Virginia Roberts Giuffre describes being trafficked to Prince Andrew

[Anonymous]

Epstein is/was a pig.
But honestly, there is something about this woman that is not credible.
Why is she just telling these stories now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Epstein is/was a pig.
But honestly, there is something about this woman that is not credible.
Why is she just telling these stories now?

Also, she was not someone who had an encounter with Epstein and then traumatized went away. She is someone who lived and travelled with him. She was his prostitute basically and she left when? not when she was afraid for her life but when he lost interest in her.

So I'm sorry, that doesn't show good character and it doesn't show victimization, it shows complicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Epstein is/was a pig.
But honestly, there is something about this woman that is not credible.
Why is she just telling these stories now?

Also, she was not someone who had an encounter with Epstein and then traumatized went away. She is someone who lived and travelled with him. She was his prostitute basically and she left when? not when she was afraid for her life but when he lost interest in her.

So I'm sorry, that doesn't show good character and it doesn't show victimization, it shows complicity.

I generally believe her. However, I think she would have been more believable had she been honest about her complicity. Or demonstrated some honest reflection about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Epstein is/was a pig.
But honestly, there is something about this woman that is not credible.
Why is she just telling these stories now?

Also, she was not someone who had an encounter with Epstein and then traumatized went away. She is someone who lived and travelled with him. She was his prostitute basically and she left when? not when she was afraid for her life but when he lost interest in her.

So I'm sorry, that doesn't show good character and it doesn't show victimization, it shows complicity.

I generally believe her. However, I think she would have been more believable had she been honest about her complicity. Or demonstrated some honest reflection about it.

How can you be complicit when you were sex trafficked at 17? She was Epstein's sex slave from 1999 to 2002 with no education and no way out.

And quite frankly, the FBI came to her and vetted her story when they went after the pedophile for the umpteenth time.

I believe her and I think these disgusting men are getting what's coming to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was 17 years old and they were in London, then absolutely zero laws were broken if she did indeed sleep with any member of the royal family.

In the UK the age of consent for any gender, is 16.

So she has no case even if it were true.

Funny - is prostitution legal in London?

Because she describes being paid $15,000 to be raped by Andrew in a townhouse bathroom.

Did he pay Epstein that absurd amount of money for access to what was between her legs?

Or worse - did he trade access to the Queen for his sick perversions?

Everyone knows Andrew hosted Epstein in Buckingham Palace after all.

I think sadly without proof of payment, rape or anything else, there is nothing to go on. Everyone knows that, no matter how much noise she chooses to make about it now.

Why do you think the FBI raided Epstein’s house after he died? For funsies?

They’re getting all the evidence they need, including financial transactions, and he’s not around to stop them.

I'm 100% sure they will get a lot of evidence about a lot of things, but concrete evidence to support the claims above - eh, maybe not so much.

I totally believe they will. Because Andrew's an idiot.

Who has sex with a teenager in another person's BATHROOM? Who goes on a long, extended stay with a convicted pedophile in the year after the scandal was first at its peak? Andrew, Andrew, Andrew.

I do believe that the palace has protected him his whole life and he thinks he's untouchable as such. Him and his grifter wife. Sorry, EX-wife whose is still staying in royal estates.

I fully agree that Prince Andrew is an idiot and a grifter and so is his ex-wife. But guilty of rape, no. You need to remember that he would have had to force himself on her for it to be rape. It doesn't sound forced. If she was 17 in London she could have had sex with anyone and it would have been legal (unless she asked for money - then she would have been committing a crime...)

Its amusing how you're trying to protect a lazy, fat 50-year-old by blaming a girl who was sex trafficked at every turn.

She was 17 - TOTALLY LEGAL, you can't nail him on that.

It wasn't rape - it was just consensual sex between a a man with daughters her age and a teenager.

If he paid her, well SHE'S THE CRIMINAL because she accepted money to have sex (nevermind that isn't how trafficking works).

What never came out of your placating mouth - he's a disgust pedophile who uses underage prostitutes and deserves to be in jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was 17 years old and they were in London, then absolutely zero laws were broken if she did indeed sleep with any member of the royal family.

In the UK the age of consent for any gender, is 16.

So she has no case even if it were true.

Funny - is prostitution legal in London?

Because she describes being paid $15,000 to be raped by Andrew in a townhouse bathroom.

