Prince Andrew named in Pedophile case....Royal Family becoming EXPOSED!!!

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: wrkn4livn

no it is not going to go anywhere

Just a feeling that the prince is not guilty

Just a feeling that they wont let it happen

, cops surreptitiously collected the trash from in front of Epstein’s Palm Beach home. The refuse included documents with the names of some of his many underage masseuses, as well as an Amazon.com invoice for the purchase of sex slave books like

“SlaveCraft: Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude--Principles, Skills and Tools,” “Training with Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners,” and “SM 101: A Realistic Introduction.” As part of a civil suit filed against Epstein by several of his victims, lawyers for the women floated the possibility of subpoenaing Clinton since he “might well be a source of relevant information” about Epstein’s activities.

While Clinton was never deposed, lawyers obtained Epstein’s computerized phone directory, which included “e-mail addresses for Clinton along with 21 phone numbers for him, including those for his assistant (Doug Band),” according to a court filing.

www.thesmokinggun.com...

a reply to: Stormdancer777

I hope that person understands that those books are part of the subculture of B&M. There's a large group of people who read those books because those books were written for the purpose of that subculture.

It's a subculture, not like it's a big secret any more. Just because he had those books proves nothing, just that he likes to be part of that subculture.

My goodness, what if they found Fifty Shades of Grey theater ticket stubs, is everyone who saw it also part of that subculture? I remember when The Joy of Sex came out, people really bought that one, and then there is the Kama Sutra, not to mention all the porn on TV and internet.

That isn't enough evidence, only that he bought a book, that's all it means. If they were sold on Amazon then that means there is enough interest to sell it.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: Tangerine

peadophilia is actually a sexual interest in pre pubescent children, not teenagers.

That's exactly what I said. I don't understand the purpose of your post.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Prince Andrew may have been secretly filmed with underage girl he is alleged to have abused

The six-year-old papers, seen by the Sunday People, state: “Some of the photographs in the defendant’s possession were taken with hidden cameras set up in [Epstein’s] home in Palm Beach. “On the Day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of ­underage girls on a computer in the defendant’s home.

www.mirror.co.uk...

They add that Roberts’ claims that she was forced to tell Epstein all about her sexual encounters so he could use the information to “blackmail” the royal. She further claims she was sex-trafficked to “many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known Prime Minister, and other world leaders”.

Perhaps you can then explain why he wasn't listed in her lawsuit? Let me ask you this: why do you want him to have done it?

originally posted by: HumanPLC
...
Seriously though, Yes, i do have an axe to grind... I believe, as i have already stated, that this allegation against Andrew should be investigated in the same way it would be if it were you or i named in that document.
...

at the moment there is nothing but unsubstantiated claims

...
How can her claims be supported by true evidence, non has been collected yet, thats what would happen if we had an investigation, which, again is what im saying should happen.

What i would say is that we do have what i would call potential evidence in the form of eye witness interviews, accounts, etc and on the surface they do seem to suggest that there may be some weight to the girls story. Certainly enough to warrant an investigation where this evidence could then be tested.

You seem to be confused about several things. First, this is not a criminal case; it's a civil lawsuit. Secondly, because it is a civil lawsuit, it is the plaintiff's duty to prove her claims. It is not a police matter. Thirdly, as much as you would obviously like him to be, Prince Andrew is not named in the suit.

originally posted by: liteonit6969

...
Now il repeat again for the millionth time as others have stated. This thread DOES NOT SAY PRINCE ANDREW IS A PEDOPHILE. He is named in a case concerning it. Against a man who has prior convictions for underage sex (14).

There is also news of video proof of the acts occuring. If that is the case then i find it very suspicious and would question the motives of this. Blackmail as one, as there is a big advantage of having the name of the royal family in your pocket.

Saying that someone is "named" in a lawsuit means the suit is filed against him. No suit has been filed against Prince Andrew.

If someone has not reached puberty,whatever their age, they are pre-pubescent. Sexual attraction to them is pedophilia. Sex with any underage person is a crime, whether or not they are pre-pubescent. What is so difficult to understand about that? How many times has it been explained?

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: neformore

I dont think the way the thread has developed suggests that people have decided that he is guilty. Far from it i think. The major concencus is that when allegations like these come along, with apparent pictures etc then he should be investigated like any one else. Being rich and powerful does not make you above the law.
Furthermore i have seen a continuing idea that people have decided his guilt which have been continuously responded to by saying the thread title does not claim he is a pedophile, no has said he is guilty etc.
Granted there is the usual royal family and elite bashing, which i feel is part of the topic here given that someones position or status at times saves their bacon from prosecution.

