UK - Prince Andrew accused of underage sexual relationship, 1999 - 2002

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #561
So they had dinner and then sex? so what happened to the night club?

RSBM

Weren't they at Tramp? Tramp serves dinners.

https://www.tramp.co.uk/theclub

40 Jermyn Street has been our home since opening in 1969. Beyond the threshold, descend beneath Jermyn Street and Piccadilly to our spectacular subterranean environment where you can dine, entertain and party.
 
  • #562
He was meant to have sold it some time ago as he owed someone 9 million towards it...but now it says its up for sale...its hard to keep up with it

Yes you are right. I did read in our local uk paper couple of years back, maybe more that he had to repay the money he owed on it and was selling up. Can't remember when it was, nor can I find the article. I wonder if, and it's probably a big IF, it was 2019 that talk of selling came up. Maybe around the time Epstein was locked up, or died.
Certainly hard to keep up.
 
  • #563
RSBM

Weren't they at Tramp? Tramp serves dinners.

https://www.tramp.co.uk/theclub

40 Jermyn Street has been our home since opening in 1969. Beyond the threshold, descend beneath Jermyn Street and Piccadilly to our spectacular subterranean environment where you can dine, entertain and party.

fair enough it does although Virginia has never mentioned going for dinner just that they went dancing...its going to be interesting what else comes out. It will be a wonder if Andrew doesnt have her as a witness now
 
  • #564
fair enough it does although Virginia has never mentioned going for dinner just that they went dancing...its going to be interesting what else comes out. It will be a wonder if Andrew doesnt have her as a witness now

To bolster the fact that Andrew did indeed sleep with a woman who was trafficked?
 
  • #565
Yes you are right. I did read in our local uk paper couple of years back, maybe more that he had to repay the money he owed on it and was selling up. Can't remember when it was, nor can I find the article. I wonder if, and it's probably a big IF, it was 2019 that talk of selling came up. Maybe around the time Epstein was locked up, or died.
Certainly hard to keep up.

To bolster the fact that Andrew did indeed sleep with a woman who was trafficked?

Perhaps. I think Carolynns interview... is interesting put it that way. Now I have seen what VG has to say, Carolynn and Johanna and its just ...interesting to read it all :)
 
Last edited:
  • #566
Perhaps. I think Carolynns interview... is interesting put it that way. Now I have seen what VG has to say, Carolynn and Johanna and its just ...interesting to read it all :)

I find it interesting that everyone who testified about their grooming and trafficking, it all happened in strikingly similar ways. Carolynn's interview strengthens that, imo. VRG had been groomed and manipulated to believe she was lucky to sleep with Andrew.

MOO
 
  • #567
I find it interesting that everyone who testified about their grooming and trafficking, it all happened in strikingly similar ways. Carolynn's interview strengthens that, imo. VRG had been groomed and manipulated to believe she was lucky to sleep with Andrew.

MOO

Maybe :) I will reserve judgement until I hear all the evidence ; )
 
  • #568
  • #569
I find it interesting that everyone who testified about their grooming and trafficking, it all happened in strikingly similar ways. Carolynn's interview strengthens that, imo. VRG had been groomed and manipulated to believe she was lucky to sleep with Andrew.

MOO

the thing is she says she done it under fear of death which isnt the impression she gave Carolynn. Carolynn said she thought it was "cool"
 
  • #570
  • #571
  • #572
  • #573
But according to the famous "agreement" she can't, can she?

Or maybe it allows her to be just a witness and not the accuser?

sorry which agreement?
 
  • #574
Last edited:
  • #575
Virginia Giuffre 'available' to give evidence in Maxwell sex trafficking case but was not contacted | Daily Mail Online

From the article, Bolded By Me:

Miss Roberts has been a running feature of the case, having flown 32 times on Epstein’s ‘Lolita Express’ private jet with the multi-millionaire financier and Maxwell, as well as recruiting schoolgirl Carolyn for alleged abuse, jurors heard. Yet neither side has called the 38-year-old as a witness.

The prosecution did not explain why it had not done so, although it might have feared that inconsistencies which have emerged over the years in her well-publicised story might not have been helpful.

And if the defence had called Miss Roberts, who blames Maxwell for ruining her life, it could have been disastrous. In a hearing on Saturday, prosecutors taunted Maxwell’s defence lawyers by saying they could have invited Miss Roberts to take the stand but had chosen not to.

Andrew Rohrbach said: ‘The most obvious witness who was available to both sides and who we expect the defence to comment on is Virginia Roberts, who was described as a victim but did not testify and she was fully available to the defendants. They did not call her.’
 
  • #576
  • #577
  • #578
But according to the famous "agreement" she can't, can she?
Or maybe it allows her to be just a witness and not the accuser?
sorry which agreement?
Between JE and VG/R.
The one a Juge is considering now!!!
But the agreement clearly stated that VG cannot accuse any JE accomplices!
But maybe it concerns only civil lawsuits and not criminal trials?

I'm still not sure which one you mean. This is my understanding, I may be wrong:

agreement B:
There is a settlement agreement from a civil lawsuit in which VRG agreed not sue in a civil court JE again nor anyone connected to JE.
It has nothing to do with criminal charges in a criminal court or the GM prosecution.

agreement C:
Also,
if VRG has settled with the JE estate she would have had to sign a similar agreement again.

agreement A:
Also,
There was a non-prosecutorial agreement reached between a florida district federal prosecutor and JE
where the government agreed not to criminally charge anyone connected to JE.
That possibly covers VRG and possibly protects her from prosecution in a criminal court. However it did not protect GM.

As Far As I Know there was no legal document preventing VRG from testifying for either the prosecution or the defence in the GM trial.
 
  • #579
I'm still not sure which one you mean. This is my understanding, I may be wrong:

There is a settlement agreement from a civil lawsuit in which VRG agreed not sue in a civil court JE again nor anyone connected to JE.
It has nothing to do with criminal charges in a criminal court or the GM prosecution.

Also,
There was a non-prosecutorial agreement reached between a florida district federal prosecutor and JE
where the government agreed not to criminally charge anyone connected to JE.
That possibly covers VRG and possibly protects her from prosecution in a criminal court. However it did not protect GM.

As Far As I Know there was no legal document preventing VRG from testifying for either the prosecution or the defence in the GM trial.
Yes, a settlement!
Sorry, I forgot this word, but I should be excused as English is a foreign language for me haha

Thanks for explaining :)
 
  • #580
Yes, a settlement!
Sorry, I forgot this word, but I should be excused as English is a foreign language for me haha

Thanks for explaining :)

No worries.

I could be incorrect though. hopefully someone will confirm or correct me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
2,070
Total visitors
2,186

Forum statistics

Threads
632,615
Messages
18,629,099
Members
243,216
Latest member
zagadka
Back
Top