The Prince Andrew Interview here:
Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview - BBC News
•Nov 17, 2019
There is little doubt the interview Prince Andrew gave to Emily Maitlis and the BBC was a public relations disaster. Had this been an ordinary member of the public, it might be understandable. However it obviously wasn't. Prince Andrew has had sixty years experience of the media. He is a prominent member of arguably the most famous family in the world that relies on its image to maintain its popularity and position. It has learnt over nearly seventy years of the Queen's reign, and previously, how to manage scandal to limit the damage that it unavoidably causes. The abdication of the Queen's uncle and the collapse of the marriages of the Queen's sister and three of her four children, besides the trauma of the death of Princess Diana must have taught the Palace something. Many more were effectively buried.
So Andrew interviewed in Buckingham Palace must have had the permission of the Queen and had access to the best legal and PR advice available to anyone in the land, so how was such disaster allowed to take place? One is forced to conclude that either the Palace demonstrated an unbelievable level of incompetence or that for some rather devious reason, too obscure to comprehend, it wanted the portrayal that it got.
And what was Prince Andrew's part in it? Presumably he wanted to do it in the way that he did. Did he not seek to know the questions that he would be asked and rehearse with others his answers and how they could be construed? On such a potentially damaging issue as under age sex and the sex trafficking of children for the wealthy and political elite, did the Palace officials demand sight of both questions and answers beforehand?
These must be the questions Prince Charles, and future King, must now be posing to those in charge of Prince Andrew's retinue, if not to Andrew himself. It has reported that Amanda Thirsk (shown below) his 'right hand woman' has already been sacked over the
affair but also helpfully been given a job elsewhere. The British 'Sun' reported she was "part of of Duke’s bizarre all-female inner circle dubbed ‘Andy’s Angels’". Another is ex-David Cameron staffer, Laura Hutchings.https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10411378/prince-andrew-amanda-thirsk-aides-andys-angels/
We must wonder now, if not before, if they were all fallen ones? One might have expected women advisors to be more sensitive to the subject matter, the alleged victims and incipient reputational dangers to the Prince himself. In practice they proved only their ineptness and naivety.
The Duke of York pictured with 'angel' Amanda Thirsk at the Chelsea Flower ShowCredit: Press Association
Emily Maitlis has subsequently suggested that the reason the Prince came over as he did was because he had not been coached and wished to come over as natural as possible. She has said he seemed "candid and authentic" but dodged the question as to whether she thought him "truthful". It seems her opinion of him has not been replicated by the media commentators or general public opinion. Without making any judgements of the Prince it is undoubtedly true that an inveterate liar is 'authentic' if and when he lies. 'Candid' in the circumstances is surely something of a weasel word?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxuifGLiRjQ
They say that the majority of any message is conveyed by non-verbal clues - what is called 'body language'. Even a practised performer such as Prince Andrew would likely feel somewhat uncomfortable, despite the familiar surroundings and deferential attitude of the interviewer. Nevertheless there is something rather shifty about his manner. He certainly evidences no convincing regret - other than staying at Epstein's house for four days in 2010 after the latter had been convicted of a sex charge - and no empathy for those who have claimed they were trafficked or abused, or indeed for the general issue of sex with under aged individuals.
But there were more obvious and serious flaws in his testimony.
(Continued)
But besides these general reservations, there is the more important one of numerous examples of embedded inconsistencies in his memory of events and his justification for them. He attempt to reconcile his distance from Jeffrey Epstein, with his close friendship with him. His memory completely fails in relation to important alleged events, whilst being clear and certain regarding contemporaneous trivial ones. He suggests explanations that are patently not credible. He fails to provide any substantive evidence to rebut the claims.
The defences he does put up to the allegations, for example the absence of sweating; that he never allowed photographs of him with women; that he always wore a tie when he was out; that a photograph had been doctored; that he was never at Ghislaine Maxwell's house; that he didn't know where the bar was at the London nightclub, are so patently flimsy or have been disproved by other photographs, that it destroys all reliance on his assertion that the claimed intimate relationship, "Never happened". There is of course the added inherent problem that if as he claims he has "No recollection" of the lady in question, he can also in the same breath be so sure "It never happened". The two assertions must be contradictory and mutually exclusive.
