Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 25, 2019, 06:52:00 PM
-
This is Marina Hyde at her angriest, and quite right.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/23/prince-andrew-appalled-epstein-royal-wedding?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
-
She is: and as this story continues to unravel, and if it turns out this established pompous prick is also shown (via appropriate investigation) to be an abuser, I for one intend to enjoy the schadenfreude.
-
Another wee snippet.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/25/prince-andrew-epstein-private-jet-russian-model
-
Liar we did not elect defends toff no-one elected but who gained title through mummy and daddy having sex in the right bed.
britain, eh?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-defends-prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-comments-a9078171.html
-
I know that this may be interpreted as nitpicking, NS, but is there evidence that Epstein was interested in prepubescent girls?
Just about all the reports that I have read suggest that Epstein was a hebephile.
-
I know that this may be interpreted as nitpicking, NS, but is there evidence that Epstein was interested in prepubescent girls?
Just about all the reports that I have read suggest that Epstein was a hebephile.
Poetic licence for the echoing of The Prince and The Pauper.
-
I know that this may be interpreted as nitpicking, NS, but is there evidence that Epstein was interested in prepubescent girls?
Just about all the reports that I have read suggest that Epstein was a hebephile.
Show-off. I think "paedophile" is also a generic term, covering hebephilia.
-
Talking of toes, Prince Andrew's deception make mine curl.
How is it royalty can literally get away with 'anything'? Any other celeb would have been torn to pieces by now by the media.
So you have no explanation for being photographed with a 17yr old (considered under age in the alleged state) and with Epstein's madam looking on in the background, Andrew?
Well, the 'Palace' has issued a statement in Andrew's defence of any acknowledgement of Epstein's wrongdoing so we plebs (that are of course stupid) believe the liars. Shame on them, yes, an insult to our intelligence.
-
Show-off. I think "paedophile" is also a generic term, covering hebephilia.
It is used that way but that is incorrect and best avoided.
-
I may be over thinking this, but the Prince Andrew statements of denial so far haven't actually denied wrongdoing. They say he thinks Epstein's behaviour to be "abhorrent", but that's not the same thing as "and I didn't do those abhorrent things". Another says, " I would not do those things....", and again that present/future tense "would not" isn't the same as "did not" or "would not have". Might be nothing, but it feels like Clintonesque denials that still in fact leave the door open to not actually having lied if in due course he's found to have been involved.
Curious.
-
It's a pathetically stupid statement as Marina Hyde's article covers. And yet nothing happens.
-
It is used that way but that is incorrect and best avoided.
Just call hin a nonce.
-
This morning BBC Breakfast's headline news was about another American woman declaring Prince Andrew's inappropriate behaviour. By lunchtime, due to activity in Westminster (or for other reasons) there was no mention of the news item.
A BBC documentary named 'Untouchable' on the Harvey Weinstein story is being aired sometime over the weekend. Perhaps the producer should make a follow-up: Untouchable 2 - the prince and the paedophile.
-
Still quite prominent on website
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49486590
-
Oh, good. Interesting to see if it goes anywhere and even if it does the prince only has to keep denying the allegations.
-
I don't think it's good - it's horrible. The entire thing gives me the creeps.
Good to see you though SweetPea :-).
-
Presume Sweetpea means it is good that any possible abuse is not just ignored.
-
Oh yes I think so too.
I don't know why I'm so sensitive about this, it hardly affects me directly but I admit to being freaked out by it all.
-
Oh yes I think so too.
I don't know why I'm so sensitive about this, it hardly affects me directly but I admit to being freaked out by it all.
It is worrying because it seems to be normalized.
-
Yes, that's what is so depressing. Such things have always gone on, every now and then there's a scandal involving prominent people & we hear about it. It's still going on when we hear nothing.
I read up about it, including the Marina Hyde article, a few nights ago following a conversation with my sister. It's been buzzing around at the backof my mind ever since & I wish it would go but that's my problem.
-
Talking of toes, Prince Andrew's deception make mine curl.
How is it royalty can literally get away with 'anything'? Any other celeb would have been torn to pieces by now by the media.
So you have no explanation for being photographed with a 17yr old (considered under age in the alleged state) and with Epstein's madam looking on in the background, Andrew?
Well, the 'Palace' has issued a statement in Andrew's defence of any acknowledgement of Epstein's wrongdoing so we plebs (that are of course stupid) believe the liars. Shame on them, yes, an insult to our intelligence.
I don't think Prince Andrew is getting away with anything. People are still talking about him and implicitly assuming he has committed sexual offences even though the evidence is little more than innuendo at this point.
-
I don't think Prince Andrew is getting away with anything. People are still talking about him and implicitly assuming he has committed sexual offences even though the evidence is little more than innuendo at this point.
I don't know of anyone having accused him directly, as you say, but there are a number of people asserting that he was aware of Epstein's activities and continued to interact with him; indeed, the man was convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute as part of a plea deal to avoid a number of unspecified charges, and Andrew still associated with him freely afterwards.
It may well be that no actual legal crime was committed, but I'm minded to cite the adage 'All that is required for evil to flourish, is for good men to stand by and do nothing'. Did he stand by, for it seems beyond doubt now that evil was flourishing.
O.
-
While it isn't clear exactly what the allegation is here, it seems direct.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49486590
-
And one of those times when a bad offense is an awful defense
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-50446392/prince-andrew-on-epstein-there-was-no-indication
-
Andrew has brought the monarchy into disrepute and should step down from public life, imo. >:(
-
Andrew has brought the monarchy into disrepute and should step down from public life, imo. >:(
Think it needs properly investigated by the police. Your suggestion above just sounds like a cover up
-
Think it needs properly investigated by the police. Your suggestion above just sounds like a cover up
If the police aren't looking into it, they should be doing so. No Royal should be above the law of the land.
-
I had to laugh at the story about eating pizza. As wags are saying, no, I don't remember seeing young girls in the house, but I remember how good that pizza tasted in Woking. I can recommend Pizza Express.
Another journalist joke, we have to posthumously forgive Diana, she only did the second worst royal interview in history.
-
Andrew has brought the monarchy into disrepute and should step down from public life, imo. >:(
Nope.
He's simply scraped the veneer of the bling and returned this less than respectable shower tothe time of their disreputable Hanovarian ancestors.
-
I view the Queen in high esteem, she has done very good job for this country.
-
I view the Queen in high esteem, she has done very good job for this country.
Am I missing something here?
Isn't Andrew the Queens son?
Does she hold no responsibility for the way he turned out?
-
I view the Queen in high esteem, she has done very good job for this country.
Oh, dear.
Her favourite sprog showed last night why bowihng and scraping to someone because mummy and daddy had sex in the right bed is simply daft.
-
Oh, dear.
Her favourite sprog showed last night why bowihng and scraping to someone because mummy and daddy had sex in the right bed is simply daft.
What a daft comment! ::)
-
What a daft comment! ::)
I'll say this for you, you certainly know how to bring out my republican tendencies!
-
What a daft comment! ::)
Would you go to someone to have your teeth fixed because their mother was a dentist?
-
Quite frankly I really don't know what you lot are on about. Andrew is an stupid idiot and if he did sexually molest that girl he should be prosecuted.
-
And one of those times when a bad offense is an awful defense
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-50446392/prince-andrew-on-epstein-there-was-no-indication
Paraphrasing but "A toe massage,me? Really?"..... "A playboy when I was younger? Where on earth did that idea come form?"
If he is so sure of his innocence why isn't he suing?
Cringe, cringe and more cringe….
-
Am I missing something here?
Isn't Andrew the Queens son?
Does she hold no responsibility for the way he turned out?
Not necessarily, no. Andrew is an adult, who made his own decisions.
-
What a daft comment! ::)
In what way?
Why is Elizabeth not the3 second wortthy od deferenxce, elevation, rank, style, title or worship by the gullable?
Why is she 'queen', if not by result of her mummy and daddy having sex in the right bed?
-
In what way?
Why is Elizabeth not the3 second wortthy od deferenxce, elevation, rank, style, title or worship by the gullable?
Why is she 'queen', if not by result of her mummy and daddy having sex in the right bed?
I still have no idea what you are on about. I have said my say and won't post on this thread again, so don't bother to reply.
-
I still have no idea what you are on about. I have said my say and won't post on this thread again, so don't bother to reply.
Ah....so, no answer, then.
What a surprise.
No-one with half a brain defers to someone because of genetics, surely?
-
Various statements from journalists that they sat on the story due to threats from the Palace. Deeply disturbing if true.
-
The exploits of this arsehole illustrate why we should be rid of the anachronistic and distasteful monarchy, along with all their aristocratic hangers-on.
-
This
https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/18042832.kirsty-strickland-prince-andrews-car-crash-interview-exposes-fault-line-britains-power-structures/
-
This
https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/18042832.kirsty-strickland-prince-andrews-car-crash-interview-exposes-fault-line-britains-power-structures/
A good article. How anyone can believe Prince Andrew, and by extension give the benefit of the doubt to the creaking institution that is the monarchy, is beyond me.
-
Isn't Andrew the Queens son?
Does she hold no responsibility for the way he turned out?
In law we generally don't hold people responsible for what their relatives do. Even Brady and Hindley's parents didn't face trial from bringing up murderers.
-
The exploits of this arsehole illustrate why we should be rid of the anachronistic and distasteful monarchy, along with all their aristocratic hangers-on.
Unless you can somehow demonstrate that this arsehole (no argument with that characterisation, by the way) is the arsehole he is specifically because of his status within the monarchy and not, say, the sort of embedded privelege that gives us the similarly rectally-infused Boris Johnson, then it's not an argument against the monarchy per se.
I think there are enough arguments against the monarchy in its own right without trying to lump this particular vomit-inducing incident to the mix.
O.
-
Unless you can somehow demonstrate that this arsehole (no argument with that characterisation, by the way) is the arsehole he is specifically because of his status within the monarchy and not, say, the sort of embedded privelege that gives us the similarly rectally-infused Boris Johnson, then it's not an argument against the monarchy per se.
I think there are enough arguments against the monarchy in its own right without trying to lump this particular vomit-inducing incident to the mix.
O.
Indeed, which is why I used the term 'illustrates': had this particular arsehole not been a member of the monarchy, and did not have the profile that accompanies that status, then we would treat him as any other common or garden arsehole would be treated.
His reputation for self-aggrandisement, and as 'air-miles Andy', is well known and he was described on R4 earlier, by a journalist who had personally interviewed him, as being not the sharpest chisel in the tool-box and one who over-estimates his intellect, which suggests he would make a great Dunning-Kruger case study. My point being that this arsehole does seem of limited ability yet he has enjoyed life-long status and privilege simply because of who his mother is, which for me illustrates just one example of why the monarchy is offensively dysfunctional and needs to be dispensed with.
-
Indeed, which is why I used the term 'illustrates': had this particular arsehole not been a member of the monarchy, and did not have the profile that accompanies that status, then we would treat him as any other common or garden arsehole would be treated.
His reputation for self-aggrandisement, and as 'air-miles Andy', is well known and he was described on R4 earlier, by a journalist who had personally interviewed him, as being not the sharpest chisel in the tool-box and one who over-estimates his intellect, which suggests he would make a great Dunning-Kruger case study. My point being that this arsehole does seem of limited ability yet he has enjoyed life-long status and privilege simply because of who his mother is, which for me illustrates just one example of why the monarchy is offensively dysfunctional and needs to be dispensed with.
In what way are you treating him differently to any other arsehole?
It seem to me that you are using his behaviour as a means to grind an axe.
-
In what way are you treating him differently to any other arsehole?
It seem to me that you are using his behaviour as a means to grind an axe.
I think when it comes to both him and the monarchy there are good reasons for a spot of axe-grinding.
-
Ah, the memories.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwexhQ-92ws&fbclid=IwAR2_mR6QyGqdEwFbpWzMBr5E1t34TqXe1jmrGjk56yljTjELGKMjNR9_5fU
-
In law we generally don't hold people responsible for what their relatives do. Even Brady and Hindley's parents didn't face trial from bringing up murderers.
I wasn't talking about the law.
Purely thinking about how a certain mind set might be passed on within an insular, over protected, over privileged family.
-
Heard on radio earlier that BlowJo
bhnson is enmeshed in some sort of scandal too with a blonde American businesswoman. What a shower aye?
I haven't seen the Prince Andrew interview yet (also heard about that on car radio), not sure if I can stomach it but think Chaz intends to watch so likely will see some.
LRoses:- Quite frankly I really don't know what you lot are on about. Andrew is an stupid idiot and if he did sexually molest that girl he should be prosecuted.
I may have missed something, know I felt a bit sick about it so that's possible but is the allegation that Andrew molested the girl? I know (she said and it looks that way), that he had sexual relations with her but the point is did he know she was pimped/trafficked by Epstein or did he think she was a 'friend' of Ghislane and Epstein? Frankly I think that would be his defence. He's shot himself in the foot by denying any knowledge of her if later it's proven that he did the deed. Yuck.
(War of the Worlds now, Martians landing in Leatherhead is more wholesome subject.)
-
Heard on radio earlier that BlowJobhnson is enmeshed in some sort of scandal too with a blonde American businesswoman. What a shower aye?
I haven't seen the Prince Andrew interview yet (also heard about that on car radio), not sure if I can stomach it but think Chaz intends to watch so likely will see some.
LRoses:- Quite frankly I really don't know what you lot are on about. Andrew is an stupid idiot and if he did sexually molest that girl he should be prosecuted.
I may have missed something, know I felt a bit sick about it so that's possible but is the allegation that Andrew molested the girl? I know (she said and it looks that way), that he had sexual relations with her but the point is did he know she was pimped/trafficked by Epstein or did he think she was a 'friend' of Ghislane and Epstein? Frankly I think that would be his defence. He's shot himself in the foot by denying any knowledge of her if later it's proven that he did the deed. Yuck.
(War of the Worlds now, Martians landing in Leatherhead is more wholesome subject.)
This is the Johnson story. I don't care if he had an affair but if he did and he helped her got on trade trips then he needs to resign. If he helped her get on trade trips, and didn't have an affair he needs to resign.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50458461
-
Seen on Twitter on Pizza Express Twitter account
PizzaExpress
@PizzaExpress
·
Nov 16
9:00 pm - Switch off computer
10:00 pm - 120 messages on work WhatsApp group telling you to "check Twitter now"
-
Looks like he has become, as they say, 'toxic'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50467019
-
Looks like he has become, as they say, 'toxic'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50467019
If only for the idiocy and privilege exhibited on the interview, that was surely inevitable?
-
I'll say this for you, you certainly know how to bring out my republican tendencies!
Ditto!
Now who was that other one supposedly involved in the Profumo affair/case?
Regards, ippy.