On the contrary, it's quite clear that many who are posting think he's guilty and want him to be guilty. Even some of those who slipped in a sentence saying there's no proof at this point spent the rest of their posts implying that he's guilty. The fascinating thing about this discussion is the strong desire on the part of many participants for him to be guilty. Has envy for the rich and famous risen to the point that the envious wish them to have committed heinous crimes against children? I find that loathsome. It's as though they consider children to simply be tools used to convict those they envy. Is that really so different from the mindset of people who actually commit sexual crimes against children? I think not.

a reply to: Tangerine

Mate, im not confused about anything.

Let me be clear again about what i am saying...

I have never said or even implied he had been named in the suit.

Whether its criminal or civil is a moot point! Andrew has been named in a legal document relating to a seperate case, this is an allegation! This testemony is in the form of a written statement, it would have been done under oath.

Look at this press release from Buckingham Palace.

“It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with [the woman]. The allegations made are false and without any foundation.”

See, even Buckingham Palace refer to them as allegations!

An allegation has been made against Andrew and needs to be investigated. Thats what ive been constantly saying.

How on earth am i mistaken, lol.

@tangerine

Ive noticed that quite a few times in this thread you have made comments like:

Based on what evidence?

Where's the evidence?

Name the poster who said that.

Name the person on this board who has claimed that

Theres more, but you get the idea... You expect people to back up the claims that they make, and rightly so!

With that in mind, can you do me a favour? Earlier in this thread you stated.

Apparently, she has a history of making false allegations against many people.

Can you supply a source for that allegation that you made about this lady.

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: Tangerine

Mate, im not confused about anything.

Let me be clear again about what i am saying...

I have never said or even implied he had been named in the suit.

Whether its criminal or civil is a moot point! Andrew has been named in a legal document relating to a seperate case, this is an allegation! This testemony is in the form of a written statement, it would have been done under oath.

Look at this press release from Buckingham Palace.

“It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with [the woman]. The allegations made are false and without any foundation.”

See, even Buckingham Palace refer to them as allegations!

An allegation has been made against Andrew and needs to be investigated. Thats what ive been constantly saying.

How on earth am i mistaken, lol.

A lawsuit is not made under oath. If there is a subsequent deposition taken of the accuser, that will be under oath. If the case goes to court and she testifies, that will be under oath. Anyone can allege anything about anyone. That is not remotely the same as bringing suit against them. World of difference. I hope this entire matter is investigated and if anyone is guilty, including guilty of false accusations, they are punished to the fullest extent of the law. The young woman made a serious mistake when she accused Dershowitz. Unlike Prince Andrew, Dershowitz will fight back in a meaningful way.

originally posted by: HumanPLC

With that in mind, can you do me a favour? Earlier in this thread you stated.

Apparently, she has a history of making false allegations against many people.

Can you supply a source for that allegation that you made about this lady.

You're absolutely right to request it and I am trying to find the link. It has been said that she previously accused Bill Clinton, for one. Certainly Dershowitz says she has been a serial accuser: www.theguardian.com...

"The woman’s lawyers allege in their motion that, in addition to facilitating her alleged encounters with the prince and Dershowitz, Epstein trafficked her to “many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders”.

Essentially, she's alleging that she was passed around the world. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? No. What is far more likely is that, by using this scattergun accusation method, someone will pay her off to get their name off the list. The taint of this sort of accusation destroys reputations, careers, lives and families. If it is justified, then I hope the guilty are brought to justice. If these are false accusations, I hope she is brought to justice. If she is lying, she is doing a grave disservice to real victims of trafficking.

originally posted by: Fravashi
a reply to: uncommitted

"The age of consent in the UK is 16, she claims she was 17 and at least some of the 'offences' happened in London - therefore even if true, she wasn't underage. If it had happened in Florida, than it appears that would be a different question.

"Do 17 year olds in Florida really not have sex?"

I find your comment extremely offensive. You appear to be justifying this crime. Even if the girl was only 17, she alleges she was loaned out to several men by Epstein and bullied and threatened as well as repeated raped by him. Since several other women have come out with the same accusations, her account is by odds probably true.

Your comment appears to be a prime example of "blame the victim" in rape cases, and is absolutely revolting!

Well that's the thing.. the age of consent even in the US varies, I believe in some places it goes as low as 14.. but the trick is that you have to be within a certain age distance from them .. so it would depend on how old Andrew was, where it happened and how old she was at the time in the US ... being FORCED is the bigger issue here.. that amounts to rape.

I don't know how UK law works but it was an issue I knew about because I dated a woman older than me when I was 16 .. where I am the age of consent IS 16 ... and my parent had no problem with it, and she was a safe age distance from me..

