Prince Andrew may be innocent before actually being proven guilty…
[CAUTION: THIS POST CONTAINS CONVERSATION SURROUNDING SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RAPE]
There is a lot about the sexual assault allegations against Prince Andrew that doesn’t add up. Virginia Giuffre’s past is apparently coming back to bite her with allegations she has lied under oath as it’s been pointed out by Vote Watch. Now, before we continue, every allegation of rape and sexual abuse should be taken seriously. We also are not taking sides. We’d never take the side of someone who has an ego as big as Scotland (Andrew) but we will also not take the side of a proven liar (Virginia).
We are simply looking at facts as we see them. Again, we’re not taking sides.
Lying Under Oath
According to the Vote Watch article linked above, Giuffre admitted to lying under oath in 2014 regarding so-called sexual encounters with presidents from foreign countries. Our YouTube friend Sue Smith did a video called Randy Andy which mentions a lot of what we’ve just mentioned. Here is a sample of a transcript of questions asked from Virginia’s early deposition. It is from the aforementioned Vote Watch article.
Note the last two questions. The interviewer asks Giuffre if she could name the presidents she has ‘met’ and she says that she could name them. However, the second question asks if she could name the president and she says she can’t remember the guy’s name. Total contradiction. Why say you can name the presidents you allegedly slept with but then say you can’t remember his name? Which is it? Can you name him or can’t you? The same applies to the first question in the screenshot.
Giuffre is asked if she has met any foreign presidents and she replies she has and that she understands what is being asked of her when in reality, she doesn’t know what the guy’s name is. Meaning? She made it up.
Lady Colin Campbell has said in her latest video that Giuffre, according to her own research, said there was no sexual relationship between herself [Virginia] and Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew: The Guy Who Said He Doesn’t Sweat
Moving over to Prince Andrew and well, royal aides fear for his credibility, according to The National. There is an article by The Australian newspaper that says there were inconsistencies with the Duke of York’s recount of events too.
(Editor’s Note: The Australian article is behind a paywall so we couldn’t access it. We’re including it for anyone who does have access to the paywall.)
What’s more is the 2019 interview Andrew did, didn’t exactly help his cause. He comes across as smug and says he doesn’t sweat. Also, he doesn’t answer questions in full and tries to deflect from them.
Like with Giuffre, Andrew doesn’t provide evidence to back up what he is saying. He says that he was with his daughters when Giuffre said he abused her. Where is his proof? Meanwhile, she says she has evidence of where she was. That’s great but can you actually provide proof the prince was there with you?
Other Lies Giuffre Has Told
Going back to the Vote Watch article, there has been a series of lies Giuffre has told. Some of these include:
- In 1999, she claimed two male friends had raped her. An investigation spanning several months cleared the men of wrongdoing when the prosecutors refused to take the case further due to inconsistencies and Virginia’s ‘lack of credibility’.
- Another claim Giuffre made was that she was trafficked to Paris Hilton’s father and other famous people including two presidents as well as a prime minister. It was discovered that this was all a massive lie to garner money and attention.
- Even her earlier claims against Prince Andrew weren’t credible, even the amount of lies she had already told as well as the countless contradictions. She even originally stated she had met him, but never slept with him.
- Another lie she has told people repeatedly that she was a child at the age of 17 when she was ‘trafficked’. In New York at the time (and our friend Sue mentions this in her video which is linked above), the legal age of consent was 14 and was only raised to 17 in 2017. In the UK, the legal age of consent is 16 meaning Giuffre was an adult, not a child when it came to her ability to give consent.
Prince Andrew ‘Fights’ Back
The civil case that has been thrown at the Duke of York isn’t a criminal one, but a civil one, meaning that she wants money from him. It is Andrew’s belief he hasn’t done anything wrong, which is why he is both denying meeting her, (despite the photo) and is not caving to the pressure of giving her money.
Yes, the above photo makes Andrew look guilty but someone who commented on Sue’s Randy Andy video made an interesting point:
In a nutshell, this commenter is saying that it’s likely the photo is being used as blackmail to make it look like something more sinister had occurred when it was actually something innocent. It makes sense since Prince Andrew meets thousands of people every year, or rather he did before The Queen pulled him from public duties.
Giuffre thought she could get swindle money from yet another rich and powerful man by pretending to be the victim of a crime that possibly didn’t happen.
There’s So Much More
To conclude this post, we have to say that we’re not defending nor are we condoning that something happened. As we stated earlier in the post, we’re only presenting facts as we find them. There is also a lot of other things with this case that we haven’t included here. Do we think Prince Andrew is innocent? No. Do we think he is guilty? No. Do we think Giuffre is telling the truth? We cannot answer that and can only go off her previous attempt to get money from the Duke of York. The first try to claim the Duke had sex with her failed given her lack of credibility with everything else she has said in the past.
Neither Andrew nor his alleged victim have provided enough evidence to prove that they’re the one telling the truth. Where is the evidence that the Duke of York was in the same place at the same time Virginia was? Where is the proof that he was with his daughters? Beatrice and Eugenie wouldn’t be credible witnesses if this were a criminal case because they’d be defending their father rather than being impartial.