-
If only for the idiocy and privilege exhibited on the interview, that was surely inevitable?
Indeed: I suspect other organisations will follow suit, including the various charities that he is a patron of.
-
I did watch the interview in the end and a Despatches on same subject which was more detailed & not just about the prince.
I wonder where Ghislane Maxwell is right now and why nobody is baying for her blood? Iremember the Maxwell business, him drowning and plundering pension funds, not in that order, but his children seemed to go on and do quite well in many ways. She is the youngest. Goodness knows what she saw in Epst, a friend of hers said said she was in love with and would have married him.
It seems Epstein was 'friends' with so many prominent people - Clinton, Trump, someone political from here whose name I can't remember atm.
-
This can't be seen as a reason to forget about it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-50496539?__twitter_impression=true
-
Ooft
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/22/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-sacked?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
-
Ooft
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/22/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-sacked?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
Marina on top form. I like the quote from Fergie, "everyone has been so nice here in Riyadh. I think that comes from good leadership".
-
Ooo - er
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-53268218?__twitter_impression=true
-
All those involved should be rounded up and prosecuted, imo.
-
There are thousands including some who would do the rounding up and prosecuting.
-
There are thousands including some who would do the rounding up and prosecuting.
We are talking about the topic of this thread!
-
All those involved should be rounded up and prosecuted, imo.
Hogget's law applies: "If the opposite of a statement is obvious nonsense, the statement was not worth making". No-one would suggest that paedophiles should be let off and not prosecuted.
-
We are talking about the topic of this thread!
Which is Epstein and those involved in his dubious activities of which there are/were thousands, some of whom would be involved in the rounding up and prosecuting which you suggest :- e.g. people in high places, e.g. the law. What did you think I meant?
-
It looks as if the noose is tightening around Prince Andrew's neck. I think he should be prosecuted if the evidence is irrefutable.
-
It looks as if the noose is tightening around Prince Andrew's neck. I think he should be prosecuted if the evidence is irrefutable.
If you mean evidence of paedophilia, you're demonstrating Hogget's law again, but I don't think there's any evidence of that. He's just been a very silly boy in choosing unsuitable friends.
-
There is more to it than that.
"Prosecutors have continued their investigation and sought testimony from Prince Andrew. He faces accusations from Virginia Giuffre, who has claimed she was forced to have sex with him at Maxwell’s home in London when she was 17. Her claims have been categorically denied by the prince."
It looks as if the Prince has a case to answer.
-
Marina Hyde on Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/03/ghislaine-maxwell-epstein-prince-andrew
-
If you mean evidence of paedophilia, you're demonstrating Hogget's law again, but I don't think there's any evidence of that. He's just been a very silly boy in choosing unsuitable friends.
If Virginia Giuffre was17 at the time then this is not case of "paedophilia". Paedophilia is sexual activity with prepubescent children. The appropriate term for post-pubescent children is "hebephilia".
-
If Virginia Giuffre was17 at the time then this is not case of "paedophilia". Paedophilia is sexual activity with prepubescent children. The appropriate term for post-pubescent children is "hebephilia".
While you are right in spirit paedophilia covers sexual attraction to prepubescents rather than just sexual activity.
-
It looks as if the noose is tightening around Prince Andrew's neck. I think he should be prosecuted if the evidence is irrefutable.
I think he should be prosecuted if there is a substantial chance of the case being successful. 'Irrefutable' sets the standard way too high - very few cases would be brought with that.
-
While you are right in spirit paedophilia covers sexual attraction to prepubescents rather than just sexual activity.
Thank you for the clarification. But "paedophilia" is a term which is greatly misused. I have even seen used to describe a relationship between a twenty year old woman and a man in his late thirties.
-
Thank you for the clarification. But "paedophilia" is a term which is greatly misused. I have even seen used to describe a relationship between a twenty year old woman and a man in his late thirties.
As covered in the first few posts of this thread, I think the use here is 'poetic' to echo The Prince and The Pauper alliteration
-
Ooo - er
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-53268218?__twitter_impression=true
Now Ghislaine Maxwell has been arrested and charged it'll be interesting if we hear in weeks or months that she has 'committed suicide'.
(I'm one of those wary of Epstein's supposed suicide.)
-
If Virginia Giuffre was17 at the time then this is not case of "paedophilia". Paedophilia is sexual activity with prepubescent children. The appropriate term for post-pubescent children is "hebephilia".
Since she was over the age of consent, I'dn't've thought it was either, at least as far as the law is concerned.
-
Since she was over the age of consent, I'dn't've thought it was either, at least as far as the law is concerned.
Virginia Giuffre at 17 was under the age of consent which in that particular state was 18.
-
Since she was over the age of consent, I'dn't've thought it was either, at least as far as the law is concerned.
The law doesn't care about paedophilia or hebephilia in its definitions so her being over an age of consent would be irrelevant, though my understanding is that the age of consent where the incident took place was 18. Though now that you have highlighted her age, it means that this wouldn't be hebephilia either but rather ephebephilia.
-
Virginia Giuffre at 17 was under the age of consent which in that particular state was 18.
Didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification.
-
It looks as if the noose is tightening around Prince Andrew's neck. I think he should be prosecuted if the evidence is irrefutable.
Doubt very much he'll ever be prosecuted. The Royals are 'Untouchables' - can get away with anything, possibly through their SMOM status.
-
Doubt very much he'll ever be prosecuted. The Royals are 'Untouchables' - can get away with anything, possibly through their SMOM status.
SMOM?
-
Sovereign Military Order of Malta? St Mary of the Mount? Sergeant Major of Marines? Staff Member of the Month?
-
Sovereign Military Order of Malta? St Mary of the Mount? Sergeant Major of Marines? Staff Member of the Month?
I got the same results too when I Googled 'SMOM' - we'll need to wait for Sweetpea to clarify.
-
I doubt Andrew knew she was under age in that state. I only know because I saw something on TV about a girl having a sexual relationship at seventeen and her fella getting into trouble. In New York the age of consent is 17. It's all very confusing but Prince Andrew wouldn't be prosecuted for that - if that happened a whole heap of others with much higher positions would have to go down too.
If Prince Andrew was knowingly involved in, say, trafficking (which nobody has suggested ), he wouldn't get away with it. Gone are the days of royals, aristos, archbishops and politicians being untouchable. I'm not that invested in this but will wait and see what happens.
Like SweetPea I wonder if GhislaneM will have an accident. There must be so many scared of what she might say. On the other hand they could spring her &she could go abroad with a new identity. That's me being fanciful, would make good film.
-
I doubt Andrew knew she was under age in that state. I only know because I saw something on TV about a girl having a sexual relationship at seventeen and her fella getting into trouble. In New York the age of consent is 17. It's all very confusing but Prince Andrew wouldn't be prosecuted for that - if that happened a whole heap of others with much higher positions would have to go down too.
If Prince Andrew was knowingly involved in, say, trafficking (which nobody has suggested ), he wouldn't get away with it. Gone are the days of royals, aristos, archbishops and politicians being untouchable. I'm not that invested in this but will wait and see what happens.
Like SweetPea I wonder if GhislaneM will have an accident. There must be so many scared of what she might say. On the other hand they could spring her &she could go abroad with a new identity. That's me being fanciful, would make good film.
Why do you doubt Andrew knew her age? He has a reputation, before all this blew up and it isn't a good one.
-
I doubt Andrew knew she was under age in that state. I only know because I saw something on TV about a girl having a sexual relationship at seventeen and her fella getting into trouble. In New York the age of consent is 17. It's all very confusing but Prince Andrew wouldn't be prosecuted for that - if that happened a whole heap of others with much higher positions would have to go down too.
If Prince Andrew was knowingly involved in, say, trafficking (which nobody has suggested ), he wouldn't get away with it. Gone are the days of royals, aristos, archbishops and politicians being untouchable. I'm not that invested in this but will wait and see what happens.
Like SweetPea I wonder if GhislaneM will have an accident. There must be so many scared of what she might say. On the other hand they could spring her &she could go abroad with a new identity. That's me being fanciful, would make good film.
i wouldn't be being overly precious about ages of consent if I were him then or him now. He's not been cooperative, talked lying crap in the interview, and didn't ask enough questions - and that's a very charitable interpretation.
-
Why do you doubt Andrew knew her age? He has a reputation, before all this blew up and it isn't a good one.
Robbie didn't say he didn't know her age rather that he might not know the age of consent in the state. It is perfectly possible he didn't know either her age or the age of consent - I am not sure that helps him a lot.
You're second statement is just the whole fallacious idea that there is no smoke without fire, and based on gossip rather than evidence.
-
There's a lawsuit against Trump for raping a thirteen-year-old girl at one of Epstein's parties years ago.
Here's the Snopes' article where the lawsuit is displayed. It gives insight as to just how horrible an operation Epstein and GhislaneM ran.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ (https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/)
-
That would appear to be 'was a lawsuit'.
Happy Independence Day, flower girl.
Though I get what you say about fireworks. Here we have Guy Fawkes which last for 2 weeks.
-
I doubt Andrew knew she was under age in that state. I only know because I saw something on TV about a girl having a sexual relationship at seventeen and her fella getting into trouble. In New York the age of consent is 17. It's all very confusing but Prince Andrew wouldn't be prosecuted for that - if that happened a whole heap of others with much higher positions would have to go down too.
If Prince Andrew was knowingly involved in, say, trafficking (which nobody has suggested ), he wouldn't get away with it. Gone are the days of royals, aristos, archbishops and politicians being untouchable. I'm not that invested in this but will wait and see what happens.
Like SweetPea I wonder if GhislaneM will have an accident. There must be so many scared of what she might say. On the other hand they could spring her &she could go abroad with a new identity. That's me being fanciful, would make good film.
I didn't think the accusations against the Prince were primarily to do with age. More to do with coercion.
-
You could be right Trent. I thought it was to do with him allegedly going with a girl who was underage in the particular state at that time. Haven't heard anything about Andrew coercing or being coerced. GhislaneM and Epstein obviously did coerce young girls into doing things they didn't want; how many of their 'friends' knew about that side of things we'll probably never know because they're so high up and protected.
Let's wait and see what else comes out.
Like other posters here, I don't know what SMOM is.
-
SMOM: Sovereign Military Order of Malta. It's a club for the so-called elites, that we (plebs) ain't in as George Carlin once said of another club (paraphrasing). Members 'look-out' for each other.
This is just a thought on my behalf that it could be a form of protection for the Royals.
Here is Prince Andrew wearing the SMOM pin on his collar:
https://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/prince-andrew-knight-of-malta.jpg
It looks as though Ghislaine Maxwell is going to get off lightly. She is only being charged for trafficking minors across state borders between 1994 and 1997 which nicely excludes the time of Prince Andrew's involvement in the matter during 2001. Corruption amongst the judiciary?
Ghislaine Maxwell's Arrest: Don't Get Your Hopes Up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCDLXvGaQzw
-
It looks as though Ghislaine Maxwell is going to get off lightly. She is only being charged for trafficking minors across state borders between 1994 and 1997 which nicely excludes the time of Prince Andrew's involvement in the matter during 2001. Corruption amongst the judiciary?
Ghislaine Maxwell's Arrest: Don't Get Your Hopes Up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCDLXvGaQzw
This is the American judicial system we are talking about here, so most of the lawyers and judges were probably customers!
-
This is the American judicial system we are talking about here, so most of the lawyers and judges were probably customers!
Exactly, Owlswing and that's the problem.
The fact that only three years are being taken into account means many people including Prince Andrew will avoid prosecution. What a disgrace!
-
Exactly, Owlswing and that's the problem.
The fact that only three years are being taken into account means many people including Prince Andrew will avoid prosecution. What a disgrace!
Prince Andrew keeps schtum about his involvement until he has no choice and the screws up big-time in a TV interview but is allowed to quietly disappear into the safe curtain put up by the Royals - yes we know all about it but we don't talk about it!
Harry complains about the racist attacks on his wife in the press, gets no support whatsoever - in a moral sense, and is quickly dumped by his family!
And I used to be Royalist - the only reason I'm not a republican is that I dread seeing a Donald Trump clone being in charge over here! Can you imagine President Jeremy or President Boris?
-
And I used to be Royalist - the only reason I'm not a republican is that I dread seeing a Donald Trump clone being in charge over here! Can you imagine President Jeremy or President Boris?
Do you really think that the Federal Republic of Great Britain (or similar) would risk having an executive president?
No the presidency (like Germany but unlike France or the USA) would be a figurehead presidency - a reward for someone like David Attenborough.
-
Do you really think that the Federal Republic of Great Britain (or similar) would risk having an executive president?
No the presidency (like Germany but unlike France or the USA) would be a figurehead presidency - a reward for someone like David Attenborough.
Now he would be a great choice - shame that at his age it might not come soon enough.
-
No sweat!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59839351
-
And civil case to go ahead
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59871514
-
Recent reports say this creep has been stripped of his titles - good: now we just need to be rid of the rest of them.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/13/veterans-ask-queen-to-strip-prince-andrew-of-honorary-military-titles
-
And military titles and patronages going for Andrew during his defence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935
-
Aw; never mind; he's still mummy's favourite boy, even if he isn't mummy'd little soldier any more.
-
.
-
BREAKING: Prince Andrew to change his name to The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince
-
Looks like the natives of York aren't keen on him being their Duke.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/14/calls-strip-prince-andrew-duke-of-york-title
-
Civil case settled. Ooh - er
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60393843
-
I see the sycophants are already going down the 'at least this way it won't tarnish he Queen's jubilee' route: talk about tone deaf!
As regards the jubilee nonsense I would just like to add that I don't give a flying fuck about it - and I suspect I am not alone.
-
Seen elsewhere
'Never met her. Don’t remember the photograph. I was in pizza express in woking. Can’t sweat. I demand a trial by jury. Ok here’s a big pile of money.'
-
Seen elsewhere
'Never met her. Don’t remember the photograph. I was in pizza express in woking. Can’t sweat. I demand a trial by jury. Ok here’s a big pile of money.'
Yea. It's right royal bollocks.
-
I am not a monarchist and I have no real interest or concern about Andrew Duke of York.
I would like assurance, though, that we haven't been gaslighted by Virginia Giuffre in this affair.
She has already had a financial settlement in relation to Jeffrey Epstein but now she seems to have convinced just one of the men with whom she may have been forced to have sexual relations to pay her an eye-watering sum of money to ensure her silence. She seems to be onto a winner: all she has to do is to identify a prominent man and then collect megabucks. How does this differ from blackmail?
-
How does this differ from blackmail?
Blackmail is where you offer to keep an inconvenient fact secret in exchange for money. Guiffre is definitely not keeping secrets.
-
I am not a monarchist and I have no real interest or concern about Andrew Duke of York.
