British Royal Officials Weighing Prince Andrew's Legal Options

cinrit · January 12, 2015, 12:29:04 PM

QuotePrince Andrew's Guards 'Turned a Blind Eye': Yard Officers Watched as Duke Partied with Young Girls, Says Epstein's Butler

Prince Andrew's bodyguards were accused yesterday of turning a blind eye during his visits to a paedophile friend's 'house of sin'.

Protection officers accompanied the royal to Jeffrey Epstein's Florida mansion where he allegedly partied with naked young women.

Juan Alessi, who was Epstein's butler for 11 years, said: 'Andrew was with security. He had his two bodyguards from Scotland Yard. I can remember their names.

'The bodyguards were off duty and they slept in one of the guest bedrooms.'

Hundreds of under-age girls are said to have been abused at Epstein's mansion and one woman says she was forced by the shamed financier to have sex with Andrew when she was 17, which is below the age of consent in Florida.

More: Prince Andrew's guards 'turned blind eye' says Jeffrey Epstein's butler | Daily Mail Online

Cindy

HistoryGirl · January 12, 2015, 01:48:42 PM

^I don't blame them too much. It's not their job to keep the royals out of tomfoolery, just to keep them from physical harm.

cinrit · January 12, 2015, 01:50:28 PM

Yes, true, but as the article points out, if they see something illegal taking place, they are obligated to report it.

Cindy

HistoryGirl · January 12, 2015, 02:10:49 PM

^Right, but their jobs would be on the line. They have families to take care of as well. I'm not sure I'd be willing to put that on the line. It's easy to judge from afar, but until that situation is in front of you it's difficult to say how to react. I see the diversion has started in an attempt to take the heat away from the person who put them in that situation: Andrew.

cinrit · January 12, 2015, 03:33:40 PM

^^ Understandable. They really have a sort of plush job, and if the Daily Mail is to be believed (?), some bring in £80K a year, which is twice the average salary. I can see how it would be hard to give that up. Still, if they get caught not reporting illegal activity in their presence, they have to be expected to be disciplined. :shrug:

Yes, I'm sure there will be many diversionary tactics in the coming days and weeks.

Cindy

HistoryGirl · January 12, 2015, 03:46:15 PM

^True.

Canuck · January 12, 2015, 03:59:58 PM

I'm sure they're required to report clearly illegal activity, but this is a little harder. Do they know how old the women are? Can they tell whether they're there voluntarily? I can't hold the protection officers responsible for not saying something in the circumstances we've heard about.

Lady Adams · January 12, 2015, 04:13:04 PM

Quote from: HistoryGirl on January 12, 2015, 02:10:49 PM
^Right, but their jobs would be on the line. They have families to take care of as well. I'm not sure I'd be willing to put that on the line. It's easy to judge from afar, but until that situation is in front of you it's difficult to say how to react. I see the diversion has started in an attempt to take the heat away from the person who put them in that situation: Andrew.

Agree.

cinrit · January 12, 2015, 04:45:02 PM

Quote from: Canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:59:58 PM
I'm sure they're required to report clearly illegal activity, but this is a little harder. Do they know how old the women are? Can they tell whether they're there voluntarily? I can't hold the protection officers responsible for not saying something in the circumstances we've heard about.

True, and all of this is brought up in the article. I suppose the PO's will be questioned, but unless there was blatant disregard while knowing what was going on, nothing will happen to them.

Cindy

amabel · January 13, 2015, 05:24:37 PM

Quote from: Canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:59:58 PM
I'm sure they're required to report clearly illegal activity, but this is a little harder. Do they know how old the women are? Can they tell whether they're there voluntarily? I can't hold the protection officers responsible for not saying something in the circumstances we've heard about.

I shoudln't think so. what are they going to say "Excuse me miss can I see your birth cert"? Or Are you sure you want to be here/

Limabeany · January 14, 2015, 12:26:57 AM

:thumbsup:

Quote from: HistoryGirl on January 12, 2015, 02:10:49 PM
^Right, but their jobs would be on the line. They have families to take care of as well. I'm not sure I'd be willing to put that on the line. It's easy to judge from afar, but until that situation is in front of you it's difficult to say how to react. I see the diversion has started in an attempt to take the heat away from the person who put them in that situation: Andrew.

