FeaturedRoyal

Virginia Giuffre’s family say Prince Andrew bombshell proves one thing | Royal | News

Virginia Giuffre’s family have questioned Prince Andrew‘s motives behind the latest allegations claiming that he asked his personal security officer to dig up dirt on his abuse accuser. The royal, who relinqueshed his royal titles and honours last Friday following the latest bombshells and so they don’t “distract” the public from the work of the King and the Royal Family, found himself further dragged into the Jeffrey Epstein row after reports claimed he tried to get the Metropolitan Police to dig up dirt for a smear campaign against Ms Giuffre.

The force said it is looking into the allegations after the Mail on Sunday claimed Andrew passed Ms Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to his taxpayer-funded bodyguard in 2011 and asked him to investigate. Meanwhile, a Buckingham Palace source said the latest allegations are of “very serious and grave concern” and should be “examined in the appropriate way”.

Now Ms Giuffre’s brother and sister-in-law, Sky and Amanda Roberts, have called on the police watchdog to review the decision by the Metropolitan Police not to continue its investigations into her allegations against Prince Andrew.

In an interview for Channel 4 News, Mrs Roberts also questioned the prince’s motivation for reportedly asking his personal security officer to dig up dirt on Ms Giuffre and alleged it could only have happened for one reason.

She said: “Why would you need to go through those lengths if you’re not guilty?”

Mr Roberts also criticised the UK and US governments for their inaction calling it “one of the biggest international cover ups in the history of the world”.

They have called for the Met Police to reopen their investigation into Ms Giuffre’s allegation that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was aged 17, an allegation he vehemently denies until this day.

And they said that if the London force would not take action, they felt the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) should review the decision.

Speaking on Channel 4’s podcast The Fourcast, Mr Roberts said that his sister continually asked: “What is it going to take for people to finally believe me?”

He added: “By continuously being gaslit by the UK Government, the UK Metropolitan Police, the US government here, it was just a kick in the stomach.”

When asked by presenter Jackie Long, if she felt the issue should be referred to the police watchdog, Mr Roberts’ wife, Amanda, replied: “Absolutely.”

Mr Roberts added that he would not stop campaigning until “justice is served”.

He said: “We won’t stop until justice is served because I mean, one, she protected me when I was a kid and she’s protecting your daughters. I loved my sister and I, I hope she’s proud.”

The IOPC would not comment on the case but a spokesman explained that its role was to investigate referrals if a complaint was made to a police force that fulfilled appropriate criteria.

In a statement to Channel 4 News, the Metropolitan Police said: “Our thoughts are with Ms Giuffre’s family and friends following her death.

“In 2015 we were made aware of allegations around non-recent trafficking for sexual exploitation.

“This related to events outside the UK and an allegation of trafficking to central London in March 2001.

“Officers assessed the available evidence, interviewed the complainant, liaised with other law enforcement agencies who led investigations into these matters and obtained early investigative advice from the Crown Prosecution Service.

“Following the legal advice, it was clear that any investigation into human trafficking would be largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK.

“Officers therefore concluded that the Met was not the appropriate authority to conduct inquiries in these circumstances and, in November 2016, a decision was made that this matter would not proceed to a full criminal investigation.

“That decision was reviewed in August 2019. In November 2019, the Met confirmed that it would remain unchanged.”

The interview will be available on the Channel 4 News YouTube channel and shown on Channel 4 News on Tuesday.

Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 109