I would like assurance, though, that we haven't been gaslighted by Virginia Giuffre in this affair.
She has already had a financial settlement in relation to Jeffrey Epstein but now she seems to have convinced just one of the men with whom she may have been forced to have sexual relations to pay her an eye-watering sum of money to ensure her silence. She seems to be onto a winner: all she has to do is to identify a prominent man and then collect megabucks. How does this differ from blackmail?
Are you for real HH.
You are somehow implying that an extremely young woman (actually a child) who was treated appallingly and likely illegally by incredibly rich, powerful, connected and influential people is somehow able to 'get one over' those people with all their access to top lawyers, the ability to influence top people etc.
The reality here is that Epstein and the Duke crumbled and settled as they were not convinced they would win in a court of law. Had they been convinced of their case why on earth would they settle out of court. And before you say the same about Giuffre - there is a huge difference between the ability of someone with almost endless amounts of money to continue funding a legal case and someone without access to those means. That's why it is usually the very rich and very prominent who are able to cause the poor and inconsequential to 'fold' in legal proceedings as they know that whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter they are able to drag legal proceedings out to the point where the other side simply runs out of money.
If, as seems clear, she was sex trafficked as an underage girl then I cannot see how she is 'on to a winner' regardless of how much money she may receive - receiving some sort of justice isn't being 'on to a winner'.
-
Blackmail is where you offer to keep an inconvenient fact secret in exchange for money. Guiffre is definitely not keeping secrets.
Indeed.
-
I am not a monarchist and I have no real interest or concern about Andrew Duke of York.
I would like assurance, though, that we haven't been gaslighted by Virginia Giuffre in this affair.
She has already had a financial settlement in relation to Jeffrey Epstein but now she seems to have convinced just one of the men with whom she may have been forced to have sexual relations to pay her an eye-watering sum of money to ensure her silence. She seems to be onto a winner: all she has to do is to identify a prominent man and then collect megabucks. How does this differ from blackmail?
I don't think gaslighting is happening. Nor blackmail.
Is she working the system? Yes, but for what are laudable reasons.
She runs a charity that appears to be legitimate and has excellent aims and ambitions.
The system has worked well for the likes of Epstein and the Royal family for decades/centuries. I don't feel at all outraged that somebody damaged by that system has managed to game it to attempt to change things for the better.
-
The only relevant fact is whether or not Andrew is guilty, and since she has given no proof (as far as I know), he is still, as far as we know, innocent. Does she think that getting him to pay her will make people believe he must be guilty?
-
The only relevant fact is whether or not Andrew is guilty,
As a question that's right up there with:
Is the Pope Catholic?
Do bears shit in the wood?
Will Vlad mention secularism this week?
-
Spud, to put it another way:
Does Prince Andrew paying out millions to avoid going to court make you think he is innocent?
-
The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten million quid.
He gave it all to an American girl
For something he never did.
-
The only relevant fact is whether or not Andrew is guilty, and since she has given no proof (as far as I know), he is still, as far as we know, innocent. Does she think that getting him to pay her will make people believe he must be guilty?
No, he thinks that it's already apparent significant numbers of people think he's guilty, and his legal team have explained to him that it's entirely foreseeable that a jury, in a trial, on the balance of the evidence likely to be presented, would find him guilty. That's quite outside of whether or not he thinks he's guilty, or whether the actual fact is that he's guilty.
He has no credibility whatsoever after his actions both in continuing his relationship with Epstein following his conviction and that catastrophic (for him, at least) shitshow of an interview he gave to the BBC. His best option is to pony up now and maintain at least some degree of plausible deniability; the alternative is to go trial, quite possibly (likely?) lose and end up paying and not having the legal recourse of continuing to proclaim his innocence.
O.
-
Spud, to put it another way:
Does Prince Andrew paying out millions to avoid going to court make you think he is innocent?
No, but there are factors that suggest he is not paying her because of guilt.
-
The only relevant fact is whether or not Andrew is guilty, and since she has given no proof (as far as I know), he is still, as far as we know, innocent.
Yet, by settling (for, by all accounts, a sizeable chunk of dosh) he has expressly taken action to avoid a trial that would have provided him with the opportunity to present evidence to support his innocence).
Does she think that getting him to pay her will make people believe he must be guilty?
No idea what she thinks: but she didn't 'get him to pay' - he offered her a settlement, presumably on legal advice that his arguments in support of his innocence were too weak to take the risk of letting a jury decide.
-
No, but there are factors that suggest he is not paying her because of guilt.
OK. What are those factors?
I find it hard to believe he's parting with millions due to a sudden philanthropic urge.
-
Trent,
The Queen's jubilee, having too much money in the first place?
-
Trent,
The Queen's jubilee, having too much money in the first place?
Given that The Firm has all but kicked him out to insulate themselves I'm not seeing that the Jubilee is a reason.
Having too much money?
Well, yes by ordinary standards he does, but he has had to sell his Swiss chalet to partly fund this remember. I don't think it's quite the case that he had Ł10 million lying around that he could just afford to pay off someone he doesn't know, for something he didn't do and something he can't remember.
-
Yet, by settling (for, by all accounts, a sizeable chunk of dosh) he has expressly taken action to avoid a trial that would have provided him with the opportunity to present evidence to support his innocence).
No idea what she thinks: but she didn't 'get him to pay' - he offered her a settlement, presumably on legal advice that his arguments in support of his innocence were too weak to take the risk of letting a jury decide.
I might be wrong, but it seems that the 'system' for trial in sexual abuse cases has the difficulty that it is often impossible for a woman to prove her allegations; indeed, the good book says (iirc) that only if a woman is heard screaming can a man be convicted of rape. The system seems to want to find a way to overcome this, and it comes across that peoples' emotions are being stirred up in Giuffre's favour.
If Andrew is up against a judicial system that is biased towards the alleged victim, it may well have been that he would be tricked into saying something that could be used against him. I don't know.
-
I might be wrong, but it seems that the 'system' for trial in sexual abuse cases has the difficulty that it is often impossible for a woman to prove her allegations;
But we're not going to hear either her evidence in support of her accusations or his evidence rebutting her allegations because he has offered a settlement in order to avoid a trial in which evidence from both parties would be presented: from that one can infer that he and his lawyers weren't prepared to run the risk of his evidence being believed by a jury to the extent that they would find on his behalf.
indeed, the good book says (iirc) that only if a woman is heard screaming can a man be convicted of rape.
Which demonstrates why this 'good book' shouldn't be taken seriously these days.
The system seems to want to find a way to overcome this, and it comes across that peoples' emotions are being stirred up in Giuffre's favour.
Really - you don't think that both the conduct of the male party involved, such as his disastrous and tone deaf TV interview, and the fact that he has offered a substantial amount of money to make the case go away aren't being taken into account by people.
If Andrew is up against a judicial system that is biased towards the alleged victim, it may well have been that he would be tricked into saying something that could be used against him. I don't know.
True: you don't know, and since the evidence won't be heard nobody outside the parties involved will know the details. That he wasn't prepared to go to trial, having recently said that he would, does I suggest not reflect well on his case. Just as that you consider that he might "be tricked" doesn't reflect well on you, given your apparent patriarchal bias.
-
I might be wrong, but it seems that the 'system' for trial in sexual abuse cases has the difficulty that it is often impossible for a woman to prove her allegations; indeed, the good book says (iirc) that only if a woman is heard screaming can a man be convicted of rape.
There are any number of issues in the way both the UK and the US legal systems prosecute rape allegations; what your book of fairy stories has to say on the issue is almost entirely irrelevant, except to the extent that it reinforces anti-Deluvian ideas that deny women much meaningful say in their sexuality or sexual activity.
The system seems to want to find a way to overcome this, and it comes across that peoples' emotions are being stirred up in Giuffre's favour.
There is little to no evidence that 'the system' is doing anything significant to try to improve the situation with regards to rape convictions; partly this is a result of the fact that it's a nuanced issue being brayed about by some of the least nuanced parts of society, but mainly because there's no significant gain for any of the people with a vested interest in the system to rocking the boat.
If Andrew is up against a judicial system that is biased towards the alleged victim, it may well have been that he would be tricked into saying something that could be used against him.
If that were the case, but it's not. In the UK, at least, the number of rape allegations to the police have increased every year since 2016, but the conviction rate continues to fall, and the rate at which cases are taken to prosecution has also fallen*. In the US the conservative estimate is that for every 1000 rapes 384 are reported to the police, only 57 result in an arrest, 11 are referred for prosecution, 7 result in a felony conviction and 6 result in incarceration**. Barely 1% of rapes reach a prosecution stage, so Ms Giuffre has already cleared an enormous number of institutional hurdles to reach this point - this is not a system that is biased against Prince Andrew, this is a system that reflects a society that has a tendency to victim-blame women who suffer sexual violence at each and every stage.
I don't know.
Evidently.
O.
* source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118)
** source - https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system)
-
As a question that's right up there with:
Is the Pope Catholic?
Do bears shit in the wood?
Will Vlad mention secularism this week?
probably not in relation to this matter.
-
probably not in relation to this matter.
Disappointed now.
Go on give it a go. Queenie is the 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'. You must be able to work with that!
-
The only relevant fact is whether or not Andrew is guilty, and since she has given no proof (as far as I know), he is still, as far as we know, innocent.
Well he may be guilty, he may not be - we cannot be certain. The 'innocent until proven guilty' is a legal construct - it actually doesn't mean that someone is actually innocent, merely that the law will consider them to be until a particular legal threshold is met. So there are plenty of guilty people who 'get away with it' - able to avoid legal sanction. That doesn't mean they are actually innocent, merely presumed to be in a legal sense as they have not been proven to be guilty. And the reverse is true - people who are actually innocent but through miscarriage of justice, found to be guilty under the law. Again that doesn't mean they are guilty, merely that they have been considered to be so in legal terms.
Does she think that getting him to pay her will make people believe he must be guilty?
I have no doubt that there will be people who will assume his guilt on the basis of him paying her. But again an assumption of guilt doesn't mean he is, or isn't actually guilty. It does impact on his reputation and that of the Royal Family however. I imagine their calculation was that the negative impact of settling out of course was likely to be less than the impact of going to trial, with evidence placed in the public domain.
-
If Andrew is up against a judicial system that is biased towards the alleged victim, it may well have been that he would be tricked into saying something that could be used against him. I don't know.
I cannot see how you can conclude that the judicial system is biased toward the victim in cases such as this. Inherently it is biased toward the alleged perpetrator, for the following reasons:.
1. The presumption of innocence - so the burden of evidence is stacked massively in favour of the alleged perpetrator and against the alleged victim - the former needs to prove nothing, the latter needs to prove the offence took place beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The nature of the crime - typically these cases rest on consent and usually (but not always) the only two witnesses are the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim. In a case of one person's word against another person's word (she says she did not consent, he says she did) it is a very challenging legal hurdle to get to 'beyond reasonable doubt' that she is telling the truth rather than him (he of course has to prove nothing).
And this is why there is such a low conviction rate in rape cases. Add to that a problematic level of victim blaming (she must have been looking for it, she want a big payout). And also add the situation in this case of massive imbalance in ability to fight the case financially and through influence/power etc.
So as far as I can see the judicial system in most rape cases is biased very much in favour of the alleged perpetrator, and even more so due to unusual circumstance of this case involving people with money, power and influence.
-
.
-
Spud, my thoughts: if Andrew was so sure of his innocence, why didn't he sue at the start of this saga.
Virginia Giuffre always said she didn't want a settlement out of court but perhaps she can see that her actions have destroyed Andrew in many ways and that his reputation is in shreds. She was so adamant about her position though, i.e. to see him court, I sense there is more to it that will never be disclosed to the public.
It's just so darn annoying that royalty, those in high places, have got away with their dastardly deeds once again.
-
2. The nature of the crime - typically these cases rest on consent and usually (but not always) the only two witnesses are the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim. In a case of one person's word against another person's word (she says she did not consent, he says she did) it is a very challenging legal hurdle to get to 'beyond reasonable doubt' that she is telling the truth rather than him (he of course has to prove nothing).
I've noted the rest of your post and others' posts. I would suggest that Roberts did consent to being exploited, at the point at which she continued to work for Epstein for two years and accepted money, including while she was over the age of consent. At age 19 she also trafficked a Thai girl to Epstein, a criminal offense.
-
I've noted the rest of your post and others' posts. I would suggest that Roberts did consent to being exploited, at the point at which she continued to work for Epstein for two years and accepted money, including while she was over the age of consent. At age 19 she also trafficked a Thai girl to Epstein, a criminal offense.
Even if she did "consent to being exploited", and we don't know that she did, and especially given her age at the time, would you have any concerns about the validity of that consent given the situation she was in at the time (i.e. she was being exploited)?
-
Even if she did "consent to being exploited", and we don't know that she did, and especially given her age at the time, would you have any concerns about the validity of that consent given the situation she was in at the time (i.e. she was being exploited)?
Yes. Incidentally, the passage I quoted yesterday from Deuteronomy 22 assumes that a betrothed virgin who has been raped, is assumed to be innocent of consenting if it took place in the countryside. It's assumed for legal purposes that she cried for help. Maybe we should assume the same here, but that she only spoke out when she was no longer being paid by Epstein, does suggest she was motivated enough by money to be, at least to an extent, complicit in what took place.
-
Yes. Incidentally, the passage I quoted yesterday from Deuteronomy 22 assumes that a betrothed virgin who has been raped, is assumed to be innocent of consenting if it took place in the countryside. It's assumed for legal purposes that she cried for help. Maybe we should assume the same here, but that she only spoke out when she was no longer being paid by Epstein, does suggest she was motivated enough by money to be, at least to an extent, complicit in what took place.
Fuck off
-
Fuck off
https://youtu.be/y0kAmmFDsZM
-
https://youtu.be/y0kAmmFDsZM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaqsOL-Nv24
-
Yes. Incidentally, the passage I quoted yesterday from Deuteronomy 22 assumes that a betrothed virgin who has been raped, is assumed to be innocent of consenting if it took place in the countryside. It's assumed for legal purposes that she cried for help. Maybe we should assume the same here, but that she only spoke out when she was no longer being paid by Epstein, does suggest she was motivated enough by money to be, at least to an extent, complicit in what took place.
Do you understand what 'trafficking' means? Do you understand power dynamics? Do you get what a conviction for grooming implies? Have you, in any way, considered the circumstances of this in anything other than the most superficial level?
When I cite figures on why rape convictions are so difficult, and attribute it in part to a societal view of women's agency in sexual matters this is the sort of horseshit response I was meaning.
O.
