In an explosive new report, the British publication ‘The Sun‘ (even the US version) has revealed that the legal team of HRH Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, known to consort with accused pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the now-convicted child sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, is undertaking “emergency talks” fearing that the socialite turned madam might name names to ease her sentence. Maxwell the daughter of a once-prominent British Labour party parliamentarian, suspected spy, publisher, and convicted fraudster Ian Robert Maxwell, is looking at up to 65 years in prison after a New York jury found that she “procured, groomed and trafficked young girls” for Jeffrey Epstein.
Now abuse survivor Virginia Roberts Guiffre embarked upon a civil legal challenge against Prince Andrew, alleging that he committed statutory rape against her while she was 17 and essentially a sex slave to Epstein. The Duke of York has denied the charges in the strongest possible terms. However, the sheer preponderance of the evidence of a deep and personal relationship with both Epstein and Maxwell is completely undeniable with pictures emerging of Andrew aboard Epstein’s ‘Lolita Express‘ airplane with Guiffre and Epstein with Maxwell visible in the background.
As well as those showing both Epstein and Maxwell as guests in the more private Royal residences, such as the Queen’s personal estate at Balmoral.
‘When Prince Andrew invited the couple to the Queen’s Balmoral estate’ pic.twitter.com/Nr62vRfmPx
— Paul Johnson (@paul__johnson) December 29, 2021
According to The Mirror,
“The jurors’ decision has sparked fear in the Duke of York’s legal team given the burden of proof in a criminal case is far higher than that needed in a civil case, like the one Andrew is facing.
Legal experts in the States point to how OJ Simpson was cleared criminally of Nicole Brown’s death but was found liable in a private case brought by her family.
Crimes in America must generally be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt”, whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as “the preponderance of the evidence”.”
Banking On One Piece Of Testimony to Save Prince Andrew
According to several sources in the British media, Andrew’s legal team has pivoted to a highly controversial tactic to defend the embattled Prince. Here in America, we call it “Victim shaming”. Andrew is attempting to portray his accuser as “an alleged criminal who worked to procure underage “slutty girls” for Epstein.” This is based upon a single piece of testimony that arose from the Maxwell trial from one victim: ‘Carolyn’ who allegedly implicated Giuffre, not Maxwell as being involved in sourcing young girls to be trafficked by Epstein.
“Andrew’s US team immediately seized upon Carolyn’s testimony,” said their legal source.
“They believe she holds a smoking gun to any possible role Virginia played in Epstein’s pyramid scheme of abuse.
“Andrew’s lawyers have convinced him that if he is to stand any chance of preventing her case from going to court, they need to fight with fire and that nothing should be off-limits.
“They believe Carolyn’s evidence seriously, if not fatality, weakened the case her faces.”
Her testimony was indeed damning, Carolyn who only gave her first name was 14 at the time in the year 2000 when she and Epstein at Maxwell’s instruction traded lascivious texts, but she indicated that Giuffre had introduced her to both Maxwell and Epstein.
“Virginia asked me if I wanted to come make money,” Carolyn said in court, later testifying Giuffre was 18 at the time. “Did Virginia tell you what you had to do to make that money?” prosecutor Maurene Comey asked. “Not right away,” Carolyn said.
In a last-ditch attempt to save the Prince from further scandal, Andrew’s US Attorney Andrew Brettler alleged that Giuffre was involved in “wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse”. The Prince who is likely more accustomed to the UK and European legal systems is very likely to find American courts far less receptive to turning a victim into the criminal, as Ms. Virginia then-18 was almost assuredly ‘groomed’ and operating under coercion at the time and any actions taken under such duress can be judged very leniently by the court, where the actions of a fully cognizant forty-year-old (at the time) of great wealth and power are likely to be judge far, far more harshly.
