time deciding whether people were guilty of offences or not, and some have been convicted. However as far as I can see HRH has not been charged with any offences to date, so I can't judge either way, nor would I without a conviction.
Based on the evidence that's available to the general public, and the girls own story, I know who I'd rather believe, and it's not the word of a prostitute who has already lied to her own father.
Have you read this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2897222/I-...
Is the Professor lying as well?
MarshPhantom said:
Why Prince Andrew then - she could have named anyone if it was total fabrication.
Other people have been mentioned, here's a similar story from last year but with Bill Clinton:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bi...
It's interesting how back then the story says Roberts was there 'unwillingly' and she was 'forced to have sex with these people' compared to the more recent interview where she says she'd have 'done anything to keep her place as Epsteins No.1 girl'.
don'tbesilly said:
TTmonkey said:
Anyone else noticed that the BBC seems to have totally dropped reporting on this story?
Hardly surprising is it.A story needs legs for it to run, this story had stumps to begin with.
MarshPhantom said:
Vaud said:
MarshPhantom said:
There is no doubt that this woman's story is true, people have gone to prison in the states as a result, so what does she have gain by lying about Prince Andrew?
Vast quantities of money?Why Andrew? Because he is an easy target. He was a known associate of the dodgy guy in question. Therefore, citing air miles Andy's name is all upside for her case with zero risk to her - it raises the stakes and the price of the law suit; increases media interest for the book. All with no downside for her.
It may be true. It may not be. But this is the US legal system. Its all about money. And the way to make big money is to make a big splash in the media. I bet she has an impressive agent already.
Oakey said:
MarshPhantom said:
Why Prince Andrew then - she could have named anyone if it was total fabrication.
Other people have been mentioned, here's a similar story from last year but with Bill Clinton:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bi...
It's interesting how back then the story says Roberts was there 'unwillingly' and she was 'forced to have sex with these people' compared to the more recent interview where she says she'd have 'done anything to keep her place as Epsteins No.1 girl'.
I bet she loved logging onto her internet banking to see her balance though
toppstuff said:
MarshPhantom said:
Vaud said:
MarshPhantom said:
There is no doubt that this woman's story is true, people have gone to prison in the states as a result, so what does she have gain by lying about Prince Andrew?
Vast quantities of money?Why Andrew? Because he is an easy target. He was a known associate of the dodgy guy in question. Therefore, citing air miles Andy's name is all upside for her case with zero risk to her - it raises the stakes and the price of the law suit; increases media interest for the book. All with no downside for her.
It may be true. It may not be. But this is the US legal system. Its all about money. And the way to make big money is to make a big splash in the media. I bet she has an impressive agent already.
No allegations have been made outside the court as far as I'm aware. I bet she's not brave enough to make them where she can be held accountable...don'tbesilly said:
In fairness to Virginia she was nauseated by the sexual acts that she was instructed to perform, apparently.
I bet she loved logging onto her internet banking to see her balance though
Yep, I'm sure that helped with the nauseaI bet she loved logging onto her internet banking to see her balance though
I was slightly bewildered by this part, upon her first meeting with Epstein;
DM said:
She had me put oil on my hands and then she grabbed one of his feet and started to massage it and she told me to take his other foot. Then she took off her shirt and started rubbing her breasts across Jeffrey and told me to take off my clothes. He had sex with me and the woman fondled me. I was thinking, “This is wrong. This is not legitimate massage.” But they liked me. The lady said, “She’s got a knack for it.’’ And I thought, “These are important people. I must be doing something right.” The lady gave me $200 [£130] and said I was to come back the next day.’
Now, maybe it's just me, but if you think something is 'wrong', and you're uncomfortable doing something, if someone says "come back tomorrow" then surely that's the moment you say "Nope! Not for me thank you. Goodbye!"? By her own account, it sounds as like it was a completely optional choice. She could either choose to come back the next day, or not. And she seems to have opted to go back, again and again and again?
Oakey said:
don'tbesilly said:
In fairness to Virginia she was nauseated by the sexual acts that she was instructed to perform, apparently.
I bet she loved logging onto her internet banking to see her balance though
Yep, I'm sure that helped with the nauseaI bet she loved logging onto her internet banking to see her balance though
I was slightly bewildered by this part, upon her first meeting with Epstein;
DM said:
She had me put oil on my hands and then she grabbed one of his feet and started to massage it and she told me to take his other foot. Then she took off her shirt and started rubbing her breasts across Jeffrey and told me to take off my clothes. He had sex with me and the woman fondled me. I was thinking, “This is wrong. This is not legitimate massage.” But they liked me. The lady said, “She’s got a knack for it.’’ And I thought, “These are important people. I must be doing something right.” The lady gave me $200 [£130] and said I was to come back the next day.’
Now, maybe it's just me, but if you think something is 'wrong', and you're uncomfortable doing something, if someone says "come back tomorrow" then surely that's the moment you say "Nope! Not for me thank you. Goodbye!"? By her own account, it sounds as like it was a completely optional choice. She could either choose to come back the next day, or not. And she seems to have opted to go back, again and again and again?
WinstonWolf said:
No allegations have been made outside the court as far as I'm aware. I bet she's not brave enough to make them where she can be held accountable...Of course she is brave enough to make her allegations anywhere. She is far more at risk making them under oath than making them in the outside world. It's the pussy media who will only print the allegations when THEY have the advantage of legal protection.
Claudia Skies said:
WinstonWolf said:
No allegations have been made outside the court as far as I'm aware. I bet she's not brave enough to make them where she can be held accountable...Of course she is brave enough to make her allegations anywhere. She is far more at risk making them under oath than making them in the outside world. It's the pussy media who will only print the allegations when THEY have the advantage of legal protection.
Claudia Skies said:
Blue Cat said:
Actually you are wrong she has made the allegations in a totally no risk way for her. I would suggest listening to the following - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7qbc
How about opening your eyes? Personally, I don't care if HRH did it or not. I don't care about the monarchy either. This doesn't alter the fact that even if true, the accuser is mouthing off in a completely risk free way and it appears, doing so in order to increase the possible financial gain.
Claudia Skies said:
WinstonWolf said:
No allegations have been made outside the court as far as I'm aware. I bet she's not brave enough to make them where she can be held accountable...Of course she is brave enough to make her allegations anywhere. She is far more at risk making them under oath than making them in the outside world. It's the pussy media who will only print the allegations when THEY have the advantage of legal protection.
toppstuff said:
Claudia Skies said:
Blue Cat said:
Actually you are wrong she has made the allegations in a totally no risk way for her. I would suggest listening to the following - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7qbc
How about opening your eyes? Personally, I don't care if HRH did it or not. I don't care about the monarchy either. This doesn't alter the fact that even if true, the accuser is mouthing off in a completely risk free way and it appears, doing so in order to increase the possible financial gain.
irocfan said:
Claudia Skies said:
WinstonWolf said:
No allegations have been made outside the court as far as I'm aware. I bet she's not brave enough to make them where she can be held accountable...Of course she is brave enough to make her allegations anywhere. She is far more at risk making them under oath than making them in the outside world. It's the pussy media who will only print the allegations when THEY have the advantage of legal protection.
Why wait till a book is in the offing to make the claims in a protected manner if it is genuine?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff