Royal author Tina Brown suggests “dim” Prince Andrew was just considered an “easy mark” by paedophile Jeffrey Epstein whilst condemnation of the mocked-up “bathtub bonk” by Ian Maxwell widens
Yesterday the Express’s Sophie McCabe revisited the relationship between Prince Andrew and his late “bestie,” the since croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Examining comments by The Diana Chronicles author and former Vanity Fair editor Tina Brown (also known as Lady Evans CBE), McCabe stated:
“Prince Andrew was first introduced to Jeffrey Epstein in 1999 by his friend and now-convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. The Duke of York went on vacations with both Epstein and Maxwell, invited them to royal residences and visited the disgraced financier on his private island. According to royal author and expert Tina Brown, the prince was an ‘easy mark’ for Epstein.”
“Ms Brown, the creator of The Daily Beast, met Epstein in the Noughties. When her publication was about to publish the first of what would be six detailed investigative reports exposing his role in sex-trafficking young girls, he unexpectedly turned up at her office.”
“In her book, The Palace Papers, she describes Epstein as ‘snake-eyed and terse,’ adding: ‘There was a morose, menacing air to him that I found sinister.’”
“She also revealed that Epstein referred to Andrew as his “useful idiot” and described the characteristics that made the late Queen Elizabeth II’s second son an ‘easy mark for con artists and crooks.’”
“Ms Brown claimed: ‘Andrew, unfortunately, exhibited classic symptoms of what is scientifically recognized as the Dunning-Kruger effect, the cognitive bias in which people come to believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are.’”
“‘The combination of minimal self-awareness and dim intellectual wattage leads sufferers of this condition to overestimate their capabilities. Years of enjoying unearned obeisance to his royal position allowed Andrew to bang on with a combination of overweening self-confidence and unchallenged ignorance. It made him an easy mark for con artists and crooks,’ she continued.”
“According to Ms Brown’s unnamed source, Epstein flew Andrew on his corporate jet to places where he wanted to negotiate deals, knowing their governments were obliged to receive the British Prince. The financier would use Andrew as ‘his front man negotiated deals with often shady players.’ Ms Brown claimed Epstein would ‘give Andrew some cream off the cake.’”
Now, in a month when the possibly as high as £9.7 million ($12 million, €11 million or درهم44.1 million) mutually agreed non-disclosure agreement reached by the equally birdbrained bagger of freebies Sarah, Duchess of York’s live-in ex-husband with Virginia Roberts comes to an end, the woes for this non-sweater are definitely worsening.
Though he might have possibly even have encouraged Ian Maxwell to release to The Daily Telegraph what was subsequently mocked as “the most peculiar photograph seen on a front page,” the Duke of York simply looks more and more ridiculous.
Of the snap of two random people with their faces covered with A4 printouts of photographs of Roberts Giuffre and Prince Andrew in the infamous bath where they were alleged to have begun their sexual shenanigans on 10th March 2001, Good Morning Britain host Susanna Reid on Monday observed:
“It shows two people in the very bath in Ghislaine Maxwell’s former Belgravia home where the Duke of York was alleged to have abused Virginia Guiffre.”
“Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother believes that it discredits Virginia Guiffre’s claims. It’s very odd, because Virginia Guiffre says that they were in the bath together.
“This setup, this mockup, that the two people have done wearing masks, which is supposed to recreate that they were in the bath together – I have no idea what it recreates other than it’s clearly a bath big enough for two people to be in.”
“In what sense it discredits Virginia Giuffre – I think most people looking at it would be at a complete loss.”
Giving his tuppence worth, Reid’s co-host Richard Madeley added:
“If you’re going to say the bath is too small for two people to sit in it, then you have a photograph presumably that demonstrates you can only get one person in it. To say this bath is too small and to prove that with a picture of two people in the bath, it seems to me bonkers. It just makes no sense at all.”
