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

originally posted by: VirusGuard
We now have 4 threads running on ATS about Andrew and all he did was sleep with a hooker all them years ago

So what, big deal or is he the only man who's paid for sex or turned a blind eye when a hooker was provided at a party.

You should go after the politicians who were only allowed to rise up the party ladder if TPTB had blackmail materal on them because half of them had sex with children as young as ten and they are the ones that need to go to jail, not Andrew

This women is claiming to be a victim of rape. Not a hooker. Rape. As a survivor, just seeing that you wrote that makes me sick to my stomach. I have to stop eating now. It's starting to come back up.

a reply to: eletheia

Thank you for posting that story. It reveals a vastly different side of this story. Sex slaves are not lavished with gifts and sent on expeditions nor do they refer to their "masters/owners" as mentors.

I agree with your assessment that it's LIKELY that when the money dried up and she was no longer living the lifestyle of her choice, she came up with a new way to fill her coffers. I hope others note that her mother's address was Palm Beach. Trafficked women and children, to the best of my knowledge, don't come from well-to-do families who can intervene. They also don't have the option to marry and suddenly no longer be a sex slave.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Tangerine

I think one question you should be asking yourself is, are you happy with wealthy and powerful men being able to acquire very young and children to enjoy sexual exploits with - especially when they are married and may well have mistresses in tow also?

This is above the normal moans about the powerful that rule us, its about a sickness within our society that we need to address. Thjere are victims here and should we treat themwith less respect because the perpetrator is an elite? We are diligent in going after the John Smiths' of the world.

Slightly off topic, if you ever watch world news channels in India they are having to face the idea of police raping women and then when told about it, having to hunt for their missing police - that is currently going on there. So the world is waking up to this particular abuse of power and we should surely be reminding those who benefit from positions of power, that they have a responsibility of duty to give of their best, not their sleaziest.

No, of course I'm not happy about anyone exploiting anyone, especially children (although this case is not about children, despite the claims of some). But I see some (not all) of the posters attacking Prince Andrew, in particular, because he is wealthy and powerful and a royal by accident of birth. Clearly, they hate him and the other royals simply for being born royal to the point where they accuse them of heinous crimes absent any evidence.

Sex crimes are committed by people in all economic classes of society. I suspect that most of us have had an opportunity to commit crimes of some sort at one point or another in our lives that we could probably have gotten away with. Some people chose to commit those crimes and others did not chose to commit those crimes. Our economic class was not the deciding factor. The notion that being royal means that you are a degenerate criminal is not all that different from racism in which your moral character is judged not by your individual behavior but by an accident of birth.

Yes, victims should be treated with respect and that includes people who have been accused but not yet found guilty. If and when evidence is produced proving that someone is guilty of a heinous crime such as this, I will join you in vilifying them. The problem in this case is that some of the accused, including Prince Andrew and Dershowitz, have neither been charged with crimes nor sued so they can not defend themselves in court. I will give a lot more credence to the accuser's claims if and when she and her attorneys state in public that these people have committed these crimes. At that point, they will be able to sue her and her attorneys for making false claims, if they so choose, and the case will be settled in court based on actual evidence not trial by media. You will note that she and her attorneys have not taken this route and you have to ask yourself why.

I absolutely agree with you that the sexual exploitation of women is rampant. Sadly, some people are exploiting the sex trafficking of women to vent their hatred for the royals. If this case blows up and no evidence exists to prove that Prince Andrew, Dershowitz and the others (Epstein being the likely exception) have committed these heinous crimes, it will be exponentially more difficult for someone who has really been trafficked to be taken seriously. That will be a "crime".

Dershowitz has received a formal request from Roberts’ lawyers to be subject on 19 January to a deposition. The letter asks Dershowitz to bring passport pages reflecting his travel over the last decade and “all photographs taken while you were a traveling companion or house guest of Jeffrey Epstein’s”.

Dershowitz

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: eletheia

Thank you for posting that story. It reveals a vastly different side of this story. Sex slaves are not lavished with gifts and sent on expeditions nor do they refer to their "masters/owners" as mentors.

I agree with your assessment that it's LIKELY that when the money dried up and she was no longer living the lifestyle of her choice, she came up with a new way to fill her coffers. I hope others note that her mother's address was Palm Beach. Trafficked women and children, to the best of my knowledge, don't come from well-to-do families who can intervene. They also don't have the option to marry and suddenly no longer be a sex slave.

Finally, something we agree on.

Jaycee Dugard was a sex slave, Natascha Kampush was also a sex slave. Neither of these two girls went around the world in jets and were lavished with gifts.

What was that Austrian girl's name who was held for 24 years in the basement built by her father?

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: artistpoet

It means waiving any form of defence against the charges that may exist in law or statute. They have "Stepped out from behind" legal protections provided to them opening them up to criminal or civil penalties that they would not otherwise face. It is a big deal and a bold move.

Im not saying this is the case here but that move could be a technique i have heard of. The accused has the girl threatened that if he is found guilty she or a loved one will be 'dealt with'. She knows if she tells the truth he will be definitely found guilty. She is faced with this impossible dilemma. She is then offered silence money.

