Jospeh de Burca – The Village.ie Nov 16, 2019
Some Really Dangerous Questions Were NOT Asked
The BBC’s Emily Maitlis has broadcast the interview she conducted with Prince Andrew about his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. It was billed as a ‘no holds barred’ interview. Unfortunately, Maitlis did not ask a single question about his relationship with the notorious child molester, Lord Greville Janner.
Yet the Prince’s relationship with Janner raises as many questions as that of his friendship with Epstein.
The British media has turned a blind eye to the Janner-Duke of York relationship.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sex (IISCA) in London chaired by Professor Alexis Jay may soon abandon its inquiry into Janner completely. If it does, the Prince will get to heave yet another deep sigh of relief for he will not have to face questions about his friendship with Janner from that quarter either.
Alan Kerr, an Irish victim of sex abuse from Belfast, has provided the IICSA with details about the Prince’s friendship with Janner. Kerr’s story was revealed exclusively by this magazine. Readers who are not familiar with it are invited to read ‘The Boy on the Meat Rack’ and ‘Out of the Frying Pan and into the Fire’ on this website. (Click on the ‘Alan Kerr’ tab at the end of this story.)
A PRINCE WHO IS ABOVE THE LAW
The possibility that the IICSA will not investigate Janner comes in the wake of an announcement last August that the Metropolitian Police were not going to investigate the Prince for having had sex in London with Virginia Roberts when she was 17. A spokesperson for the Met announced that it investigated allegations he had “had sex with Virginia Roberts Giuffre aged 17 in Ghislaine Maxwell’s bathroom” in London and confirmed that while they had received “an allegation of non-recent trafficking for sexual exploitation’ that ‘no further action is being taken”.
Last August Channel 4 News discovered that the Met had “reviewed the available evidence” and decided that the matter “would not progress to a full investigation”. The Met’s purported inquiry had begun with a review of the “available evidence” in 2015 after receiving a complaint over claims in US court papers that a girl was “forced to have sex with Prince Andrew”.
Independently, Roberts’ lawyers contacted the Met in 2016.
A further complaint concerning the sexual trafficking of Roberts to the UK was received by the Met in 2015 from an unconnected third party.
As Channel 4 disclosed, ‘The Met Police has refused to answer detailed questions about the allegations and whether they ever spoke to Epstein, his friend Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew or anyone from the Royal Household. Channel 4 News asked the Metropolitan Police a series of questions about Virginia Roberts’account of what she says happened to her at Maxwell’s London residence in early 2001. The Met told Channel 4 News: “[We] can confirm that the Metropolitan Police Service [MPS] received an allegation of non-recent trafficking for sexual exploitation. The MPS reviewed the available evidence and the decision was made that this would not progress to a full investigation. As such, the matter was closed”.
It will come as no surprise that the Prince chose the BBC, not Channel 4 for his interview about Epstein.
THE PRINCE IS CLAIMING THIS WOMAN IS A LIAR AND A FORGER.
Ghislaine Maxwell procured and trained underage girls to have sex with adult males, as part of Jeffrey Epstein’s now infamous international paedophile ring. Roberts has spoken about how she was taken to London in 2001 by Epstein. During her trip, she was awoken from her sleep by Ghislane Maxwell who told her ‘you’re gonna meet a prince today’. That night she went out dancing with Prince Andrew in a club where he gave her alcohol and she was later ‘forced’ to have sex with him.
She claims had sex on two other occasions with the Prince. Although the Prince had precise dates, times and places at the tip of his fingers, he affected genuine surprise at the suggestion he had participated in an orgy in America with her. This demonstrates that he was putting on a performance for the cameras. His facial expression was tantamount to a lie: how could he have been so surprised at an accusation – acting as if it was the first time he had heard it – if he was long since familiar with it?