But if I had been 16 and she had been say mid-20s or something, it would be a problem regardless, at least where I live.

Woman is claiming Alan Dershowitz also had sex with her.Bill Clinton may have been in on this is possible as well.

a reply to: Ridhya

Yes, for many different reasons. Did you know that all across the world right now, teenage boys in high school are getting busted for distribution of child porn because they have naked pictures of classmates? It that normal, to ruin a young person's entire life because they have an innate sexuality they want to express. Wouldn't it be more sensible to decriminalize that and just give penalties or fines, or in the case of these young people, suspensions from school, rather than clog the system with neverending judicial brooms of swept up pedophiles etc? It is a bottomless pit for everybody involved. The issue needs to be addressed at the very roots of the problem. Clipping the branches will never solve it. This is a cross-cultural human rights type of problem that is more along the lines of prevention of developing sexual deviations by liberating human sexuality just a smidge more than it has been allowed under religious dictatorship for centuries. Again, look at all of the problems with the Catholic Church and put the 2 and 2 together for yourself...

a reply to: Tangerine

You are contradicting yourself its unbelievable. Do you not understand the thread because i feel you are confusing yourself. Il take it step by step so it is easy to understand and there is no confusion, because it seems that people are trying to create confusion over the situation.

First of all you say pedophilia is sexual feelings towards pre pubescent children. There is no law saying this, this is your own perception of things. Prepubescent varies from child to child with some as young as 6 as i have shown. Therefore it is impossible to create a law around something like you say. The definition of pedophile is sexual feelings towards CHILDREN. not prepubescent etc. And to repeat a child is below the age of majority, not what you think is socially accepted in your area, but THE LAW. which in the UK is 17 and on the island where this happened IS 17. Therefore BY DEFINITION THIS IS ACTUALLY A CASE OF PEDOPHILIA.

But this is not the main point of the thread, it is more about the ACCUSATIONS a underage girl was trafficked around the rich and powerful for sex. You can dress it up and say she was paid. Are all sex slaves not paid? In ways such as food or clothing? She may have been given money but what is claimed is a case of being a sex slave. She would have been exploited, abused and very vulnerable dealing with people who she could never escape from.

The title is correct, he is named in this case. The way you misinterpret it is your own problem. He is named in a document that has been presented in this case. It doesnt mater if it is civil etc, HIS NAME HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THE CASE. No one has said the case has been brought against him, why would they when its clear it hasnt? Your interpretation of words does not make it the universal understanding by all.

Could you give me examples (alot of what you ask for in relation to this accusations) of people on this thread who have stated that he is guilty and made their minds up? You say this is clear.....show me how clear it is. People have voiced their opinions as they are entitled to, just as you are. I have read no statements of fact or acceptance of his guilt. All i have read is that the case is disgusting, he should be investigate like any other member of the public and the usual warranted grudge against the elite who think they are above the law.

Finally after going through all of your posts trying to claim that this is not a case of committing sexual crimes against children, you then try to reverse on posts who want a fair investigation that THEY WANTED THIS TO HAPPEN in order to satisfy their grudge against the rich.

There are two points in what you have said:

1) We the people who post here did not want this to happen or even have any hand in it happening. It happened regardless of what we say. And to try and label those who are for an investigation as cruel etc is a very silly and very easy to see though your intentions.

2) After saying this was not a about sex crimes against children.....you then suggest that people wanted this to happen.....which as you state....sex crimes against children. You contradict yourself.

Finally throughout your posts you offer NO EVIDENCE in your claims AS FACT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID. However you in doing so MAKE MASSIVE ASSUMPTIONS AND TRY TO INTERPRET WORDS TO FIT YOUR AGENDA.

I think it is best if you go back to the start of the thread and reread because you have obviously become confused and thus are starting to confuse other readers.

You can pick out some spelling mistakes or whatever you tfeel is neccessary to derail a SERIOUS AND ILLEGAL ACT that prince andrew has been ACCUSED of.

a reply to: corsair00


Again you are getting away from the point. This is another case of derailing the thread. This is a case of a child who was being used as a sex slave by the rich and powerful. Therefore it is right to demand a full and open investigation into those named, just like anybody else would recieve.

Going into whether a lw is flawed and teenagers taking pictures of eachother does not fit here. She was young he was alot older. So it is not even closely relevent.

She has accused these people of exploiting her for sex when she was underage. Do you think they should be investigated? Or just let it go because they are high profile people?

originally posted by: liteonit6969
This is another case of derailing the thread. This is a case of a child who was being used as a sex slave by the rich and powerful.

You are derailing this thread, this is a thread of someone who has made lots of claims, and so far has no evidence to back those claims up.