I sincerely hope that these accusations aren't true don't get me wrong but flawed humans exist in every corner of society, lawyers, royals included.

I don't know who she pissed off more, Dershowitz, or the Queen. I'll tell you, as much as I believe her claim, or at least would like to, Alan has REALLY come out swinging!


Somebody pi**ed in Alan's Wheaties

Dershowitz went further, telling CNN the accuser should go to jail and the lawyers representing her should be disbarred. He's never even met Roberts, he said.

"I am telling the truth and I can prove it. They are lying, and I can prove it," he told CNN's "New Day."

"This is a zero sum game. Either I'll end up being disabarred and criminally charged or they will be. There's no gray area here."

Dershowitz said he was filing a sworn affidavit Monday denying the accusations, and was filing a motion "to intervene in the case." His legal team is "preparing disbarment and disciplinary papers," he said.

He also challenged Roberts' attorneys to make their accusation in public, rather than through a "privileged legal document."

"They will not state on your show, 'Alan Dershowitz had sex with this woman,' " Dershowitz said. "Because if they do that, they're in court the very next day being sued for defamation for $100 million."

The attorneys have previously refused to do so.

"We intend only to litigate the relevant issues in Court and not to play into any sideshow attempted by anyone," Roberts' attorney Brad Edwards said in an email to CNN on Friday after Dershowitz was quoted elsewhere in the media making similar remarks.

Dershowitz was also accused in the latest court filing.

"Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands," the filing states.

"She said I had sex with her on Epstein's island. I was on his island once," Dershowitz said, adding that he was "never out of my wife and daughter's sight for the 24 hours I was on the island. She said I had sex with (her) on Jeffrey Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. I was there for about an hour once before the building was complete. Nobody was in the building, I just toured the building. She said I had sex with her on Jeffrey Epstein's airplanes. The flight manifests will prove conclusively I was never on any airplanes with her. She's making it up out of whole cloth."

Including the accusations in a "privileged legal document," he said, is "the legal equivalent of writing graffiti on a bathroom wall and then running away."

a reply to: Tangerine

Oh, god... Not you again!!! Its a good job i like you as youre driving me bleedin bonkers! lmao

Has it occurred to you that committing perjury is also a crime? They were also under pressure from the prosecution. If answering yes was committing perjury, taking the fifth was a way out.

Right, work this through in your head!!! lol

If answering yes involved committing perjury then why couldnt she just answer no, and not commit perjury?

How about that eh? Magic!

Answering No = Not commiting perjury and... Double bonus! Not having to plead the fifth as the answer (No, i had no knowledge) isnt incriminating anyone is it?

You want to convict people based on no evidence and no testimony.

Am i going to have to repeat myself again... Go and read how many times i have stated that its not about conviction, its about investigation.

Now stop bleedin trolling! lol

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: HumanPLC

Thank you for posting the link to Dershowitz's motion. Everyone posting here should read it although I doubt that most will and fewer will understand it.

No probs mate, you're welcome

Disagree with the comments about few on here understanding it though, some good minds (and souls) on here matey

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: neformore

Sorry nerf, i have the upmost respect mate but i do think youre wrong on this one.

I have made it clear that for me its not about guilt, its about this allegation regarding Andrew being properly investigated to establish and test any evidence.

I think that's my major issue with this. When Epstein went to jail, he got a sweetheart deal with immunity for future prosecutor for certain people. (Possibly Andrew???)

Immunity

(Now why would someone want immunity for something they're not even charged with? For me, this reeks of guilt.)

According to the U.K.'s Sunday Times, Epstein secured a “non-prosecution agreement,” with U.S. prosecutors in 2007, which shielded both Epstein and any “potential co-conspirators” from several criminal charges in relation to the sex trafficking ring, which catered to wealthy clients.

(When I typed Andrew's name into Bing, it automatically typed in Andrew to remarry Fergie. Now mind you, some of the links go back to 2013, but it makes you wonder if they knew this was coming down the pike and this is one of their solutions to salvage his reputation. Probably just gossip that won't go anywhere, but I found it curious the timing and all.)

Andrew + Fergie

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: WilsonWilson

There are some varying definitions of pedophilia. One as you say is the attraction toward prepubesent children. Also it says the attraction to children. The correct definition of a child is a young person below the age of consent. That is fact. Not what i want it to be. Do the research.

Now those who claim that it is by the definition of prepubesent children. Can anyone give me the age ofd a prepubesent child? There are children who enter puberty at 11 and younger. Is it not pedophilia to have sex with these children? Another example is my 6 year old daughter who has hydrocephalus has started puberty due to a hormone imbalance caused by the Hydrocephalus. Are you saying that law allows this. Ridiculous.

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.