-
Yes. Incidentally, the passage I quoted yesterday from Deuteronomy 22 assumes that a betrothed virgin who has been raped, is assumed to be innocent of consenting if it took place in the countryside. It's assumed for legal purposes that she cried for help. Maybe we should assume the same here, but that she only spoke out when she was no longer being paid by Epstein, does suggest she was motivated enough by money to be, at least to an extent, complicit in what took place.
This post of yours is contemptible, and the sad thing is that I suspect you have no idea why.
I'd say more, but I fear if I spent longer considering what you said I'd have to immediately take a shower to remove the contamination.
-
Yes. Incidentally, the passage I quoted yesterday from Deuteronomy 22 assumes that a betrothed virgin who has been raped, is assumed to be innocent of consenting if it took place in the countryside. It's assumed for legal purposes that she cried for help. Maybe we should assume the same here, but that she only spoke out when she was no longer being paid by Epstein, does suggest she was motivated enough by money to be, at least to an extent, complicit in what took place.
Fortunately, we are not bound by the law of Moses.
-
...
I'd say more, but I fear if I spent longer considering what you said I'd have to immediately take a shower to remove the contamination.
Exactly.
On the issue generally, Personally, I can't see what difference it now makes if he or she were guilty or innocent of these accusations and counter accusations. The whole point of settling the case out of court with no criminal trial or judgment is to put a lid on matters it is not in anyone's interest to continue to resolve.
What is important is that child/sex/exploitation/trafficking networks still exist and that there are organisations and resources available to try and bring them down.
-
Court cases aren't about finding the truth - it's a game - in criminal trials it's a game as to whether the defendant's lawyer can create reasonable doubt - that's all they have to do, not prove innocence but create reasonable doubt regardless of whether their client actually committed the crime.
In civil cases there is a lower burden of proof, it will create loads of negative publicity for Andrew regardless of whether he is innocent and these cases can drag on for years and years with appeals. So it will be hanging over his head, and not only would he and his children and the rest of the family find it very stressful, Andrew would have been made to see that his extremely elderly and increasingly frail mother might not be able to cope especially now she has recently buried her husband and has to deal with Harry's anger at his father and the rest of the Royal Family - am assuming Andrew wouldn't want to be responsible for hastening his own mother's death due to stress.
Also, as a member of the Monarchy funded by the tax-payer Andrew can't do what he wants as those days are long gone. Presumably it was spelled out to him that he is mooching off the country and has to do what is in the best interests of the tax payer and the institution of the Monarchy (while it still exists) and if that means sacrificing his own reputation and retiring from public life by settling the civil case, which will lead to people thinking he is guilty of what Virginia Giuffre accused him of, so be it. I am sure Charles and WIlliam and others would have pressured him to settle. After all Andrew was the idiot hanging out with Epstein even after Epstein's criminal guilty plea and conviction and despite all the well-known allegations swirling around Epstein about trafficking under-age girls. Andrew was the idiot who did the 2019 BBC's Emily Maitlis interview where he said he did not regret his association with Epstein.
In 2015, Virginia Roberts said in a sworn affidavit that Maxwell initially approached her while she was working at Mar-a-Lago and offered to provide her with massage training. She was then brought to Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, where she said Epstein abused her beginning in 1999, when she was 15 years old. She said the abuse continued for several years, during which she says she was passed around to other famous men.
Makes sense for Andrew to settle whether he is innocent of the accusation of forcing Virginia Giuffre to have sex against her will or even if he never had sex with her at all. As there has been no criminal trial it's a he said she said scenario and so Andrew is innocent of committing a crime in the eyes of the law, although he may have been found guilty in the court of public opinion.
Many people who can't afford to pay millions will take the pragmatic approach and settle in such situations where there is so much negative publicity against them. They pay less millions in a settlement than they would have to if they lost a civil case and they don't need to go through a long, protracted civil case and subsequent appeals with the associated huge legal costs. I know I would settle in those circumstances, especially where I have been a colossal entitled idiot, even if I was innocent of the actual sex allegations. I would chalk it up to the price you pay for being a public figure with deeper pockets than the claimant. Virginia Giuffre was trafficked and someone in the establishment needs to pay - it might as well be Andrew if she happens to have a photo of him with his arm around her, even if she can't provide the original photo for examination to back up her claim. In the current #Me Too climate the accusation and the photo is enough to put Andrew in serious danger of losing a civil case (as opposed to a criminal one with its higher standard of proof).
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaqsOL-Nv24
Nope, if you have to sweat to get your point across it means your point doesn't carry enough weight to be convincing.
-
Nope, if you have to sweat to get your point across it means your point doesn't carry enough weight to be convincing.
You are so fucking wrong. There is loads of bastard research that shows the shittiness of your position. Here is one such bloody report:
https://www.sciencealert.com/swearing-is-a-sign-of-more-intelligence-not-less-say-scientists
-
Nope, if you have to sweat to get your point across it means your point doesn't carry enough weight to be convincing.
I think you've got a fucking typo in there, Spud.
-
Nope, if you have to sweat to get your point across it means your point doesn't carry enough weight to be convincing.
Is this aimed at Prince Andrew?
-
This post of yours is contemptible, and the sad thing is that I suspect you have no idea why.
I'd say more, but I fear if I spent longer considering what you said I'd have to immediately take a shower to remove the contamination.
I would be glad to put that right, and as this is partly a 'religion' forum I suggest it's relevant to think about whether the OT has anything to say about the case.
I'm guessing the latter half of the post is what bothers you.
What I meant by "Maybe we should assume the same here" is, perhaps we should assume that Giuffre is telling the truth, just as the woman in Deut 22:26 is assumed to be telling the truth and not found guilty of adultery, due to lack of evidence (it happened in the countryside). This would be wrong though - since there is no evidence that Giuffre was abused by Andrew, she cannot be assumed to be telling the truth. So I shouldn't have compared that verse with this case. I thought the verse might have meant that the woman's word should always be believed. But it doesn't mean that.
And I don't think you can assume he is guilty because he paid her money - which you seem to be doing.
By "but that she only spoke out when she was no longer being paid by Epstein, does suggest she was motivated enough by money to be, at least to an extent, complicit in what took place" I am referring to the fact that she continued working as a masseuse without saying anything. Where Deut. 22 is relevant here is that it expects a young woman to raise the alarm if she is being raped. I think it is reasonable to expect that Giuffre could have said something nearer the time, and her accusation against Andrew becomes less convincing the longer she leaves it.
We are perhaps wrong in thinking that Andrew is paying her, personally, millions; that he is offering to support her charity is perhaps a goodwill gesture.
-
I think the thread title is wrong. Getting your end away with a wiling 17-year-old is not paedophilia as normaly understood. In most countries, it's not even ilegal.
-
I think the thread title is wrong. Getting your end away with a wiling 17-year-old is not paedophilia as normaly understood. In most countries, it's not even ilegal.
I refer you to my reply #5 on the thread, and your reply #6
-
..........
Where Deut. 22 is relevant here is that it expects a young woman to raise the alarm if she is being raped. I think it is reasonable to expect that Giuffre could have said something nearer the time, and her accusation against Andrew becomes less convincing the longer she leaves it.
We are perhaps wrong in thinking that Andrew is paying her, personally, millions; that he is offering to support her charity is perhaps a goodwill gesture.
I think you should do a little more research into some other reasons why women do not immediately speak out at the time they were abused.
I think your posting of a text from Deuteronomy to illustrate your point is pretty disgusting, but I suppose we should be grateful you didn't quote Numbers 31.
-
I would be glad to put that right, and as this is partly a 'religion' forum I suggest it's relevant to think about whether the OT has anything to say about the case.
Lovely: but it doesn't, as you have already demonstrated.
I'm guessing the latter half of the post is what bothers you.
What I meant by "Maybe we should assume the same here" is, perhaps we should assume that Giuffre is telling the truth, just as the woman in Deut 22:26 is assumed to be telling the truth and not found guilty of adultery, due to lack of evidence (it happened in the countryside). This would be wrong though - since there is no evidence that Giuffre was abused by Andrew, she cannot be assumed to be telling the truth. So I shouldn't have compared that verse with this case. I thought the verse might have meant that the woman's word should always be believed. But it doesn't mean that.
Even lovelier, were it not for the simple fact that we won't get to hear any evidence from either party and sexual abuse is sexual abuse whether it occurs in the centre of George Square in Glasgow or on the banks of Loch Lomond (which is just up the road from here and most definitely "in the countryside") - hence we can ditch the OT as being of any relevance.
And I don't think you can assume he is guilty because he paid her money - which you seem to be doing.
I'm not: but I am wondering why someone who at first accused her of seeking a 'payday' and who more recently said he would see her in court, suddenly decides to settle for it seems a substantial sum that, by all accounts, he doesn't have himself. One can reasonably infer that he decided not to risk rebutting her accusations in court for, presumably, reasons that involved the possibility that the case would go against him.
By "but that she only spoke out when she was no longer being paid by Epstein, does suggest she was motivated enough by money to be, at least to an extent, complicit in what took place" I am referring to the fact that she continued working as a masseuse without saying anything.
So you don't think that her being exploited by powerful people might have deterred her from coming forward when she was still a teenager?
Where Deut. 22 is relevant here is that it expects a young woman to raise the alarm if she is being raped. I think it is reasonable to expect that Giuffre could have said something nearer the time, and her accusation against Andrew becomes less convincing the longer she leaves it.
She was being exploited at the time by powerful people and now she isn't, so presumably she now feels better able to address the exploitation she suffered as a teenager. I'm not convinced that the OT has anything relevant to say about the agency of women as regards their sexuality in current times.
We are perhaps wrong in thinking that Andrew is paying her, personally, millions; that he is offering to support her charity is perhaps a goodwill gesture.
Or he is buying her off rather that rebut her allegations in court (and in public) - which isn't a good look on any basis, and his fall from grace as administered by his mother just adds to the doubt about the credibility of his assertions of innocence.
Stop digging.
-
Lovely: but it doesn't, as you have already demonstrated.
Even lovelier, were it not for the simple fact that we won't get to hear any evidence from either party and sexual abuse is sexual abuse whether it occurs in the centre of George Square in Glasgow or on the banks of Loch Lomond (which is just up the road from here and most definitely "in the countryside") - hence we can ditch the OT as being of any relevance.
I'm not: but I am wondering why someone who at first accused her of seeking a 'payday' and who more recently said he would see her in court, suddenly decides to settle for it seems a substantial sum that, by all accounts, he doesn't have himself. One can reasonably infer that he decided not to risk rebutting her accusations in court for, presumably, reasons that involved the possibility that the case would go against him.
So you don't think that her being exploited by powerful people might have deterred her from coming forward when she was still a teenager?
She was being exploited at the time by powerful people and now she isn't, so presumably she now feels better able to address the exploitation she suffered as a teenager. I'm not convinced that the OT has anything relevant to say about the agency of women as regards their sexuality in current times.
Or he is buying her off rather that rebut her allegations in court (and in public) - which isn't a good look on any basis, and his fall from grace as administered by his mother just adds to the doubt about the credibility of his assertions of innocence.
Stop digging.
Was she was forced to continue working as a masseuse? I think she did so because she enjoyed the lifestyle and wages. Apparently this is evident from her book, but I may be wrong.
Apparently one reason for the settlement is that it would cost him less than to go to court.
Clearly she was wronged, the question is was Andrew part of that and is she seeking to profit from it.
Yesterday I took some time to read Lady Victoria Hervey's claims (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10527481/Nothing-adds-Lady-Victoria-Hervey-investigates-Duke-Virginias-photo.html) about the photo of VG in G. Maxwell's house with Prince Andrew. She produced images of photos that show VG at a party on a boat in the south of France a few months after the alleged incident in GM's house (which was March 10 2001). She is wearing the same trousers and vest in both the house and on the boat. Two pictures of her on the boat show her holding a jumper and standing among party-goers.
Firstly, how likely is it for her to have been wearing only a vest in front of an open window on the evening of 10 March, when the top temperature in London that day had reportedly been 12C and the first week of that month had seen snow and sub-zero temperatures? Secondly, the same outfit, plus a jumper, was suitable for weather in S France two months later. Thirdly, another photo from VH shows G Maxwell by herself in the doorway but without PA and VG.
This suggests her main evidence, the photo, which Andrew claims he has no recollection of, is faked.
-
You are so
There are plenty of intelligent people who don't swear.
-
Was she was forced to continue working as a masseuse? I think she did so because she enjoyed the lifestyle and wages. Apparently this is evident from her book, but I may be wrong.
Apparently one reason for the settlement is that it would cost him less than to go to court.
Clearly she was wronged, the question is was Andrew part of that and is she seeking to profit from it.
Yesterday I took some time to read Lady Victoria Hervey's claims (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10527481/Nothing-adds-Lady-Victoria-Hervey-investigates-Duke-Virginias-photo.html) about the photo of VG in G. Maxwell's house with Prince Andrew. She produced images of photos that show VG at a party on a boat in the south of France a few months after the alleged incident in GM's house (which was March 10 2001). She is wearing the same trousers and vest in both the house and on the boat. Two pictures of her on the boat show her holding a jumper and standing among party-goers.
Firstly, how likely is it for her to have been wearing only a vest in front of an open window on the evening of 10 March, when the top temperature in London that day had reportedly been 12C and the first week of that month had seen snow and sub-zero temperatures? Secondly, the same outfit, plus a jumper, was suitable for weather in S France two months later. Thirdly, another photo from VH shows G Maxwell by herself in the doorway but without PA and VG.
This suggests her main evidence, the photo, which Andrew claims he has no recollection of, is faked.
All of which would have been addressed during a court case, which he has paid a lot of money to avoid.
-
There are plenty of intelligent people who don't swear.
And millions more who do. Swearing is no indication whatever of a person's intellectual or moral capacity. Try it some time - it might improve your blood pressure and psychological health. It might even help you think better
-
All of which would have been addressed during a court case, which he has paid a lot of money to avoid.
It would have been more expensive to go to court so he saved money by settling.
The legal fees would have been huge if he went to court and the personal information Andrew would have to reveal to defend himself and all the members of his family and friends who would have been required to attend to testify or to provide statements and may be subjected to having their personal information all over the papers - it's an absolute headache for not just Andrew but his kids, his relatives, his friends. Many people bank on the people they sue making just that calculation and paying them off rather than going to court. If her priority was establishing the truth she would refused the settlement.
If Andrew lost he might have to pay costs for both sides. The court award if he lost may have been bigger than his current settlement pay-out. If he won, she would probably have appealed, which means more legal costs, time and headache for him defending the appeal.
I wouldn't read too much into Andrew settling - he is being pragmatic. I wouldn't put my friends and family through a civil court case - I would just settle regardless of the truth.
-
It would have been more expensive to go to court so he saved money by settling.