HsHCharlene · January 14, 2015, 02:58:33 AM

'Diary of Virginia Roberts who claims she had sex with Prince Andrew reveals details' | Daily Mail Online

QuoteA never-seen-before diary purportedly belonging to the woman who claims she had underage sex with Prince Andrew reveals explicit claims of the alleged night they slept together in London.Virginia Roberts, now 30, claims that she had sex with the prince when she was 17 and a 'sex slave' to his billionaire friend Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted pedophile.
In the 24-page diary, obtained by Radar Online, Roberts details the night they allegedly met as well as graphic details of their sexual encounter.

Curryong · January 14, 2015, 03:05:04 AM

Quote from: HsHCharlene on January 14, 2015, 02:58:33 AM
'Diary of Virginia Roberts who claims she had sex with Prince Andrew reveals details' | Daily Mail Online

QuoteA never-seen-before diary purportedly belonging to the woman who claims she had underage sex with Prince Andrew reveals explicit claims of the alleged night they slept together in London.Virginia Roberts, now 30, claims that she had sex with the prince when she was 17 and a 'sex slave' to his billionaire friend Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted pedophile.
In the 24-page diary, obtained by Radar Online, Roberts details the night they allegedly met as well as graphic details of their sexual encounter.

What is Radar Online? Is it a credible source?

HsHCharlene · January 14, 2015, 03:07:58 AM

It's a celebrity news type of outlet like TMZ; and like TMZ they can pay for exclusives but they aren't more reliable than any other site at all.

Canuck · January 14, 2015, 04:01:13 AM

Radar is very much like TMZ. When it is just reporting gossip, I don't pay it much attention. When it says it has a document/video/pictures, I believe they are authentic because it (like tmz) is willing to pay for those things and thus gets scoops (like the Ray Rice video) that mainstream media doesn't.

Limabeany · January 14, 2015, 09:56:07 AM

Re:

Quote from: HsHCharlene on January 14, 2015, 02:58:33 AM
'Diary of Virginia Roberts who claims she had sex with Prince Andrew reveals details' | Daily Mail Online

"@phildampier: One thing I don't believe is that Andrew ordered an alcoholic cocktail. He never touches a drop."

"@phildampier: no he just never liked booze. Has never drunk."

PaulaB · January 15, 2015, 09:08:23 AM

Prince Andrew doesnt drink. Also her description being caressed areas more like a bad mills and boon rather than a witness describing a crime.

snokitty · January 15, 2015, 03:52:36 PM

Virginia Roberts has provided proof of an association with Andrew.

In the photo of her and Andrew she is clearly a very young girl. It is an intimate photo of a man with his arm wrapped around a very young girls waist. He is grinning from ear to ear and seems quite comfortable. They are leaning into each other instead of the usual fan posing with a royal stance.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/13/2492DC8C00000578-2908852-image-a-6_1421185144981.jpg

IMO Andrew is guilty of keeping company with some really bad characters. Whether he just looks away from their activities or participates in them I have no idea.

A grown man and especially a Father of young daughters should at least want to know what was happening. When he went to Epstein's house he had to notice that all the females around him were extremely young.

The case is against the prosecutors of Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal. These girls were denied justice for a crime committed to them by Jeffrey Epstein. Andrew would be nothing but a witness for the girls defense team to call.

Andrew put himself in this position because of the company that he keeps. No reason for them to try and destroy these girls reputation before they get their day in court. I would advise Andrew and Dershowitz to speak nicely to her attorneys and see if they can get out of being called to the stand. Even though Dershowitz has probably ruined his chances of that.

Those Attorneys did not bring this case to court if they have no evidence to prove the allegations in this case. Especially since there are such high profile individuals involved. The trial is when we will know what all the evidence is.

I think Andrew should leave public life because I see no way for his reputation to recover.

HistoryGirl · January 15, 2015, 05:40:03 PM

Quote from: Canuck on January 14, 2015, 04:01:13 AM
Radar is very much like TMZ. When it is just reporting gossip, I don't pay it much attention. When it says it has a document/video/pictures, I believe they are authentic because it (like tmz) is willing to pay for those things and thus gets scoops (like the Ray Rice video) that mainstream media doesn't.

Agreed. TMZ is good with obtaining evidence with stories like that.