Prince Andrew's an oaf - but his accuser has questions to answer too

Prince Andrew is a pompous, entitled oaf – but his accuser Virginia Roberts has questions to answer too, writes SARAH VINE

Normally when a jury returns a verdict, that’s the end of it. But not in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. If anything, when it comes to this extraordinary tale of power and perversion, the plot appears to be thickening.

The latest revelations come from a key witness in the recent trial, Carolyn Andriano, whose testimony helped secure four of the five guilty verdicts against Maxwell.

This weekend she gave an exclusive interview to The Mail on Sunday’s sister paper, the Daily Mail, in which she threw light on Virginia Giuffre’s allegations of battery and sexual assault against Prince Andrew.

She claims that not only did Giuffre text her excitedly from London in March 2001 to say she was having dinner with the Prince, she also claims that when she got back to Florida she showed Andriano that snap of her with him and gushed: ‘I got to sleep with him.’

According to Andriano, Giuffre didn’t seem remotely upset about the experience. On the contrary, ‘she thought it was pretty cool’ and ‘couldn’t believe that she got to sleep with Prince Andrew’.

The latest revelations come from a key witness in the recent trial, Carolyn Andriano, whose testimony helped secure four of the five guilty verdicts against Maxwell

She also says that her friendship with Giuffre was what led to her being recruited – aged 14 – into Epstein and Maxwell’s ‘pyramid scheme’ of abuse, and that Giuffre was fully aware of what was going on. ‘I don’t think she deserves any compensation,’ she says.

‘I don’t think she was coerced into doing anything.’

She even goes so far as to say that Giuffre, whom she met when she was 13 and dating a 17-year-old boy who was friends with Giuffre’s boyfriend, deserves to get the same treatment as Maxwell, since she ‘trafficked’ her into a ‘world of spiralling downward slopes’.

She says the older girl had a way of making her feel ‘comfortable’, and that she trusted her – which is presumably why, when Giuffre asked her if she would like to ‘go and make some money’, she agreed to visit Epstein at his house in Palm Beach to administer a ‘massage’.

Giuffre gave her a revealing top and a pair of ‘tight skimpy shorts’ and told her ‘whatever you do, don’t say your age’. They went to Epstein’s place, where she watched Giuffre massage him and have sex with him, before Maxwell took her phone number and gave her $300.

To my mind there is no doubt: if what Andriano is saying is true (and I have no reason to doubt her), her testimony opens up a new can of worms. It casts Giuffre in a completely different light, one in which she appears less the innocent victim of a predatory prince and more a knowing participant in a network of sleaze.

She seems to have done to Andriano exactly what she claims Maxwell did to her: groomed her as a sex object for Epstein.

Sure, she was herself an underage victim (though, of, course the age of consent – on which so much in this case hinges – varies wildly around the world). Nevertheless, there are some serious blurred lines here. Not just in relation to her role as recruiter for Maxwell, but also in terms of her claims against Prince Andrew.

A woman who claims he sexually assaulted her, yet was so excited about the chance of bedding him that she texted her friend on the other side of the world? Who showed off a picture of them together?

A person who claims to be a victim, yet herself recruits other victims, tells them to lie, gives them certain clothes to wear and shows them what to do?

To my mind there is no doubt: if what Andriano (pictured) is saying is true (and I have no reason to doubt her), her testimony opens up a new can of worms. It casts Giuffre in a completely different light, one in which she appears less the innocent victim of a predatory prince and more a knowing participant in a network of sleaze

Don’t get me wrong: Andrew is a pompous, entitled oaf who has handled this whole thing appallingly. But if he did sleep with Giuffre, which he has vehemently denied, Andriano’s testimony raises the distinct possibility that he might not have had the slightest clue what was really going on. Giuffre’s allegation is still pretty sleazy, of course: after all, she was 17 at the time, he was almost 40. But if Giuffre encouraged Andriano to lie about her age, who’s to say she didn’t do the same for herself?

