Make instruments to plague us."
I wonder if these words of Shakespeare, voiced by Edgar in Act 5, Scene 3 of "King Lear", were going through the minds of the two men in the photograph. They are of course, the disgraced paedophile financier, Jeffery Epstein, now deceased, and our very own Prince Andrew who, if not disgraced, is pretty heavily tarnished by his association with Epstein.
Interestingly, in 2019, the prince's legal team denied the authenticity of the photograph above. It was taken in 2010, when the ex-HRH was visiting Epstein, after the financier had been convicted of sex offences. Andrew's ludicrous explanation for this was that he had gone to privately tell Epstein that they could not be pals any more. Presumably, the prince finds emailing difficult. Also, if you don't want to be associated with a sex offender, it's not a good idea to walk with them in a public park in New York City. The accusation that the photo was falsified was scornfully refuted by the journalist who broke the story. The Daily Mail, at the time, said:
"... that suggestion was last night dismissed as ‘preposterous’ by freelance reporter Annette Witheridge, who was with photographer Jae Donnelly on the day the picture was taken."Now, as we know, this is not the only photo pertinent to this affair that the prince's team have described as faked, but we'll come to that later.
Prince Andrew has said today that he is willing to face a jury trial over his alleged sexual misdemeanours with Virginia Giuffre, nee Roberts, seen below.
Well, if Prince Andrew performs as badly in court, here or in the USA, as he did in his notorious interview with Emily Maitlis, then he'd better be ready to lose. In the interview, he exhibited some strange mannerisms and highly suspicious memory loss, as well as tripping himself up on a number of facts.He described Epstein as a friend at one point, then said he didn't know him that well - but he trusted him (!). At another point, he said that he never saw any girls in Epstein's New York house, then, later in the interview, he said he thought they were staff. When asked by Maitlis why he spent four days in Epstein's house in 2010, after Eptsein had been convicted of sex offences, he said that it was "convenient" (!) and had only gone there to break off friendly relations with Epstein. Besides this being a stupid thing to do - anyone with any sense would break off all contact with a sex offender at once - witnesses say that Andrew's four day stay coincided with a house party. Strangely, the Prince says he never saw it.
As for the allegation that he had sex 3 times with the then underage Virginia Roberts/Giuffre and danced with her in a London club (Tramps), where he was alleged to have sweated profusely, he tried to make a peculiar refutation. Besides saying that he doesn't dance, he claimed that at the the time, he was unable to sweat, which is a far-fetched claim to make. The condition, he said, had lasted from his service in the Falklands War, 1981, caused by an excess of adrenalin, to his dancing in the club in 2001. This is suspicious indeed, as the condition, known as Anhidrosis, is usually a genetic condition. From what I have read, there is no evidence that it can be caused by excess adrenalin. Besides, there is said to be no known cure, and the prince has been photographed sweating since 2001. He also claimed to have taken his children to a Pizza Express in Woking on the day he was allegedly seen dancing in Tramps.. He said that this was unusual for him. So unusual, in fact, that the local press never noticed.
Andrew was vague when questioned about having sex with Ms Giuffre in Epstein's houses, although he denies any sexual contact took place; it's not the sort of thing you'd forget, one way or another. He was conspicuously defensive and totally lacking in empathy for Epstein's victims. Incredibly, it is said that Andrew thinks he did a good job in the interview; only 6% of the public agree. As I said, the prince will be worth watching under cross-examination.
As for Andrew's declaring his intention to face a jury trial, the Daily Mail comments:
"Royal expert and former MP Norman Baker said Buckingham Palace ‘won’t like’ what could come out at trial, warning: ‘This is going to be very damaging’.
It can fairly be said: a lot of innocent young girls are already damaged. They seem to have been forgotten in this whole murky affair, victims of Prince Andrew's deniable friend, Epstein. As the comedian, Josh Widdecombe, has said, Season 8 of The Crown should be riveting.As said earlier, there is another photo, of the prince and Virginia Giuffre (then Roberts), that, yet again, the prince and his acolytes claim is falsified. The prince said that it is impossible to prove the photo has been doctored, as it is "a photograph of a photograph". I'll finish by saying that the photo below certainly is a fake.
Tricky one this. The traditional approach to accusations of criminality is 'innocent until proven guilty', but it seems to me that the general view is that Andrew is guilty, even though at present, all we have is one woman accusing him, an accusation that has yet to be tested in a court of law. In March 2001 when the alleged offences are supposed to have taken place, he was 41 and she was 17, a fact that suggests that any sexual relationship between them may well have been exploitative, but that remains speculative.
ReplyDeleteI am not a royalist – indeed, if there were a vote to abolish the monarchy, I'd vote yes – and I can understand that an extremely wealthy and privileged man might feel some sense of entitlement to take whatever he wants. It is consequently easy to believe that he is guilty, as many people do, especially those who are not monarchists. Ultimately, however, none of us knows the answer, and while Ms Giuffre's accusations may be true – it wouldn't surprise me if they were – I am reluctant to draw firm conclusions without evidence.
Point taken, Neville, and I acknowledge the fact that Andrew has not yet been tried for his alleged offence. I am also aware that there are said to be a number of inconsistencies in Virginia Giuffre's allegations against the prince. However, Andrew has done himself no favours by his conduct since being accused of his sexual misdemeanours. His evasiveness in interview, his friendship with Epstein and his equivocating over the two photographs mentioned above have raised justifiable suspicions about him. If many people have tried and found him guilty prematurely, he has only himself to blame.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree that the way he has dealt with these accusations looks dodgy.
DeleteHis main aim now is to be reinstated as a so-called 'working' royal, and the way he's dealing with Ms Giuffre's complaint against him is all to that end. An out-of-court settlement would not be sufficient - it wouldn't prove he's innocent - which is why he wants a trial at which he is acquitted, thus paving his way to return to the royal fold. It is a high risk strategy which could well blow up in his face, because if a court finds against him, he'll have no way back.
We'll just have to wait and see.