The legal fees would have been huge if he went to court and the personal information Andrew would have to reveal to defend himself and all the members of his family and friends who would have been required to attend to testify or to provide statements and may be subjected to having their personal information all over the papers - it's an absolute headache for not just Andrew but his kids, his relatives, his friends. Many people bank on the people they sue making just that calculation and paying them off rather than going to court. If her priority was establishing the truth she would refused the settlement.
If Andrew lost he might have to pay costs for both sides. The court award if he lost may have been bigger than his current settlement pay-out. If he won, she would probably have appealed, which means more legal costs, time and headache for him defending the appeal.
I wouldn't read too much into Andrew settling - he is being pragmatic. I wouldn't put my friends and family through a civil court case - I would just settle regardless of the truth.
Because when he said he was at Pizza Express no one noticed he was there.
-
Because when he said he was at Pizza Express no one noticed he was there.
Yup pretty much that's all it takes to be guilty.
In an ideal world it would require some actual evidence of guilt before people are found liable or guilty of something.
But in the real world that's not how it works. In the absence of any actual evidence of breaking any laws that would lead to a criminal trial, it's a civil case which is decided on a balance of probabilities and it's "he said she said" and that's a big risk to take in a long-drawn out civil court case with potential for multiple appeals and bad publicity while the case continues.
I wouldn't put my family through that. Especially not my kids if they are forced to fly to the US to testify on my behalf - it's messy and expensive and what do you gain? Even if he was in a Pizza restaurant, nothing stopping him from going to a party after. People don't document every moment in order to be able to recall where they were whereby they can prove it in court. All it takes is for the question "is it possible......" and the jury has something to hang your guilt on if they don't like you. Lots of people make up their minds on things without needing any actual objective evidence.
-
Yup pretty much that's all it takes to be guilty.
In an ideal world it would require some actual evidence of guilt before people are found liable or guilty of something.
But in the real world that's not how it works. In the absence of any actual evidence of breaking any laws that would lead to a criminal trial, it's a civil case which is decided on a balance of probabilities and it's "he said she said" and that's a big risk to take in a long-drawn out civil court case with potential for multiple appeals and bad publicity while the case continues.
I wouldn't put my family through that. Especially not my kids if they are forced to fly to the US to testify on my behalf - it's messy and expensive and what do you gain? Even if he was in a Pizza restaurant, nothing stopping him from going to a party after. People don't document every moment in order to be able to recall where they were whereby they can prove it in court. All it takes is for the question "is it possible......" and the jury has something to hang your guilt on if they don't like you. Lots of people make up their minds on things without needing any actual objective evidence.
Sorry, that's drivel. You're implyimg that asking a question about Andrea's statements is then an assumption of guilt.
-
Sorry, that's drivel. You're implyimg that asking a question about Andrea's statements is then an assumption of guilt.
Assumption of guilt by the person asking the question? No I am not implying that.
I am talking about the unpredictability of a court case and the absence of any actual evidence linking him to doing anything illegal with Virginia. People can ask all the questions they want - it just gets a lot more expensive to answer those questions if you need a lawyer because someone is suing you.
-
Assumption of guilt by the person asking the question? No I am not implying that.
I am talking about the unpredictability of a court case and the absence of any actual evidence linking him to doing anything illegal with Virginia. People can ask all the questions they want - it just gets a lot more expensive to answer those questions if you need a lawyer because someone is suing you.
You do not know that there is an absence of any actual evidence.
-
You do not know that there is an absence of any actual evidence.
No I don't.
I just mean from my perspective, commenting on this board, there is a presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence having been presented in the public forum to the contrary. That is not to say the person is innocent - but if I have not been presented with any evidence of wrong-doing it would just be speculation to assume they are guilty of anything other than being an entitled irritating twat or dancing with someone or hanging out with the wrong people - I haven't seen any evidence that he had sex with an under-aged Virgina, though he might well have had sex with lots of people where it wasn't illegal. So I don't know. Even where I was speculating about Harry and Meghan it wasn't in relation to them doing anything criminal.
Andrew is a high profile figure and the photo is not exactly a smoking gun even if it is not faked and apparently Virgina does not have the original photo so who knows. Do we even know where the photo came from? I haven't been following it closely - did someone give her the photo? Or has she been keeping it all this time and if so why, as putting your arm around someone isn't illegal.
-
Because when he said he was at Pizza Express no one noticed he was there.
He also implied he was at home with the children in the evening because his wife was away.
-
Regarding the photo: Someone pointed out on Youtube that if you zoom in using a PC to about 400-500%, you can see a mark on her cleavage. It looks like a computer icon of some sort, as though the image of her has been moved into position using a cursor.
-
He also implied he was at home with the children in the evening because his wife was away.
and?
-
Regarding the photo: Someone pointed out on Youtube that if you zoom in using a PC to about 400-500%, you can see a mark on her cleavage. It looks like a computer icon of some sort, as though the image of her has been moved into position using a cursor.
'someone pointed out on youtube'....
-
Regarding the photo: Someone pointed out on Youtube that if you zoom in using a PC to about 400-500%, you can see a mark on her cleavage. It looks like a computer icon of some sort, as though the image of her has been moved into position using a cursor.
Because
a) people trying to take on the Royal Family hire second-rate photoshoppers;
b) YouTuber 'some random' has access to the originals to blow up to 500% effectively; and,
c) 20 year old photographs were taken with cameras that had high enough density images to be blown up to 500%.
Or, of course, YouTube is only not the worst possible place to be researching this because Twatter is also a thing.
O.
-
Regarding the photo: Someone pointed out on Youtube that if you zoom in using a PC to about 400-500%, you can see a mark on her cleavage. It looks like a computer icon of some sort, as though the image of her has been moved into position using a cursor.
Oh, come on! That's stretching it a bit! Straying into the realms of conspiracy-theory, I feel, like the people who point to fleeting, blurry images in the footage of 9/11 to "prove" it was a government inside job.
-
'someone pointed out on youtube'....
Aye, they did. I wouldn't have noticed, if they didn't.
-
In This shot of Ghislaine by herself (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/02/16/13/54263295-10518737-The_44_year_old_went_on_to_share_what_appeared_to_be_an_edited_v-m-39_1645018558611.jpg) the entire door frame can be seen.
Here is the fake (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/02/15/16/53107635-10515637-Prince_Andrew_and_Virginia_Roberts_stand_together_with_Ghislaine-a-122_1644941310011.jpg) with the door frame completely missing except a little on the lower right side.
Edit: Uncropped photo of all three (https://static.independent.co.uk/2022/02/07/17/Screen%20Shot%202022-02-07%20at%2012.23.34%20PM.png?quality=75&width=982&height=726&auto=webp)
-
In This shot of Ghislaine by herself (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/02/16/13/54263295-10518737-The_44_year_old_went_on_to_share_what_appeared_to_be_an_edited_v-m-39_1645018558611.jpg) the entire door frame can be seen.
Here is the fake (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/02/15/16/53107635-10515637-Prince_Andrew_and_Virginia_Roberts_stand_together_with_Ghislaine-a-122_1644941310011.jpg) with the door frame completely missing except a little on the lower right side.
It's not a fake, it's just a different picture taken at a different time on the same day - if you look at her arms she's adopting a different stance, the angle along the hallway is different.
O.
-
It's not a fake, it's just a different picture taken at a different time on the same day - if you look at her arms she's adopting a different stance, the angle along the hallway is different.
O.
It's a bit odd though - in the photo with Andrew there is a framed picture over his shoulder on the wall and in the one without Andrew there is no picture on the wall.
-
It's a bit odd though - in the photo with Andrew there is a framed picture over his shoulder on the wall and in the one without Andrew there is no picture on the wall.
It doesn't look odd at all, the second picture is taken from further forward and further left, and the picture is out of frame - if you look to the right of the doorway, the scope of the second shot doesn't even reach the corner, let alone show any of the wall where the picture is hung.
O.
-
It's not a fake, it's just a different picture taken at a different time on the same day - if you look at her arms she's adopting a different stance, the angle along the hallway is different.
O.
Ah, sorry - I linked to a cropped photo, which didn't show the door-surround. Just found an uncropped one in which it can be seen.
When you compare the lower part of both photos, you can faintly make out the outline of Virginia's left leg in the one with Ghislaine alone. It looks like Virginia has possibly been erased.
photo of all three (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mystery-thumb-revealed-original-uncropped-25966319)
-
I found this article on the matter of the photo - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/no-way-photo-of-prince-andrew-with-arm-around-accuser-virginia-giuffre-is-fake-photographer-who-copied-image-says-a4302716.html
I had not seen the 2 photos before, where you could compare them to each other.
According to the article we got Andrew saying it is a photo of a photo and that is what has been released to the public. We have a photographer who claims he saw the original and is convinced that a woman (teen or otherwise) could not be underhand enough to casually plant a fake photo in a group of photos, knowing it would be discovered. I am not sexist so if it's possible Andrew could have had sex with a trafficked minor then it is equally possible that Virginia could have doctored a photo. Women have been known to lie and make up allegations about people. That doesn't mean she wasn't trafficked and hasn't had a tough life dealing with the trauma of that.
The court document says the FBI received photos and they were scanned but doesn't say what the outcome of the investigation was and whether they confirmed that they had received an original un-doctored photo.
Then there is the mystery of the framed picture over Andrew's shoulder that has disappeared in the shot with Ghislaine alone.
Now I have seen both photos together it's not very convincing to me that the picture with Andrew is genuine - it's starting to look more fake the more I look at it, so yeah - I'll go with I don't know what to believe.
But it doesn't matter anymore as they both agreed a settlement, which means neither needs to go to court and have their personal lives raked over for the gratification of the media to sell stories. Like I said I would have settled in Andrew's position regardless of the truth. Court cases are about what you can prove and also about what you can reveal and suggest to damage people. There will be people who believe the accusations against Andrew and are unlikely to change their minds. There will be people who believe Andrew. And there will be people who just don't know.
In the current era of fake news, conspiracy theories etc even if something is true it can be easily dismissed and the world moves on to the next sensational news story.
-
It doesn't look odd at all, the second picture is taken from further forward and further left, and the picture is out of frame - if you look to the right of the doorway, the scope of the second shot doesn't even reach the corner, let alone show any of the wall where the picture is hung.
O.
I am referring to the picture to the left of the doorway, partially obscured by Andrew's shoulder and back - the one above his shoulder and to the left of his back.
-
In This shot of Ghislaine by herself (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/02/16/13/54263295-10518737-The_44_year_old_went_on_to_share_what_appeared_to_be_an_edited_v-m-39_1645018558611.jpg) the entire door frame can be seen.
Here is the fake (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/02/15/16/53107635-10515637-Prince_Andrew_and_Virginia_Roberts_stand_together_with_Ghislaine-a-122_1644941310011.jpg) with the door frame completely missing except a little on the lower right side.
Hmmm... There does seem to be some jiggery-pokery going on. However, I'm more inclined to think that Andrew and his inamorata have been removed from one picture than that they've been added to the other. The version with la Maxwell on her own looks curiously empty. There is indeed an odd black spot on VG's left tit, but that could be anything.
-
Yeah - not sure which photo may have been altered.
-
Yeah - not sure which photo may have been altered.
Suspect the one with just her is altered - weird effects on her left profile as you look at her - the part which in the other photo is covered so would need to be added in. Also the picture behind Andrew - easier to completely erase it in a doctored photo than to try to recreate the part you cannot see, as there will be people who know what the picture actually is.
There was a similar situation with the Boris Xmas party photos where there was a crude attempt to remove the bottle of bubbly and the tinsel around the colleagues neck. The dead give-away was that in another photo the tinsel guy is clearly show to have a shirt with a collar, but you can't see the collar in this photo as it is covered by the tinsel. When the photo-alterers removed the tinsel they forgot to recreate the shirt collar (or perhaps it was too difficult to do).
-
Suspect the one with just her is altered - weird effects on her left profile as you look at her - the part which in the other photo is covered so would need to be added in. Also the picture behind Andrew - easier to completely erase it in a doctored photo than to try to recreate the part you cannot see, as there will be people who know what the picture actually is.
There was a similar situation with the Boris Xmas party photos where there was a crude attempt to remove the bottle of bubbly and the tinsel around the colleagues neck. The dead give-away was that in another photo the tinsel guy is clearly show to have a shirt with a collar, but you can't see the collar in this photo as it is covered by the tinsel. When the photo-alterers removed the tinsel they forgot to recreate the shirt collar (or perhaps it was too difficult to do).
Yes I think you're right. Now looking at it I think the one of Ghislaine by herself looks more fake.
Ghislaine's boobs look very weird and not as natural as in the photo with all 3 of them;
Her hand that is visible looks the same as in the photo with all 3 of them where her hands are clasped, but in the photo by herself the other hand is now missing;
Her top looks weirdly out of shape where it was covered before by Virgina's arm before;
There seems to be the edge of a chair back by the window in the space between Virginia's arm and her body that is missing in the photo of Ghislaine by herself.
-
Virginia Roberts was said to have had someone take the photograph with her own instamatic camera and that is why it was found amongst her photos. Guess we'll never know unless someone comes forward to verify.her claim.
-
Taking away all the legalities it was still bribery on Andrew's part to settle out of court. The old, 'I'll pay you a huge sum of money to shut-up and go away'.
-
Ghislaine's boobs look very weird and not as natural as in the photo with all 3 of them;
Three boobs? Now that is weird. ???
-
The court document says the FBI received photos and they were scanned but doesn't say what the outcome of the investigation was and whether they confirmed that they had received an original un-doctored photo.
Could there be a link between the FBI being involved, Bill Clinton being one of the people who visited Epstein and Hilary hoping to run for president again?
I found this (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9045081/Inside-house-Virginia-Roberts-Prince-Andrew-sex-bath-tub-small.html) by the Daily Mail. Virginia claimed the bath tub was Victorian and in the middle of the bathroom, but the size of the room as shown in a house plan proves this could not be true.
Also, she was over the age of consent in England, and she says she seduced him...
-
Taking away all the legalities it was still bribery on Andrew's part to settle out of court. The old, 'I'll pay you a huge sum of money to shut-up and go away'.
It's a civil case so the parties are usually encouraged to settle out o court rather than push up the legal bills by going to court. Virginia would have only ever got money if she would have won her case. Here she gets less money but it's less risky for her than going to court where she might lose her case.
If it was a criminal case then it would be a different matter for Andrew to pay her to not co-operate with the authorities to bring a criminal prosecution against him.
-
Three boobs? Now that is weird. ???
:D Three people...but the way the photo is starting to look it could just as easily be three boobs.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Y1-KAUwaA
Infrared image analysis shows "virtually no flash light highlights on Andrew's face seen under infrared but can be seen on Virginia's face". Maybe the photo of Andrew was taken in daylight?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Y1-KAUwaA
Infrared image analysis shows "virtually no flash light highlights on Andrew's face seen under infrared but can be seen on Virginia's face". Maybe the photo of Andrew was taken in daylight?