Did he pay Epstein that absurd amount of money for access to what was between her legs?

Or worse - did he trade access to the Queen for his sick perversions?

Everyone knows Andrew hosted Epstein in Buckingham Palace after all.

I think sadly without proof of payment, rape or anything else, there is nothing to go on. Everyone knows that, no matter how much noise she chooses to make about it now.

Why do you think the FBI raided Epstein’s house after he died? For funsies?

They’re getting all the evidence they need, including financial transactions, and he’s not around to stop them.

I'm 100% sure they will get a lot of evidence about a lot of things, but concrete evidence to support the claims above - eh, maybe not so much.

I totally believe they will. Because Andrew's an idiot.

Who has sex with a teenager in another person's BATHROOM? Who goes on a long, extended stay with a convicted pedophile in the year after the scandal was first at its peak? Andrew, Andrew, Andrew.

I do believe that the palace has protected him his whole life and he thinks he's untouchable as such. Him and his grifter wife. Sorry, EX-wife whose is still staying in royal estates.

I fully agree that Prince Andrew is an idiot and a grifter and so is his ex-wife. But guilty of rape, no. You need to remember that he would have had to force himself on her for it to be rape. It doesn't sound forced. If she was 17 in London she could have had sex with anyone and it would have been legal (unless she asked for money - then she would have been committing a crime...)

Its amusing how you're trying to protect a lazy, fat 50-year-old by blaming a girl who was sex trafficked at every turn.

She was 17 - TOTALLY LEGAL, you can't nail him on that.

It wasn't rape - it was just consensual sex between a a man with daughters her age and a teenager.

If he paid her, well SHE'S THE CRIMINAL because she accepted money to have sex (nevermind that isn't how trafficking works).

What never came out of your placating mouth - he's a disgust pedophile who uses underage prostitutes and deserves to be in jail.

He's 60 in Feb and you need to learn to read better.

[Anonymous]

Told you.

Now FBI investigates Prince Andrew’s links to Epstein

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/now-fbi-investigates-prince-andrews-links-to-epstein-xr2k0p3cx

FBI probes Prince Andrew's link to Epstein sex scandal: Investigation 'expands to include 100 victims with several who may have more details on the Duke and agency WON'T dismiss claims just because he's royal'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516595/FBI-probes-Prince-Andrew-link-Jeffrey-Epstein-wont-dismiss-claims-royal.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Told you.

Now FBI investigates Prince Andrew’s links to Epstein

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/now-fbi-investigates-prince-andrews-links-to-epstein-xr2k0p3cx

FBI probes Prince Andrew's link to Epstein sex scandal: Investigation 'expands to include 100 victims with several who may have more details on the Duke and agency WON'T dismiss claims just because he's royal'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516595/FBI-probes-Prince-Andrew-link-Jeffrey-Epstein-wont-dismiss-claims-royal.html

Oh my the Times and the Daily Mail. What excellent, scrupulous news sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Told you.

Now FBI investigates Prince Andrew’s links to Epstein

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/now-fbi-investigates-prince-andrews-links-to-epstein-xr2k0p3cx

FBI probes Prince Andrew's link to Epstein sex scandal: Investigation 'expands to include 100 victims with several who may have more details on the Duke and agency WON'T dismiss claims just because he's royal'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516595/FBI-probes-Prince-Andrew-link-Jeffrey-Epstein-wont-dismiss-claims-royal.html

Oh my the Times and the Daily Mail. What excellent, scrupulous news sources.

Andrew's running scared. His daughter's wedding engagement BARELY made one day's news cycle. Meanwhile the entire world is after him.

https://twitter.com/9NewsAUS/status/1178394058760179712

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was 17 years old and they were in London, then absolutely zero laws were broken if she did indeed sleep with any member of the royal family.

In the UK the age of consent for any gender, is 16.

So she has no case even if it were true.

Funny - is prostitution legal in London?

Because she describes being paid $15,000 to be raped by Andrew in a townhouse bathroom.

Did he pay Epstein that absurd amount of money for access to what was between her legs?

Or worse - did he trade access to the Queen for his sick perversions?

Everyone knows Andrew hosted Epstein in Buckingham Palace after all.

I think sadly without proof of payment, rape or anything else, there is nothing to go on. Everyone knows that, no matter how much noise she chooses to make about it now.

Why do you think the FBI raided Epstein’s house after he died? For funsies?