Elsewhere in an “exclusive” on Sunday, Mirror news reporter Patrick Hill interviewed US attorney Spencer Kuvin, who represents nine of Jeffrey Epstein’s many, many victims about the Maxwell mockup. He shared that he thinks “the prince’s advisers are part of the PR plot” and observed:
“It’s absurd. They seem to be saying Virginia was in the house after all. It undermines their case.”
“As for Ghislaine’s comments about the genuine photo of Andrew with Virginia at her home in London, it shows a lot of work is being done on his behalf – he’s desperate to rehabilitate his image.”
“Ghislaine protects the men in her life. She’s hoping Andrew can help her.”
“There’s a PR campaign at work. It’s a public relations exercise, not so much a legal one. I think he and his lawyers have realised they have an impossible hill to climb.”
“But he has nothing to lose by saying he wants to do it. He wins from declaring he’s innocent and should be let back into the royal family, but it’s never going to happen.”
“It is unbelievable he’d try to reverse the agreement. If he starts down that route it’ll reopen the entire case.”
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party.
THAT 2001 Photo Thus Far NOT PROVEN A FAKE – The 10th March 2001 photograph of Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell
The photograph, taken supposedly by Jeffrey Epstein on the first-floor landing at 44 Kinnerton Street, Belgravia, London, SW1X 8ES, United Kingdom, has been shared by the world’s media in hundreds of thousands of articles and analysed countless times by countless experts.
In November 2019, the Daily Mail’s Inderdeep Bains called it: “The photograph that WON’T go away” and it, as of date, has NEVER been discredited. Amongst evidence suggesting it to be perfectly real is that:
- The setting of the photograph has been confirmed as genuine by the Maxwell family. Of it, in March 2021, Ian Maxwell told Radio 4’s Today programme: “I do recognise that setting.”
- The window in the picture has the same features as the front first floor windows of 44 Kinnerton Street.
- The width of the first floor landing is accurate to the measurements shown in the floor plan of the sales brochure prepared on the 14th October 2021 by estate agents Wellbelove Quested.
- Though he claimed to be “at a loss to explain this particular photograph” during the 2019 BBC interview, the Duke of York has admitted to having visited 44 Kinnerton Street. He stated: “I don’t think I think ever went upstairs… The dining room and everything was on the ground floor.” Contradicting the royal, sources have claimed that the room behind him, Roberts and Maxwell in the photograph was used as a sitting room.
- The heights of all three individuals in the picture look to be accurate proportionately.
- Prince Andrew’s “chubby fingers” are clear to see. The Queen’s second son’s fingers are clearly “chubby fingers” and these very same “chubby fingers” have been seen hundreds of thousands of times in hundreds of thousands of other photographs.
- Prince Andrew has claimed he only ever goes out in London in a suit and tie. Images of him in open necked shirts in the capital – including one of him leaving the nightclub Chinawhite – prove to the contrary.
- Prince Andrew has claimed he does not “do” hugs and and embraces in photographs. Images of him taken in St Tropez embracing the US socialite Chris Von Aspen in July 2007 suggest the alleged non-sweater is wrong also on that score.
- The outfit worn by Virginia Roberts – a woman who has already received financial settlements from Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell – has been seen on her in photographs of her at Naomi Campbell’s 2001 birthday party in France. In spite of some suggestions that a lady only wears an outfit once, we counter that a lady in Miss Roberts’ unfortunate situation would be forced to wear what she was told appealed to those in control of her wished her to wear.
- Matthew Steeples of The Steeple Times and Shaun Attwood of Shaun Attwood’s True Crime Channel have both seen inside 44 Kinnerton Street and the stair rail shown in the photo remains in place and is thus genuine to the setting. Attwood subsequently released film footage of this on his YouTube channel and The Steeple Times shared its most recent image of the open front door with the stair rail beyond in July 2021.
- Many experts have repeatedly stated photo manipulation was in its infancy at the time that this image first surfaced.
- The FBI have never questioned the authenticity of the image.