He says right at the beginning of the interview he makes it clear he met Epstein through his friend Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of Robert Maxwell the newspaper proprietor and alleged Israeli spy, who died in mysterious circumstances off his yacht in 1991. Maxwell was an acknowledged fraudster, stealing millions from his employees pension fund to shore up his business empire and enrich himself, the proceeds of which benefited his daughter. Prince Andrew does not dwell on how this relationship started or the propriety of it given Robert Maxwell's reputation.
Notwithstanding this, it is clear that Prince Andrew attempts to use Ghislaine to distance himself from Epstein and his involvement with him. In fact he attempts to pass the focus of attention for his actions onto her, which some might regard as inherent cowardice. Again there is logical incoherence in his argument. On the one hand that Epstein wasn't a close friend, yet he required a personal trip to the United States to tell him they couldn't be.
"I met back in 1999 .... think to some extent it would be a stretch to
say, as it were, we were close friends - we were friends because of other people. I didn't have much time with him. I suppose I saw him once or twice a year. If he wasn't there he would say, why don't you come and use my houses, and I said thank you very much indeed. But it would be a considerable stretch to say he was a very, very close friend."
"I have never been a party animal and going to Jeffrey's was never about partying. It was the girlfriend (Ghislaine) who was the key element in this."
"Ever since I visited him in 2010 I have questioned myself, was it the right thing to do? I went there with the sole purpose of saying to him that because he had been convicted it was inappropriate for us to be seen together. I took the judgement call that because this was serious, doing it over the telephone was the chicken's way of doing it. I had to go and see him and talk to him. By mutual agreement during that walk in the park we decided we would part company and from that day I never had any contact with him from that day forward."
In other words his stated position is that despite knowing this prominent person since 1999 through an even older friend who he had "met at university" - though of course he did not attend university, going straight to Dartmouth from Gordonstoun - and staying at his various houses two or three times a year, he had no idea of Epstein's penchant for young females. This also would appear to require a "considerable stretch". Someone else has been quoted as saying "You couldn't be around Jeffrey for long before you were aware he liked young girls."
Of course another intriguing imponderable, is why it took so long for the images of Andrew and Jeffrey walking together in the park, and the video of the former waving goodbye to Katherine Keating (bit of a stretch to claim they were also 'close friends'?) from Epstein's apartment, to emerge in the public domain. And why now? Also perhaps more importantly, who or what unrevealed agency obtained them, released them and for what purpose - other than to implicate a member of the British Royal Family, presumably to cause him and it, grave reputational damage?
A psychological analysis of Prince Andrew's interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-y2g9Ot5GA
1999 - 2006 by his own admission, he met Epstein up to twenty-one times. In addition on an undeclared number of occasions he stayed at his properties when Epstein wasn't there. Yet he says to call him a close friend "was a bit of a stretch". Yet after knowing of his conviction, in 2010, he had to fly all the way to New York to meet and break off personally what was not a close friendship, staying in Epstein's town house for four days, walking in the park with him, and being filmed waving a smiling goodbye to the attractive daughter of the ex-Prime Minister of Australia! Leaving aside his acknowledged close relationship to Ghislaine Maxwell since university days, also Epstein's girlfriend, confidant and procurer of yound females for sex, this can hardly be regarded as a convincing line of argument.
A different slant on the story....
(Continued)
But besides these general reservations, there is the more important one of numerous examples of embedded inconsistencies in his memory of events and his justification for them. He attempt to reconcile his distance from Jeffrey Epstein, with his close friendship with him. His memory completely fails in relation to important alleged events, whilst being clear and certain regarding contemporaneous trivial ones. He suggests explanations that are patently not credible. He fails to provide any substantive evidence to rebut the claims.