At some point Giuffre allegedly turned from victim into abuser, and visited on others the horrors that had been visited on her. Her supporters like to gloss over this fact.

‘Virginia has said for years that her role in facilitating other young women’s involvement is something she has always regretted,’ says her lawyer, David Boies. I’m sure she does. But the fact remains, she still did it. And just because she regrets it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

I’d hope Ghislaine also regrets many of the things she did. It won’t stop her being held accountable for them, and nor should it. But the more we hear about this case, the more I can’t help thinking: why was she the only one on trial?

If Scotty David is any indicator of the calibre of jurors in America, God help us. He revealed after the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict that he was a sexual assault victim, putting the whole trial at risk. The guy is a self-serving, publicity-seeking idiot.

Pope Francis has criticised ‘selfish’ couples for having pets instead of children, calling it ‘a denial of fatherhood and motherhood’ and something that ‘diminishes us, takes away our humanity’. Um. Shouldn’t someone remind him that he has taken a vow of celibacy?

Poor Molly-Mae doesn’t deserve this foul abuse

The case of Molly-Mae Hague, the reality TV star and ‘influencer’ who last week became the latest celebrity to be cancelled by the pitchfork-wielding Twitter mob, is a classic of our times.

All she did was reference a viral trend dating back to 2013 in which people shared clips of Beyoncé alongside the motivational quote: ‘You have the same amount of hours in a day as Beyoncé.’ In other words, if you work hard, you can do anything.

For that, she’s been accused of ‘not caring’ about poor people, vilified by Left-wingers as ‘Thatcher with a fake tan’ and suffered appalling abuse such as ‘she is best known for being getting her s***ch out on Love Island’.

By all means disagree with her, but that kind of language is just blind misogyny.

The case of Molly-Mae Hague, the reality TV star and ‘influencer’ who last week became the latest celebrity to be cancelled by the pitchfork-wielding Twitter mob, is a classic of our times

Trinny earned those millions

Some people have expressed surprise (or is it envy?) that Trinny Woodall should have built a multi-million pound make-up brand just by ‘larking around on Instagram’.

But the truth is her self-deprecating tutorials, honesty and sense of humour have proved a refreshing antidote to super-fakes like Kylie Jenner, who get rich by making ordinary girls and women feel worse about themselves.

Trinny is a real woman selling real solutions. She deserves every penny.

Trinny is a real woman selling real solutions. She deserves every penny

Meghan’s lawyer informs us that ‘bullying is a very damaging term, particularly for career women’. That may well be the case. But what does she mean by ‘career’? Is that what we’re now calling a stint in a third-rate soap, followed by marriage to a rich man with a title?

It is starting to look like the Australian authorities – not to mention half of Twitter – may have egg on their faces when it comes to Novak Djokovic, currently being detained in a maggot-infested hotel for allegedly breaching quarantine rules.

No doubt we will find out more tomorrow when his lawyers present their case. But until then, perhaps the gods of social media might like to break the habit of a lifetime – and wait until they have all the facts before passing judgment.

TENT BOY PUTS HARRY TO SHAME

I can’t stop laughing about the fact that a boy in a tent (Max Woosey, aged 12) raised more for charity in 2020 (£107,000) than two champagne philanthropists in a multi-million-pound mansion in California.

I speak, of course, of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, whose charitable foundation, Archewell, made just £36,681 in the same year. Perhaps if they spent less time bitching about their family to Oprah…

Seeing as the four wokelets who toppled the Colston statue have been acquitted of criminal damage, can I take a hammer and chisel to the monstrosity on the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square?

It may not be as problematic as Colston, but in terms of aesthetics the giant Mr Whippy ice cream topped with a fly, a cherry and a drone is easily as offensive.

After a week of transport chaos, London is bracing itself for months of industrial action from disgruntled RMT members arguing for better pay and conditions.

Do you know the basic salary for a full-time Tube driver in London? £56,496, plus perks. The average UK salary? £25,971. Just saying.

Source: Read Full Article