I asked former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida-turned-litigator David S. Weinstein about today’s news that Prince Andrew has settled with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had accused him of sexual abuse when she was a minor.
Ms. Ward: the good news I decided to subscribe, but the bad is, I did so to be able to comment on some of your posts that seem to be misguided. This is one of them. Virginia Roberts -- who procured underage girls for Epstein as his madam and should have been prosecuted, had a history of saying --and selling -- untruthful stories. She field her suit on the last day of the limitations period. She was a known prostitute for Epstein. There was zero evidence that Andrew did anything illegal -- only the accusations of an unindicted felon madam. There was also no evidence that Roberts had even been "abused" other than statutory rape -- underage sex that is presumed to be without consent as a technicality, even when there is consent.
Roberts was known to flaunt her Epstein-expense account on the Upper East Side. Andrew may well have had sex with her, but no one -- no one -- has proven it or when or where. This was a classic extortion hit on Andrew. Because of his position, he could never defend himself. Even if he had had a video of her begging him to have sex, showing an ID that she was 18...he would still lose because of the tawdry nature of it.
I have no dog in any fight about monarchy, wealth, sex or otherwise. But as a lawyer with decades of experience and anecdotal information about Roberts in her happy golden years as a well paid hooker and procurer, I am troubled by the excitement you show at incriminating Andrew. If you are to be "Vicky Ward Investigates," it would be good to focus on evidence rather than gossip.
Ms. Ward: the good news I decided to subscribe, but the bad is, I did so to be able to comment on some of your posts that seem to be misguided. This is one of them. Virginia Roberts -- who procured underage girls for Epstein as his madam and should have been prosecuted, had a history of saying --and selling -- untruthful stories. She field her suit on the last day of the limitations period. She was a known prostitute for Epstein. There was zero evidence that Andrew did anything illegal -- only the accusations of an unindicted felon madam. There was also no evidence that Roberts had even been "abused" other than statutory rape -- underage sex that is presumed to be without consent as a technicality, even when there is consent.
Roberts was known to flaunt her Epstein-expense account on the Upper East Side. Andrew may well have had sex with her, but no one -- no one -- has proven it or when or where. This was a classic extortion hit on Andrew. Because of his position, he could never defend himself. Even if he had had a video of her begging him to have sex, showing an ID that she was 18...he would still lose because of the tawdry nature of it.
I have no dog in any fight about monarchy, wealth, sex or otherwise. But as a lawyer with decades of experience and anecdotal information about Roberts in her happy golden years as a well paid hooker and procurer, I am troubled by the excitement you show at incriminating Andrew. If you are to be "Vicky Ward Investigates," it would be good to focus on evidence rather than gossip.
If people knew they wuld feel conscience bound to action so changing the channel to avoid the naked truth is preferable right?
silly i know but staying relevant and aware of the naked truth typically changes the channel
got the unredacted epstien list of clients if any one is interested
s/j/84020535893