The defences he does put up to the allegations, for example the absence of sweating; that he never allowed photographs of him with women; that he always wore a tie when he was out; that a photograph had been doctored; that he was never at Ghislaine Maxwell's house; that he didn't know where the bar was at the London nightclub, are so patently flimsy or have been disproved by other photographs, that it destroys all reliance on his assertion that the claimed intimate relationship, "Never happened". There is of course the added inherent problem that if as he claims he has "No recollection" of the lady in question, he can also in the same breath be so sure "It never happened". The two assertions must be contradictory and mutually exclusive.
He says right at the beginning of the interview he makes it clear he met Epstein through his friend Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of Robert Maxwell the newspaper proprietor and alleged Israeli spy, who died in mysterious circumstances off his yacht in 1991. Maxwell was an acknowledged fraudster, stealing millions from his employees pension fund to shore up his business empire and enrich himself, the proceeds of which benefited his daughter. Prince Andrew does not dwell on how this relationship started or the propriety of it given Robert Maxwell's reputation.
Notwithstanding this, it is clear that Prince Andrew attempts to use Ghislaine to distance himself from Epstein and his involvement with him. In fact he attempts to pass the focus of attention for his actions onto her, which some might regard as inherent cowardice. Again there is logical incoherence in his argument. On the one hand that Epstein wasn't a close friend, yet he required a personal trip to the United States to tell him they couldn't be.
"I met back in 1999 .... think to some extent it would be a stretch to
say, as it were, we were close friends - we were friends because of other people. I didn't have much time with him. I suppose I saw him once or twice a year. If he wasn't there he would say, why don't you come and use my houses, and I said thank you very much indeed. But it would be a considerable stretch to say he was a very, very close friend."
"I have never been a party animal and going to Jeffrey's was never about partying. It was the girlfriend (Ghislaine) who was the key element in this."
"Ever since I visited him in 2010 I have questioned myself, was it the right thing to do? I went there with the sole purpose of saying to him that because he had been convicted it was inappropriate for us to be seen together. I took the judgement call that because this was serious, doing it over the telephone was the chicken's way of doing it. I had to go and see him and talk to him. By mutual agreement during that walk in the park we decided we would part company and from that day I never had any contact with him from that day forward."
In other words his stated position is that despite knowing this prominent person since 1999 through an even older friend who he had "met at university" - though of course he did not attend university, going straight to Dartmouth from Gordonstoun - and staying at his various houses two or three times a year, he had no idea of Epstein's penchant for young females. This also would appear to require a "considerable stretch". Someone else has been quoted as saying "You couldn't be around Jeffrey for long before you were aware he liked young girls."
Of course another intriguing imponderable, is why it took so long for the images of Andrew and Jeffrey walking together in the park, and the video of the former waving goodbye to Katherine Keating (bit of a stretch to claim they were also 'close friends'?) from Epstein's apartment, to emerge in the public domain. And why now? Also perhaps more importantly, who or what unrevealed agency obtained them, released them and for what purpose - other than to implicate a member of the British Royal Family, presumably to cause him and it, grave reputational damage?
A psychological analysis of Prince Andrew's interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-y2g9Ot5GA
1999 - 2006 by his own admission, he met Epstein up to twenty-one times. In addition on an undeclared number of occasions he stayed at his properties when Epstein wasn't there. Yet he says to call him a close friend "was a bit of a stretch". Yet after knowing of his conviction, in 2010, he had to fly all the way to New York to meet and break off personally what was not a close friendship, staying in Epstein's town house for four days, walking in the park with him, and being filmed waving a smiling goodbye to the attractive daughter of the ex-Prime Minister of Australia! Leaving aside his acknowledged close relationship to Ghislaine Maxwell since university days, also Epstein's girlfriend, confidant and procurer of yound females for sex, this can hardly be regarded as a convincing line of argument.
A different slant on the story....