Apparently Epstein had video in ALL his residences that way, as most lowlifes do, if need be, his clients could be blackmailed by Epstein. Not surprised by this at all. We're talking about someone who started out as a lowly math teacher quit literally hanging out with Princes and Presidents. If you were doing something illegal that might get your butt in jail and they were partying it up with you, wouldn't you video them in case you needed leverage later? (Epstein having his place wired is according to Jane Doe #3.) Even if they weren't doing anything guilty, just the association of it, would be enough to make them jump and do your bidding. It might be why he only got 13 months in jail with "immunity for co-conspirators", without even consulting the victims, rather than a lengthy prison sentence. Friends in high places, and blackmail and all that jazz.

Something just occurred to me?

Those statement extracts i posted earlier with the refusals to answer questions about Andrew. Why the refusals?

If they were being represented and controlled (allegedly) by Lawyers provided by Epstein, and assuming they did have knowledge of Andrew, then why not just have them lie and say they had no knowledge. It would have been much simpler!

Maybe its obvious and i just cant see it... It is past my bedtime though, lol

Anyway... Bed! Catch you all in the morn.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Well, the attitudes some of these posters have about this subject is EXACTLY WHY the problem exists.

So many of these cases have come to light only to disappear or be forgotten about or ignored by the mainstream media. Or the whistle blower is demeaned and ridiculed---that's a common response.

I'm not sure how anyone can be blase, for example, about a six-year old girl being kidnapped from her family and initiated into a sex ring. How can you contemplate that and not want to throw up?

Sex rings, pornography, sexual slavery...all just a side of the same coin. 17 years old, 10 years old...what's the difference? As long as people are willing to exploit others for sexual gain, these problems will never go away.

And as long as there are people like here on ATS who can be so ignorant of the truth---we're not likely to see these idiots prosecuted and put away. No, our society gives them permission by turning the other cheek.

a reply to: HumanPLC


When you get a 'Yes' or 'No' answer it is definite and clear ....

However .....

If you want to leave it in the air and muddy the waters ....

You leave people guessing ....

And invariably what people imagine and guess is probably worse?

a reply to: MRuss

Who is denying they exist? no one here but sorry this thread is just fueled on the hatred of the royal family,,,the OP's posts have proved that.
When she comes out and says it in a place where she can be held accountable for what she is saying I will watch with interest but she has not.
Was she forced to go back? was she forced on the private planes? was she forced to take the money?.
Sorry but she puts the real investigations back and demeans the real victims of sexual slavery.

a reply to: MRuss


In the last two or three years there have been many cases

of "celebrities" here in the UK arrested on what is termed

'historical abuse' cases some have been convicted

after a trial and rightly so

BUT

Others have after a trial been proved innocent,

and they have become 'victims' because mud sticks.

What ever happened to INNOCENT TILL PROVED GUILTY

originally posted by: Anyafaj

originally posted by: Tangerine

Dershowitz has received a formal request from Roberts’ lawyers to be subject on 19 January to a deposition. The letter asks Dershowitz to bring passport pages reflecting his travel over the last decade and “all photographs taken while you were a traveling companion or house guest of Jeffrey Epstein’s”.

Dershowitz

Great. This is a good start to get to the bottom of this.

a reply to: HumanPLC

She may well have been involved in illegal activities and had a right to plead the fifth to protect herself. It doesn't mean that another party was guilty of illegal activities, although they may have been. I enjoy debating with you.

originally posted by: Anyafaj

originally posted by: daftpink

...

I don't know who she pissed off more, Dershowitz, or the Queen. I'll tell you, as much as I believe her claim, or at least would like to, Alan has REALLY come out swinging!

...

Why would you like to believe her claim?

It turns out the woman who named Prince Andrew has a huge history of fraudulent claims, just like this one, usually trying to name famous people in big scandals in an effort to keep her name in the news.

originally posted by: HumanPLC
Something just occurred to me?

Those statement extracts i posted earlier with the refusals to answer questions about Andrew. Why the refusals?

If they were being represented and controlled (allegedly) by Lawyers provided by Epstein, and assuming they did have knowledge of Andrew, then why not just have them lie and say they had no knowledge. It would have been much simpler!

Maybe its obvious and i just cant see it... It is past my bedtime though, lol

Anyway... Bed! Catch you all in the morn.

Here's another thought. These women might have been willing participants in blackmailing the rich and famous. That would be a very good reason to plead the fifth.

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: liteonit6969

Well, the attitudes some of these posters have about this subject is EXACTLY WHY the problem exists.

So many of these cases have come to light only to disappear or be forgotten about or ignored by the mainstream media. Or the whistle blower is demeaned and ridiculed---that's a common response.

I'm not sure how anyone can be blase, for example, about a six-year old girl being kidnapped from her family and initiated into a sex ring. How can you contemplate that and not want to throw up?

Sex rings, pornography, sexual slavery...all just a side of the same coin. 17 years old, 10 years old...what's the difference? As long as people are willing to exploit others for sexual gain, these problems will never go away.

And as long as there are people like here on ATS who can be so ignorant of the truth---we're not likely to see these idiots prosecuted and put away. No, our society gives them permission by turning the other cheek.

Imagine the attitude of people wanting evidence before convicting someone! The audacity!