They’re getting all the evidence they need, including financial transactions, and he’s not around to stop them.

I'm 100% sure they will get a lot of evidence about a lot of things, but concrete evidence to support the claims above - eh, maybe not so much.

I totally believe they will. Because Andrew's an idiot.

Who has sex with a teenager in another person's BATHROOM? Who goes on a long, extended stay with a convicted pedophile in the year after the scandal was first at its peak? Andrew, Andrew, Andrew.

I do believe that the palace has protected him his whole life and he thinks he's untouchable as such. Him and his grifter wife. Sorry, EX-wife whose is still staying in royal estates.

I fully agree that Prince Andrew is an idiot and a grifter and so is his ex-wife. But guilty of rape, no. You need to remember that he would have had to force himself on her for it to be rape. It doesn't sound forced. If she was 17 in London she could have had sex with anyone and it would have been legal (unless she asked for money - then she would have been committing a crime...)

Its amusing how you're trying to protect a lazy, fat 50-year-old by blaming a girl who was sex trafficked at every turn.

She was 17 - TOTALLY LEGAL, you can't nail him on that.

It wasn't rape - it was just consensual sex between a a man with daughters her age and a teenager.

If he paid her, well SHE'S THE CRIMINAL because she accepted money to have sex (nevermind that isn't how trafficking works).

What never came out of your placating mouth - he's a disgust pedophile who uses underage prostitutes and deserves to be in jail.

He's 60 in Feb and you need to learn to read better.

PP’s writing was a little rough but all points were right on the money. Sorry you couldn’t defend him better and had to resort to victim blaming. Seriously though, you have to be evil to insinuate the child is guilty in a sex trafficking case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was 17 years old and they were in London, then absolutely zero laws were broken if she did indeed sleep with any member of the royal family.

In the UK the age of consent for any gender, is 16.

So she has no case even if it were true.

Funny - is prostitution legal in London?

Because she describes being paid $15,000 to be raped by Andrew in a townhouse bathroom.

Did he pay Epstein that absurd amount of money for access to what was between her legs?

Or worse - did he trade access to the Queen for his sick perversions?

Everyone knows Andrew hosted Epstein in Buckingham Palace after all.

17 is old enough to decide. Changing your mind/regrets/ rewriting history through today's view is not rape.

I think sadly without proof of payment, rape or anything else, there is nothing to go on. Everyone knows that, no matter how much noise she chooses to make about it now.

Why do you think the FBI raided Epstein’s house after he died? For funsies?

They’re getting all the evidence they need, including financial transactions, and he’s not around to stop them.

I'm 100% sure they will get a lot of evidence about a lot of things, but concrete evidence to support the claims above - eh, maybe not so much.

I totally believe they will. Because Andrew's an idiot.

Who has sex with a teenager in another person's BATHROOM? Who goes on a long, extended stay with a convicted pedophile in the year after the scandal was first at its peak? Andrew, Andrew, Andrew.

I do believe that the palace has protected him his whole life and he thinks he's untouchable as such. Him and his grifter wife. Sorry, EX-wife whose is still staying in royal estates.

I fully agree that Prince Andrew is an idiot and a grifter and so is his ex-wife. But guilty of rape, no. You need to remember that he would have had to force himself on her for it to be rape. It doesn't sound forced. If she was 17 in London she could have had sex with anyone and it would have been legal (unless she asked for money - then she would have been committing a crime...)

[Anonymous]

Lainey's post today is biting and hilarious:

https://www.laineygossip.com/prince-andrew-reportedly-risks-being-further-embroiled-in-jeffrey-epstein-scandal-fbi-expands-investigation/58657

[Anonymous]

Disgusting yes but
17 is old enough to decide.
Regret, changing your mind and rewriting history through today's lens, is not r#pe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting yes but
17 is old enough to decide.
Regret, changing your mind and rewriting history through today's lens, is not r#pe.

I think that the coercion, and having been essentially a sex slave for Epstein/Maxwell, dispels the notion of free will. These girls were also controlled psychologically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting yes but
17 is old enough to decide.
Regret, changing your mind and rewriting history through today's lens, is not r#pe.

I think that the coercion, and having been essentially a sex slave for Epstein/Maxwell, dispels the notion of free will. These girls were also controlled psychologically.

tell that to the Manson followers dying in prison