Prince Andrew's interview didn't go well, but that doesn't mean he's guilty. Let's take a good look at his accuser. My first thought is : what kind of scumbag is she that she was having sex for money at that young age, and what sort of failed family does she come from where she was free to move around with no parental involvement or care.
She claims she's a victim, but I think she knew what she was doing and was out to get as much as she could.
And, let's face it, that's what she's doing right now, chasing the money and doesn't care how she does it or who gets hurt.
She claims she's a victim, but I think she knew what she was doing and was out to get as much as she could.
And, let's face it, that's what she's doing right now, chasing the money and doesn't care how she does it or who gets hurt.
Virginia Giuffre
She was paid $160,000 by a British tabloid for a story they published of her allegations of sex with famous men, including Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Al Gore.... Need I continue? As one of the defence lawyers put it, it's as if this woman went through a list of famous people and just copied and pasted names.
She was paid $160,000 by a British tabloid for a story they published of her allegations of sex with famous men, including Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Al Gore.... Need I continue? As one of the defence lawyers put it, it's as if this woman went through a list of famous people and just copied and pasted names.
She has a book proposal out to publishers and she's trying to get a lucrative book deal. If she succeeds she would stand to get enough money so she'd never have to work her ass again. So the stakes are very high and she stands to gain a huge bonanza just to tell this story.
She claims she was a "victim" but she spent most of three years inside of Epstein’s circle, showing up whenever Epstein called. She was free to leave at any time but didn't.
She never reported anyone until now. And she's never needed any form of medical treatment or psychological counselling which one would expect a real victim of abuse to have needed.
There is no corroboration for her story and no witnesses who can confirm any of the details.
Giuffre's allegations have only been place in her head, and the public record via her own documents and depositions in her own case where she herself is being sued for defamation, and through her book proposal.
Giuffre's allegations have only been place in her head, and the public record via her own documents and depositions in her own case where she herself is being sued for defamation, and through her book proposal.
Her claims were struck off in a Florida court in 2015 after the judge described them as “immaterial and impertinent” to the case against Epstein.
The photo of her with Prince Andrew appears to be fake.
The light on their faces doesn't match.
Prince Andrew’s friends say the hands in the photo aren’t “chubby” enough.
The photo shows Andrew and Giuffre around the same height, when in reality the prince is about nine inches taller than Giuffre.
The light on their faces doesn't match.
Prince Andrew’s friends say the hands in the photo aren’t “chubby” enough.
The photo shows Andrew and Giuffre around the same height, when in reality the prince is about nine inches taller than Giuffre.
Her employment records prove – and she now concedes – that she didn’t meet Epstein until a year after she turned 16.
This means she was above the age of consent at the time she claimed to have had sex with Epstein’s friends. A consenting adult. No crime committed.
This means she was above the age of consent at the time she claimed to have had sex with Epstein’s friends. A consenting adult. No crime committed.
Someone else she's accused, Alan Dershowitz:
"In one email, a well-known journalist urged her to include my name because of my fame, writing that although there is "no proof " that Dershowitz had sex with you, he is a '"good name for your pitch.'" Giuffre then included me, but as someone who she met and did not have sex with."
"In one email, a well-known journalist urged her to include my name because of my fame, writing that although there is "no proof " that Dershowitz had sex with you, he is a '"good name for your pitch.'" Giuffre then included me, but as someone who she met and did not have sex with."
All of the men whose names have surfaced in connection with Epstein and Giuffre, including Dershowitz and Andrew, have denied her claims. Nothing she has said about either man has yet been proven in any court, civil or criminal.
Special appeal:
She's asked me to pass her details on to anyone who is willing to pay for her story. She says she's "flexible on details" and, given a bit of money, finds it easy to remember the names of other rich and famous men who abused her.
As always, she says, she's "willing to share other things too, as long as you have money", she's your girl.
She's asked me to pass her details on to anyone who is willing to pay for her story. She says she's "flexible on details" and, given a bit of money, finds it easy to remember the names of other rich and famous men who abused her.
As always, she says, she's "willing to share other things too, as long as you have money", she's your girl.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.