Or maybe the flash was pointing directly at her, and not at him. Why are you so keen to get the randy little polecat off the hook?
-
Or maybe the flash was pointing directly at her, and not at him.
Her face is brightly illuminated, his is not at all. They are definitely not the same picture, in my opinion.
Why are you so keen to get the randy little polecat off the hook?
He may be randy, but so are lots of people. You don't mind about them because they aren't royal. Andrew as a royal is expected to be 'perfect' (happily married etc); only a few royals are though. And being randy doesn't make this particular accusation true.
I don't know all the details available, but have seen enough to be sure that it is her that is guilty.
Lady Colin Campbell (not someone I can usually listen to) pointed out that the day in question was a cold one and that in the photo Virginia is wearing summer clothes, the same as she wore at Naomi Campbell's party in St Tropez, May 22. Thus it is reasonable to suspect that the photo is fake,
Virginia made up details about the bathroom, since proved false; she said they drank cocktails at a nightclub, also likely false as he is know to have been teetotal.
-
Her face is brightly illuminated, his is not at all. They are definitely not the same picture, in my opinion.
And you are an expert, are you Spud.
The video you linked to provides zero information - there is no explanation whatsoever. There is nothing to demonstrate that this is somehow infrared, nor what this might mean were it to be. Given that this photo presumably wasn't taken using infrared sensitive film (or sensor) then what on earth is it supposed to show.
-
And you are an expert, are you Spud.
The video you linked to provides zero information - there is no explanation whatsoever. There is nothing to demonstrate that this is somehow infrared, nor what this might mean were it to be. Given that this photo presumably wasn't taken using infrared sensitive film (or sensor) then what on earth is it supposed to show.
It seems fairly clear that her face was brightly illuminated by something, whereas his wasn't. Someone else (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7rPPBfsbss) also thinks the photo of Andrew was taken in daylight.
-
It seems fairly clear that her face was brightly illuminated by something, whereas his wasn't. Someone else (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7rPPBfsbss) also thinks the photo of Andrew was taken in daylight.
No it doesn't - even if that photo shows infrared, and there is no explanation why it should, why would the notion that her face looks a bit brighter with whatever filter has been used suggest what you claim. Just as likely is that her skin is somewhat paler and more reflective than his, as she is a teenager and he is a 50 year old.
And there is no evidence that the photo was captured using infrared sensitive film, so the notion that you can tell anything from the photo itself is seriously stretching credulity.
-
she is a teenager and he is a 50 year old
He was 41 I think. Infrared aside, what do you make of the 'silver lining' around his head? It is also around his backside, it obscures the lines on the wall in the background, if you zoom in. Not something I've found on genuine photos.
-
He was 41 I think.
Hardly a major difference - he is over twice her age, so wouldn't be unexpected that they have different skin reflectiveness.
Infrared aside, what do you make of the 'silver lining' around his head? It is also around his backside, it obscures the lines on the wall in the background, if you zoom in. Not something I've found on genuine photos.
I have no idea - the 'silver lining' as you call it isn't in the original photo - it is only in this weird manipulated version of the photo. And given that neither you, nor the video clip explains what manipulation has been performed to generate this altered photo then it is impossible to speculate as to the significance or otherwise of anything that is apparently revealed by this manipulation.
-
I have no idea - the 'silver lining' as you call it isn't in the original photo - it is only in this weird manipulated version of the photo.
See if you can see it in this photo (https://static.independent.co.uk/2022/02/07/17/Screen%20Shot%202022-02-07%20at%2012.23.34%20PM.png?quality=75&width=982&height=726&auto=webp). It's white rather than silver.
-
See if you can see it in this photo (https://static.independent.co.uk/2022/02/07/17/Screen%20Shot%202022-02-07%20at%2012.23.34%20PM.png?quality=75&width=982&height=726&auto=webp). It's white rather than silver.
But what you are looking at is just a standard 'halo' effect which you often get when there is a high level of contrast at an edge of an object, just as a darker object on a white background.
https://www.duncanfawkes.com/blog/avoiding-halos
'Halos are bands of light (or dark) that follow edges in an image. They are most prominent along high contrast edges such as when the land meets the sky. '
So you see this more on Andrew as his head is entirely against a bright white background and it is most pronounced around his hair as there is the greatest contrast. As Virginia is largely against a darker background there is not so much contrast so you don't see the effect. However if you zoom in you can see exactly the same effect where her hair is contrasted against the white background.
Keep clutching those straws Spud.
-
It is also around his backside ...
Which is just what you'd expect as that is another high contrast boundary.
But you can see the same effect at the boundary between the black mantlepiece and the white wall on the right hand side of the photo. And where Virginia's arm is in front of Gislaine's white top.
-
Which is just what you'd expect as that is another high contrast boundary.
But you can see the same effect at the boundary between the black mantlepiece and the white wall on the right hand side of the photo. And where Virginia's arm is in front of Gislaine's white top.
Yes I see what you mean. But that effect could still happen if the photo had been edited, I presume? Anyway if you say so I will clutch another straw: her hand is quite white, presumably from the flash. Why aren't Andrew's?
-
Yes I see what you mean. But that effect could still happen if the photo had been edited, I presume? Anyway if you say so I will clutch another straw: her hand is quite white, presumably from the flash. Why aren't Andrew's?
I see you've withdrawn the non-sense about a handbag being removed, for which you have zero evidence. Clearly you failed to grab that particular straw.
Why are her hands paler - presumably because her whole skin tone is lighter - Andrew looks pretty ruddy cheeked as you might of expect someone of 40 who has access to plenty of skiing, beach sun and good living, compared to a fresh skinned blond teenager.
Keep clutching at those straws Spud.
-
I see you've withdrawn the non-sense about a handbag being removed, for which you have zero evidence. Clearly you failed to grab that particular straw.
Why are her hands paler - presumably because her whole skin tone is lighter - Andrew looks pretty ruddy cheeked as you might of expect someone of 40 who has access to plenty of skiing, beach sun and good living, compared to a fresh skinned blond teenager.
Keep clutching at those straws Spud.
Yes, I deleted my comment about the possible handbag strap because I looked again and decided it was more like hair. But now I'm questioning that.
But regarding VG's hand, why is it so white? "Young skin" doesn't make sense: it should be darker than the arm, which would be less tanned in March when the picture was supposedly taken. Maybe the light somehow reflected off it more strongly? Compare it with Maxwell's hands too. I suspect that in the original photo of VG, she was leaning on something, and the hand and wrist have been realigned.
Something else: maybe there is an explanation, but why is Andrew's left hand forefinger longer than his middle finger?
-
Andrew is apparently 6' tall and she is 5'5". So he is 18cm or 7" taller than she is. I make the difference about 4 or 5 inches in the photo.
-
Andrew is apparently 6' tall and she is 5'5". So he is 18cm or 7" taller than she is. I make the difference about 4 or 5 inches in the photo.
Maybe she was wearing heels or thick soles. Your determination to find non-existant evidence of photo-manipulation in the one with them in is getting increasingly desperate and conspiracy-theoryish. Give it a rest. You just make yourself look foolish.https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/26/cal-forensics-expert-casts-doubt-on-prince-andrews-claim-sex-slave-photo-was-faked/
-
Maybe she was wearing heels or thick soles. Your determination to find non-existant evidence of photo-manipulation in the one with them in is getting increasingly desperate and conspiracy-theoryish. Give it a rest. You just make yourself look foolish.https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/26/cal-forensics-expert-casts-doubt-on-prince-andrews-claim-sex-slave-photo-was-faked/
We've both decided who we think is telling the truth. Let's just focus on the facts, shall we? In this case, we don't know if she was wearing heels or standing on Ghislaine's tortoise, but the inconsistency weighs in favour of it being a fake, imo.
Are you afraid Andrew might be innocent? If you want to bring down the monarchy, at least do them the honour of getting the facts straight. I agree they can be annoying, but I also did the Dof E award so have respect for them.
-
Try zooming in, Steve, and check out the forefinger on his left hand. It seems about 95% likely that a pink extension has been added to it. Someone might do this to make it look more like the hand is tightly around her waist. Or, I would say about 5% likely, it might be a natural mark of some kind. Again, this strongly suggests fakery.
-
I don't give a damn whether he's innocent or guilty, but I don't see why anyone would manufacture fake photographic evidence against him.
-
Spud
It doesn't matter now anyway - it was being reported yesterday that Andrew has paid up and the case had been settled.
So any opportunity to have the photograph seriously examined on the basis that it is an item of evidence has now gone - therefore, maybe save your energy and forget about it since, as I said, it doesn't matter anymore.
-
We've both decided who we think is telling the truth. Let's just focus on the facts, shall we? In this case, we don't know if she was wearing heels or standing on Ghislaine's tortoise, but the inconsistency weighs in favour of it being a fake, imo.
You are entitled to your opinion Spud, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.
There is nothing in that photo that provides strong evidence to suggest anything other than it is genuine. You can make up stuff all you like but that isn't going to change the reality.
And the photo has been knocking about for years - so any doctoring would have been performed using the fairly basic photo-shop available over a decade ago. That would be easy to spot. And the provenance of the photo strongly suggests it is genuine. So from the journalist who first revealed it:
'Journalist Michael Thomas, who was the first to copy the photograph in 2011, is convinced the picture is genuine because he found it in the middle of a bundle of photographs.
"It wasn't like she pulled the photo of Prince Andrew out, it was just in among the rest of them," he said.
"They were just typical teenage snaps. There's no way that photo is fake".'
-
You are entitled to your opinion Spud, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.
There is nothing in that photo that provides strong evidence to suggest anything other than it is genuine.
Except the anomalous finger I have not had a response about yet. That is visible to the naked eye, and because there is no other logical reason for it, is strong evidence for editing. Until it is proved to be genuine there is no need for me to give more evidence. The picture has been edited.
And the photo has been knocking about for years - so any doctoring would have been performed using the fairly basic photo-shop available over a decade ago. That would be easy to spot. And the provenance of the photo strongly suggests it is genuine. So from the journalist who first revealed it:
'Journalist Michael Thomas, who was the first to copy the photograph in 2011, is convinced the picture is genuine because he found it in the middle of a bundle of photographs.
"It wasn't like she pulled the photo of Prince Andrew out, it was just in among the rest of them," he said.
"They were just typical teenage snaps. There's no way that photo is fake".'
Photoshopping is very clever, but always leaves evidence for the trained eye, according to several experts.
-
Except the anomalous finger I have not had a response about yet.
What anomalous finger? The one clutching the straws no doubt.
That is visible to the naked eye,
Indeed it is and I can't see anything odd about it and because there is no other logical reason for it
Except that it is a perfectly normal finger held in a normal position that means it appears to protrude further forward than the other fingers. Easy to replicate - I just did it myself by holding a glass.
, is strong evidence for editing.
No it isn't unless you have a very febrile imagination.
Until it is proved to be genuine there is no need for me to give more evidence. The picture has been edited.
Misunderstanding the burden of proof - as you are claiming the photo to be a fake the onus is on you to provide that evidence. So far you (and others) have provided no credible evidence that it is a fake.
Photoshopping is very clever, but always leaves evidence for the trained eye, according to several experts.
Indeed - but credible experts have found none of the supposed tell-tell signed of manipulation. Photographic experts seem to think it is genuine.
-
What anomalous finger? The one clutching the straws no doubt.
Indeed it is and I can't see anything odd about it Except that it is a perfectly normal finger held in a normal position that means it appears to protrude further forward than the other fingers. Easy to replicate - I just did it myself by holding a glass.
No it isn't unless you have a very febrile imagination.
Misunderstanding the burden of proof - as you are claiming the photo to be a fake the onus is on you to provide that evidence. So far you (and others) have provided no credible evidence that it is a fake.
Indeed - but credible experts have found none of the supposed tell-tell signed of manipulation. Photographic experts seem to think it is genuine.
The finger has been extended - look again.
In the photo, the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint (that's the joint in the middle of the finger) of Andrew's left forefinger is in line with the other three; if you try to replicate its position with your own hand, your PIP joint will move forward, out of line with the others. It's photo shopped.
The shadows also give the faker away because they completely obscure what they are covering. Real shadows don't usually do this.
-
The finger has been extended - look again.
In the photo, the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint (that's the joint in the middle of the finger) of Andrew's left forefinger is in line with the other three; if you try to replicate its position with your own hand, your PIP joint will move forward, out of line with the others. It's photo shopped.
The shadows also give the faker away because they completely obscure what they are covering. Real shadows don't usually do this.
Multiple experts have collectively suggested that:
a) it's an inexpert photograph of an amateur photograph, and therefore difficult to be definitive; but,
b) there's nothing immediately apparent to suggest that it's been manipulated.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it begins to look less humble when you maintain that position despite the best estimations of experts in the field.
O.
-
The finger has been extended - look again.
I have - and my specialism is related to orthopaedics so I'm completely aware of the movement of joints and skeletal elements.
In the photo, the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint (that's the joint in the middle of the finger)
No need to explain to me anatomy of the skeleton - see above.
of Andrew's left forefinger is in line with the other three; if you try to replicate its position with your own hand, your PIP joint will move forward, out of line with the others.
Not necessarily - it entirely depends on the overall position of the hand and the angle of the photo.
It's photo shopped.
If that is the case and your febrile imagination above is correct then why on earth would the photoshopper add it in this manner rather than simply add the image of a 'normal' hand. If it is so difficult to position your hand in that manner surely it would be difficult for the photoshopper to find a hand with that position to add to the photo. Note that the finger lengths are irrelevant to the key feature of that photo - that he has his arm around her and his hand against her waist.
The shadows also give the faker away because they completely obscure what they are covering. Real shadows don't usually do this.
Again - massive straw clutching - I (and other experts) can see nothing out of place in terms of the shadows for a photo taken on a small camera in a lit room and with a flash - there are, of course, multiple sources of light and therefore multiple sources to generate shadow.
-
I have - and my specialism is related to orthopaedics so I'm completely aware of the movement of joints and skeletal elements.
No need to explain to me anatomy of the skeleton - see above.
Not necessarily - it entirely depends on the overall position of the hand and the angle of the photo.
If that is the case and your febrile imagination above is correct then why on earth would the photoshopper add it in this manner rather than simply add the image of a 'normal' hand. If it is so difficult to position your hand in that manner surely it would be difficult for the photoshopper to find a hand with that position to add to the photo. Note that the finger lengths are irrelevant to the key feature of that photo - that he has his arm around her and his hand against her waist.
Again - massive straw clutching - I (and other experts) can see nothing out of place in terms of the shadows for a photo taken on a small camera in a lit room and with a flash - there are, of course, multiple sources of light and therefore multiple sources to generate shadow.
I think you'll see if you look closely again that the outline of the forefinger is visible but more has been added to the end of it. The colour of the added bit is slightly different. You're right that it could still be Andrew's hand, with the extra added to it. But it still shows that the picture has been edited. And one still has to explain why his hands are not lit up by the flash whereas hers are. This makes most sense if the images of him and her are from two different photographs.
Regarding the shadows, if you can see any sign of the white window frame behind the shadow made by her hair and torso then fine; since we can't, the best explanation is that the shadow has been edited in.
-
Cui bono, Spud? Who has an interest in framing Andrew, strong enough to do what an expert says would be a very difficult photo-manipulation to do convincingly?
-
I think you'll see if you look closely again that the outline of the forefinger is visible but more has been added to the end of it. The colour of the added bit is slightly different. You're right that it could still be Andrew's hand, with the extra added to it. But it still shows that the picture has been edited. And one still has to explain why his hands are not lit up by the flash whereas hers are. This makes most sense if the images of him and her are from two different photographs.
Regarding the shadows, if you can see any sign of the white window frame behind the shadow made by her hair and torso then fine; since we can't, the best explanation is that the shadow has been edited in.
I think you need to spend a little less time in the company of conspiracy theory nuts Spud.
Just listen to yourself - you've jumped to a conclusion and you are desperately trying to make up stuff that isn't there.
There is no credible evidence to suggest that the photo is anything other than genuine.
-
I think you need to spend a little less time in the company of conspiracy theory nuts Spud.
Just listen to yourself - you've jumped to a conclusion and you are desperately trying to make up stuff that isn't there.
The brightness of his hands and hers may not be strong evidence, but the finger 'stuff' as you call it certainly is there. Why would someone try to make a finger look longer? The only reason I can think of is to make it look like he is groping her. If so, then we have a motive: the faker is trying to frame him.
There is no credible evidence to suggest that the photo is anything other than genuine.
The shadows from Virginia should, according to one Youtuber, be semitranslucent. and wider, since she is pictured as standing quite far from the surface they are falling on (the window).
There is also the problem that the far left wall is brightly lit, with all the detail of the banister visible. But when you look between Virginia's legs and between her legs and Ghislaine's, There is very dark background with no detail. Why are those areas not illuninated, indeed why can we barely make out Ghislaine's legs if the flash illuminated the left wall so brightly?
Edit: In fact, The detail in the two white walls on the bottom left and bottom right of the picture are clearly visible. But the region in between the walls (the legs of the three people) has been obscured by some kind of smudge.
-
There's also unnatural fading of the curtain rail at its left hand end (contrast this with the sharpness of the white wooden window frame below it).
-
There's also unnatural fading of the curtain rail at its left hand end (contrast this with the sharpness of the white wooden window frame below it).
No. That's just to do with the way the light is distributed and blocked by the top of the inner door. Stop clutching.
-
The brightness of his hands and hers may not be strong evidence, but the finger 'stuff' as you call it certainly is there. Why would someone try to make a finger look longer? The only reason I can think of is to make it look like he is groping her. If so, then we have a motive: the faker is trying to frame him.
The shadows from Virginia should, according to one Youtuber, be semitranslucent. and wider, since she is pictured as standing quite far from the surface they are falling on (the window).
There is also the problem that the far left wall is brightly lit, with all the detail of the banister visible. But when you look between Virginia's legs and between her legs and Ghislaine's, There is very dark background with no detail. Why are those areas not illuninated, indeed why can we barely make out Ghislaine's legs if the flash illuminated the left wall so brightly?
Edit: In fact, The detail in the two white walls on the bottom left and bottom right of the picture are clearly visible. But the region in between the walls (the legs of the three people) has been obscured by some kind of smudge.
Yawn.
-
There's also unnatural fading of the curtain rail at its left hand end (contrast this with the sharpness of the white wooden window frame below it).
Double yawn.
-
No. That's just to do with the way the light is distributed and blocked by the top of the inner door. Stop clutching.
The left end of the curtain rail is a bit ambiguous, but it looks to me as if there isn't enough shadow to make it that faint.
But try analyzing the photo using Forensically (https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#forensic-magnifier): save the photo to your computer, then on Forensically, click 'open file', then load the photo. If you scroll down the menu at the right of the page, click on Luminescence Gradient then hover the mouse over that area of the photo. You'll notice that the white window frame stops at the edge of where the door frame shadow is. It should be faintly visible behind the shadow.
-
FFS, taters, enough wth the bonkers conspiracy-theories already!
-
FFS, taters, enough wth the bonkers conspiracy-theories already!
Hope you don't mind if I refer you to this video for a detailed analysis of the photo. At 48 minutes in, he shows an example of how a natural shadow looks, in a different photo, and then contrasts it with the shadow of Giuffre in the photo with Andrew.
https://youtu.be/FIGMemUM9xI
-
Hope you don't mind if I refer you to this video for a detailed analysis of the photo. At 48 minutes in, he shows an example of how a natural shadow looks, in a different photo, and then contrasts it with the shadow of Giuffre in the photo with Andrew.
https://youtu.be/FIGMemUM9xI
Yea, yea. All very interesting.
Question: why didn't Prince Andrew have this kind of analysis done years ago?
I'm sure he could've afforded a load of speculative bollocks to keep his reputation intact.
He could have saved himself 12 million.
-
Yea, yea. All very interesting.
Question: why didn't Prince Andrew have this kind of analysis done years ago?
I'm sure he could've afforded a load of speculative bollocks to keep his reputation intact.
He could have saved himself 12 million.
I don't know. I guess it's equally strange that so many 'experts' think the photo is genuine, given the glaring evidence of forgery that took time to surface just because the people that could spot it were too late coming forward.
Maybe also he thought his panorama interview would put the record straight, or maybe wasn't expecting Guiffre to sue him?
-
I don't know. I guess it's equally strange that so many 'experts' think the photo is genuine, given the glaring evidence of forgery that took time to surface just because the people that could spot it were too late coming forward.
You mean the glaring evidence of forgery that only seems to be spotted by arch chair experts and conspiracy theorists, while real experts on analysis of photographs to identify evidence of manipulation have failed to find any.
There are, of course, plenty of real experts out there and Andrew would have been able to afford their services. That none have, as far as I'm aware, offered genuine expert opinion that the photo is a fake speaks volumes - and of course far more than any number of armchairs experts spouting nonsense on YouTube or forums.
-
You mean the glaring evidence of forgery that only seems to be spotted by arch chair experts and conspiracy theorists, while real experts on analysis of photographs to identify evidence of manipulation have failed to find any.
There are, of course, plenty of real experts out there and Andrew would have been able to afford their services. That none have, as far as I'm aware, offered genuine expert opinion that the photo is a fake speaks volumes - and of course far more than any number of armchairs experts spouting nonsense on YouTube or forums.
Yes, but anyone can download free photo forensics tools and see with their own eyes that the real experts missed the photoshopped shadows obscuring the window frame. They need to look at the Luminance Gradient of the photo.
If you compare the shadows from this photo (https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/tp-image-sex-slave-2.jpg) you will see that the objects covered by the shadow made by Maxwell can still be detected under the shadow. This includes Giuffre's vest. Try it using this
Photo forensics tools (https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#luminance-gradient) website.
-
Yes, but anyone can download free photo forensics tools and see with their own eyes that the real experts missed the photoshopped shadows obscuring the window frame.
So armchair experts are somehow more expert than real experts, you know real experts who will likely be using professional systems (rather than amateur freeware) to detect manipulation of photographs and applying their own real expertise.
Laughable.
-
If you compare the shadows from this photo (https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/tp-image-sex-slave-2.jpg) you will see that the objects covered by the shadow made by Maxwell can still be detected under the shadow. This includes Giuffre's vest. Try it using this
Photo forensics tools (https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#luminance-gradient) website.
Just tried it using the Andrew photo - can't see anything unusual from the results. Certainly nothing jumping out as obviously wrong.
-
So armchair experts are somehow more expert than real experts, you know real experts who will likely be using professional systems (rather than amateur freeware) to detect manipulation of photographs and applying their own real expertise.
Laughable.
Well I was thinking more of people who have used photoshop and so would notice signs that photoshop has been used on a photo.
Just tried it using the Andrew photo - can't see anything unusual from the results. Certainly nothing jumping out as obviously wrong.
Thanks for trying it.
-
I don't know. I guess it's equally strange that so many 'experts' think the photo is genuine, given the glaring evidence of forgery that took time to surface just because the people that could spot it were too late coming forward.
Maybe also he thought his panorama interview would put the record straight, or maybe wasn't expecting Guiffre to sue him?
There isn't any glaring evidence.
I used the forensic package you linked to on one of my Photoshopped photographs and it didn't tell me much. Only thing it showed was a bit of cloning where I had done some, but also showed some where I hadn't. Opened the photo in question with it and couldn't see anything of note.
Zoom in on the Maxwell on her own photograph and look at the material of her top. You'll see a repeat pattern indicative of cloning in Photoshop. Her arm is blurry. Looks like cloning used to cover up the removal of the other two from the image with all three in. There are more things in the image of Maxwell on her own which look faked to me than in the one with all three in it. Talking as someone who uses Photoshop - not as a qualified forensic analyst of photographs.
-
There isn't any glaring evidence.
I used the forensic package you linked to on one of my Photoshopped photographs and it didn't tell me much. Only thing it showed was a bit of cloning where I had done some, but also showed some where I hadn't. Opened the photo in question with it and couldn't see anything of note.
Zoom in on the Maxwell on her own photograph and look at the material of her top. You'll see a repeat pattern indicative of cloning in Photoshop. Her arm is blurry. Looks like cloning used to cover up the removal of the other two from the image with all three in. There are more things in the image of Maxwell on her own which look faked to me than in the one with all three in it. Talking as someone who uses Photoshop - not as a qualified forensic analyst of photographs.
Thanks for that, yes I agree the ones of Maxwell and Guiffre on their own are heavily shopped, for whatever reason. Have you watched the video I linked to? Here are some of the more convincing things he pointed out:
The shadows to the right of the door frame and Virginia and the shadow from Andrew's belly look fake.
The natural shadow made by the sphere on the banister, which looks unaltered.
Andrew's left elbow would have been lower in reality tan the slither of left forearm shown would place it.
The angles of the barristrade on either side of the doorway are different, suggesting the photo was taken from the side. This suggests the flash ought to be oval rather than circular, hence the window is a separate photo.
Linked to the latter is the lack of detail in the central lower part of the photo- it's just very dark, whereas the outer lower parts are very brigt.
And other features such as blurring which could have been done to obscure editing.
But there is other evidence that Virginia would need to explain, such as why she is tler relative to Andrew than in real life. Why she was dressed for summer and the window open when the temperature was in single figures.
My impression of Andrew that he is telling the truth. I get the opposite impression of her.
Sorry for the long-winded post but I felt a summary would help.
The analysis website was used only to see if the window frame could be detected beneath the shadows, IIRC. Otherwise it doesn't help that much
-
There isn't any glaring evidence.
I used the forensic package you linked to on one of my Photoshopped photographs and it didn't tell me much. Only thing it showed was a bit of cloning where I had done some, but also showed some where I hadn't. Opened the photo in question with it and couldn't see anything of note.
Zoom in on the Maxwell on her own photograph and look at the material of her top. You'll see a repeat pattern indicative of cloning in Photoshop. Her arm is blurry. Looks like cloning used to cover up the removal of the other two from the image with all three in. There are more things in the image of Maxwell on her own which look faked to me than in the one with all three in it. Talking as someone who uses Photoshop - not as a qualified forensic analyst of photographs.
Thanks for that, yes I agree the ones of Maxwell and Guiffre on their own are heavily shopped, for whatever reason. Have you watched the video I linked to? Here are some of the more convincing things he pointed out:
The shadows to the right of the door frame and Virginia and the shadow from Andrew's belly look fake.
The natural shadow made by the sphere on the banister looks unaltered.
Andrew's left elbow would have been lower in reality than the slither of left forearm shown would place it.
The angles of the barristrade on either side of the doorway are different, suggesting the photo was taken from the side. This suggests the flash ought to be oval rather than circular, hence the window is a separate photo.
The lack of detail in the central lower part of the photo- apart from Virginia's leggings its very dark, whereas the outer lower parts are very bright.
And other features such as blurring which could have been done to obscure editing.
But there is other evidence that Virginia would need to explain, such as why she is taller relative to Andrew than in real life. Why she was dressed for summer and the window open when the temperature was in single figures.
Why she wasn't wearing a dress that apparently she had gone out to buy the same day in order to wear for the prince.
Why the bathroom was, in reality, not as she described it.
My impression of Andrew that he is telling the truth. I get the opposite impression of her.
Sorry for the long-winded post but I felt a summary would help.
The analysis website was used only to see if the window frame could be detected beneath the shadows, IIRC. Otherwise it doesn't help that much, I agree.
-
Thanks for that, yes I agree the ones of Maxwell and Guiffre on their own are heavily shopped, for whatever reason. Have you watched the video I linked to? Here are some of the more convincing things he pointed out:
The shadows to the right of the door frame and Virginia and the shadow from Andrew's belly look fake.
The natural shadow made by the sphere on the banister looks unaltered.
Andrew's left elbow would have been lower in reality than the slither of left forearm shown would place it.
The angles of the barristrade on either side of the doorway are different, suggesting the photo was taken from the side. This suggests the flash ought to be oval rather than circular, hence the window is a separate photo.
The lack of detail in the central lower part of the photo- apart from Virginia's leggings its very dark, whereas the outer lower parts are very bright.
And other features such as blurring which could have been done to obscure editing.
But there is other evidence that Virginia would need to explain, such as why she is taller relative to Andrew than in real life. Why she was dressed for summer and the window open when the temperature was in single figures.
Why she wasn't wearing a dress that apparently she had gone out to buy the same day in order to wear for the prince.
Why the bathroom was, in reality, not as she described it.
My impression of Andrew that he is telling the truth. I get the opposite impression of her.
Sorry for the long-winded post but I felt a summary would help.
The analysis website was used only to see if the window frame could be detected beneath the shadows, IIRC. Otherwise it doesn't help that much, I agree.
I've read some stuff suggesting the photo was faked but not particularly convinced. The evidence isn't glaring or strong but is typical of the sort of thing you see a lot online relating to conspiracy theories - often claims based on a lack of understanding and over analysing things - and I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of falling for their claims. Remember this photo isn't the original and has been copied (more than once I understand) and was taken with a fairly basic camera in not ideal conditions (strong contrast as others have sad, on camera flash, strong reflections from white walls etc). As an amateur photographer I wouldn't be at all surprised that these conditions and the copying (and processing of the images) could have introduced anomalies. The evidence you list above contains a huge amount of speculation and suggestions.
We can all have our opinions on whether things look fake or not and equally we can have our opinions on who we think is telling the truth or not but none of those opinions are evidence of course. I personally think the photo of Maxwell on her own is more likely to be the fake and that the one of the three of them together is genuine. But that's just my opinion.
-
I've read some stuff suggesting the photo was faked but not particularly convinced. The evidence isn't glaring or strong but is typical of the sort of thing you see a lot online relating to conspiracy theories - often claims based on a lack of understanding and over analysing things - and I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of falling for their claims.
I have also seen quite a few unconvincing comments from people who were arguing that it's fake, eg "that hand just looks odd".
-
Remember this photo isn't the original and has been copied (more than once I understand) and was taken with a fairly basic camera in not ideal conditions (strong contrast as others have sad, on camera flash, strong reflections from white walls etc). As an amateur photographer I wouldn't be at all surprised that these conditions and the copying (and processing of the images) could have introduced anomalies. The evidence you list above contains a huge amount of speculation and suggestions.
One thing that isn't speculation which I keep going back to is the shadow down the left door frame and the right of Virginia, as we look at it. I've checked this in many images and always there is nothing happening beneath the shadow - that is to say, there are several lengths of wooden window frame that are brightly lit up by the flash, so should be visible under the shadow using "Luminance gradient" on the Forensically website. But they are not, they stop abruptly at the shadow; indeed, there is diddly squat visible under the shadow. Logically this can only mean it is a fake shadow. Could it really be the effect of copying an analogue photo?
-
One thing that isn't speculation which I keep going back to is the shadow down the left door frame and the right of Virginia, as we look at it. I've checked this in many images and always there is nothing happening beneath the shadow - that is to say, there are several lengths of wooden window frame that are brightly lit up by the flash, so should be visible under the shadow using "Luminance gradient" on the Forensically website. But they are not, they stop abruptly at the shadow; indeed, there is diddly squat visible under the shadow. Logically this can only mean it is a fake shadow. Could it really be the effect of copying an analogue photo?
If there was insufficient light on the window frame for the camera to register it would be recorded as black and no matter what you do to the image you aren't going to 'see through' that.
-
If you zoom into the brown bar in the Maxwell only photo, under where Guiffrie's left arm is on the other one, you again see repeat patterns typical of cloning. The shadow example you showed earlier - the one on the yacht - had totally different lighting to the one in question. Just because you can see through the shadow in one doesn't mean you should be able to see through the shadow in another.
-
If you zoom into the brown bar in the Maxwell only photo, under where Guiffrie's left arm is on the other one, you again see repeat patterns typical of cloning. The shadow example you showed earlier - the one on the yacht - had totally different lighting to the one in question. Just because you can see through the shadow in one doesn't mean you should be able to see through the shadow in another.
If there was insufficient light on the window frame for the camera to register it would be recorded as black and no matter what you do to the image you aren't going to 'see through' that.
You could be right. I tried taking a photo with my phone, of an object next to a wall in the dark. Before doing so, I used the torch to illuminate the object. The shadow was larger and more translucent than when I took a picture with the flash. In the latter, the shadow was narrow and you couldn't see any detail underneath it, even using "Luminance gradient". By contrast, you could see detail under the shadow created by the torch.
-
If there was insufficient light on the window frame for the camera to register it would be recorded as black and no matter what you do to the image you aren't going to 'see through' that.
On the other hand, Virginia is so far from the window that one might expect a less dense shadow?
-
On the other hand, Virginia is so far from the window that one might expect a less dense shadow?
My point is that the situation was a challenging one regarding the lighting and I doubt any of us could predict what results the camera would achieve in that situation and the effects of the copying. We can speculate all day and identify things which we think are not what we would 'expect' but unless we reproduce the exact same lighting situation any anomalies in what we would expect could simply be due to the lighting conditions, the camera and the copying process. Good that you did an experiment to investigate the shadow effect - much better to base any conclusions on actual experiments rather than our inexpert expectations.
-
My point is that the situation was a challenging one regarding the lighting and I doubt any of us could predict what results the camera would achieve in that situation and the effects of the copying. We can speculate all day and identify things which we think are not what we would 'expect' but unless we reproduce the exact same lighting situation any anomalies in what we would expect could simply be due to the lighting conditions, the camera and the copying process. Good that you did an experiment to investigate the shadow effect - much better to base any conclusions on actual experiments rather than our inexpert expectations.
Thanks. One other thing I noticed was, when I took a photo of a window at night with no lighting other than the flash, the image didn't show the flash's reflection. But if I kept the phone's torch on, the reflection did appear in the image. So apparently the camera would need a very fast shutter speed to register the flash? (Edit: having taken another photo of the window in the dark, the reflection of the flash did show on the image)
Yes, its interesting how the flash produced a thinner and non-translucent shadow. So can we conclude that the shadow behind Virginia and the upper door frame could be either a real shadow from a flash- or a photoshopped one?
Not wanting to turn this into a Gish gallop, but what about Prince Andrew's trousers - they don't show any detail, no creases, change of shade etc are visible using the luminance tool. Someone pointed out on youtube that his trousers are just a 'black hole'. Given the detail in the rest of the foreground, this is not something I would consider to have been caused by copying or lighting.
-
Thanks. One other thing I noticed was, when I took a photo of a window at night with no lighting other than the flash, the image didn't show the flash's reflection. But if I kept the phone's torch on, the reflection did appear in the image. So apparently the camera would need a very fast shutter speed to register the flash?
Yes, its interesting how the flash produced a thinner and non-translucent shadow. So can we conclude that the shadow behind Virginia and the upper door frame could be either a real shadow from a flash- or a photoshopped one?
Not wanting to turn this into a Gish gallop, but what about Prince Andrew's trousers - they don't show any detail, no creases, change of shade etc are visible using the luminance tool. Someone pointed out on youtube that his trousers are just a 'black hole'. Given the detail in the rest of the foreground, this is not something I would consider to have been caused by copying or lighting.
As I say, I doubt any of us could predict what results we would get with this lighting situation, this specific camera and with the copying process. You could spend for ever looking for this anomaly or that anomaly but none of it means the picture is a fake unless you can reproduce exactly the same situation, camera and copying and show it wouldn't be like that. You might not expect this result but you don't know so that's just pure speculation based on what? Understanding the relationship between flash, aperture and shutter speed is complex - there are various things on the internet discussing it, but again it depends on the exact conditions and camera.
To be honest, if someone wanted to put in a fake shadow on photoshop, and they knew what they were doing, it wouldn't be difficult to produce the result you seem to be looking for. Select an area, apply a gradient fil, reduce opacity of the layer. I'm sure there are other easy ways too.
Looking at Maxwell's trousers, there are no details I can see in them either.
-
As I say, I doubt any of us could predict what results we would get with this lighting situation, this specific camera and with the copying process. You could spend for ever looking for this anomaly or that anomaly but none of it means the picture is a fake unless you can reproduce exactly the same situation, camera and copying and show it wouldn't be like that. You might not expect this result but you don't know so that's just pure speculation based on what? Understanding the relationship between flash, aperture and shutter speed is complex - there are various things on the internet discussing it, but again it depends on the exact conditions and camera.
To be honest, if someone wanted to put in a fake shadow on photoshop, and they knew what they were doing, it wouldn't be difficult to produce the result you seem to be looking for. Select an area, apply a gradient fil, reduce opacity of the layer. I'm sure there are other easy ways too.
Looking at Maxwell's trousers, there are no details I can see in them either.
So this means that until the original photo with the negative is produced, we cannot say conclusively whether it is genuine or not.
Although perhaps (in my view) there is cause to believe it is not, if we agree that there are certain anomalies such as Andrew's finger and his and Ghislaine's trousers (where are the pockets?)
I edited my previous post, as I took another photo of a window at night in which the flash appeared in the image.
-
Mods - please lock this thread, before we alll die of boredom!
-
Tempting Steve, but then the same could be said of other threads (from my pov) and then where would we be.
-
So this means that until the original photo with the negative is produced, we cannot say conclusively whether it is genuine or not.
Although perhaps (in my view) there is cause to believe it is not, if we agree that there are certain anomalies such as Andrew's finger and his and Ghislaine's trousers (where are the pockets?)
I edited my previous post, as I took another photo of a window at night in which the flash appeared in the image.
No. As I have said, it depends on the exact lighting conditions also. Don't want to just keep repeating myself (that's boring!) so will leave it there. You are of course entitled to your view but you did claim there was glaring evidence and that is what I was addressing (or trying to). There isn't any - just anomalies which can't be taken as evidence without doing a comparison under the exact same lighting conditions, with the same camera and with the same copying having been done, and seeing that the same anomalies don't occur.
-
Mods - please lock this thread, before we alll die of boredom!
Not when the evidence for Andrew's innocence is starting to mount up! Sorry to bore you again, but I found another Twitter member who thinks that Ghislaine looks older in the photo with Virginia than she does in other pictures from around 2001. Compare the photo with this one (https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/tp-image-sex-slave-2.jpg) from 2001.
And I also found this statement (https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/ghislaine-maxwell-slams-virginia-giuffres-outfit-in-deposition/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons) from Ghislaine herself in 2020:
Giuffre, who wore a low-cut, belly-baring pink tank top and purple iridescent hip huggers in the snap, says the image was taken after Maxwell took her shopping — but the British socialite said the image must be fake because she wouldn’t be caught dead purchasing such an outfit.
“I would never — the outfit doesn’t work at all so,” Maxwell retorted in the 2016 deposition, while seeming to channel her inner Regina George from the 2004 flick “Mean Girls.”
She then reiterated, “I did not take her shopping.”
-
Not when the evidence for Andrew's innocence is starting to mount up! Sorry to bore you again, but I found another Twitter member who thinks that Ghislaine looks older in the photo with Virginia than she does in other pictures from around 2001. Compare the photo with this one (https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/tp-image-sex-slave-2.jpg) from 2001.
And I also found this statement (https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/ghislaine-maxwell-slams-virginia-giuffres-outfit-in-deposition/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons) from Ghislaine herself in 2020:
What a twitter member thinks isn't evidence. But I was leaving it wasn't I? ..........
-
Maxwell claims Virginia lied (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13008337/ghislaine-maxwell-virginia-roberts-jeffrey-epstein-schoolgirl-outfit/)
-
Maxwell claims Virginia lied (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13008337/ghislaine-maxwell-virginia-roberts-jeffrey-epstein-schoolgirl-outfit/)
Hmm - you mean Maxwell the person recently convicted of five out of six very serious charges including sex trafficking. And the same person who is facing a second criminal trial for perjury on two charges that she lied under oath during a civil suit in 2015 about Epstein's abuse of underage girls.
Not really sure she can be relied upon to be telling the truth.
-
.
-
.
-
.
Can't see the screenshot, presumably it mentions mummy's little soldier's political covid?
-
Can't see the screenshot, presumably it mentions mummy's little soldier's political covid?
Of the 2 screenshots, one is someone noting that ot's good to hear something positive about Prince Andrew, followed by a reply that he was getting a note from his mum, and a further reply that he's already been given twelve million of our notes from her.
The second notes that as he has tested positive we can tell Covid is still in the schools.
-
Of the 2 screenshots, one is someone noting that ot's good to hear something positive about Prince Andrew, followed by a reply that he was getting a note from his mum, and a further reply that he's already been given twelve million of our notes from her.
The second notes that as he has tested positive we can tell Covid is still in the schools.
Ah: thanks, NS.
-
Hmm - you mean Maxwell the person recently convicted of five out of six very serious charges including sex trafficking. And the same person who is facing a second criminal trial for perjury on two charges that she lied under oath during a civil suit in 2015 about Epstein's abuse of underage girls.
Not really sure she can be relied upon to be telling the truth.
So we can't rely on Giuffre to be telling the truth either, as she willingly trafficked underage girls for Epstein.
-
.
-
.
-
Ghislaine claims photo is a fake (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/ghislaine-maxwell-claims-infamous-prince-andrew-pic-is-fake-in-explosive-prison-interview/news-story/bbbaa981f923bbe7a2aa4a200ad083b5%3famp)
-
Ghislaine claims photo is a fake (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/ghislaine-maxwell-claims-infamous-prince-andrew-pic-is-fake-in-explosive-prison-interview/news-story/bbbaa981f923bbe7a2aa4a200ad083b5%3famp)
The gist of this is that a woman who was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison for carrying out a years-long scheme with her longtime confidante Jeffrey Epstein to groom and sexually abuse underage girls changed her initial story.
Convincing.
-
Ghislaine claims photo is a fake (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/ghislaine-maxwell-claims-infamous-prince-andrew-pic-is-fake-in-explosive-prison-interview/news-story/bbbaa981f923bbe7a2aa4a200ad083b5%3famp)
Yeh, she's a reliable witness :o
-
The gist .... changed her initial story.
She says her initial meaning was that she recognized the house as hers and thought the photo was real. Maybe she's had time to study the photo more, as she says there are things wrong with it and no original.
-
Ghislaine has been interviewed by Jeremy Kyle, it will be shown on Talk TV tomorrow at 7pm.
-
Ghislaine has been interviewed by Jeremy Kyle, it will be shown on Talk TV tomorrow at 7pm.
I'll give it a miss thanks.
-
Prince Andrew is writing his autobiography. It'll be available as a PDF file.
-
Utterly bizarre
-
Utterly bizarre
It is indeed, but I have a feeling the photo might be a Mick-take of the fake Giuffre photo.
On Lorraine (ITV) last week, Victoria Harvey said she believes she knows the person who made the 2001 photo. Also that she has been in Maxwell's house and the geometry is not the same as it is on the picture.
https://youtu.be/qr8_mw6qjrg
-
It is indeed, but I have a feeling the photo might be a Mick-take of the fake Giuffre photo.
On Lorraine (ITV) last week, Victoria Harvey said she believes she knows the person who made the 2001 photo. Also that she has been in Maxwell's house and the geometry is not the same as it is on the picture.
https://youtu.be/qr8_mw6qjrg
So you think that the Telegraph gave its headline and half the front page to a mickey-take?
-
So you think that the Telegraph gave its headline and half the front page to a mickey-take?
I haven't read the article. Maybe it isn't a mickey take, but merely taken to provide evidence that Virginia fabricated the story that (iirc) it was a Victorian bath in the middle of the room.
Hervey has given another recent interview in which she says the last time she was in London she met up with the person who made the photo. She says he showed her how he did it: took separate photos and cut out the figures with a razor blade, then superimposed them on the background and re-photographed it. He has a criminal record and is afraid to come forward in case he goes to jail for it. He was bribed into making it, using items including something that belonged to Diana. Andrew apparently had no choice but to settle with Giuffre, because of the Jubilee.