Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - MADAME PERV GHISLAINE MAXWELL GUILTY VERDICT IN JEOPARDY

Episode Date: January 10, 2022

Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys are calling for a new trial after the news that at least one juror failed to disclose that he was a victim of sexual abuse. There may be as many as four jurors. The identified juror, Number 50, has given several interviews and has divulged that he told the other jurors his story during deliberations. The 35-year-old Manhattan resident has also said that he believed his admission helped convince skeptical jurors that the women accusing Maxwell could be believed.Joining Nancy Grace today: Wendy Patrick - California prosecutor, author “Red Flags” www.wendypatrickphd.com 'Today with Dr. Wendy' on KCBQ in San Diego, Twitter: @WendyPatrickPHD Dr. Teresa Gil, Ph.D. - Professor of Psychology, Psychotherapist, 25 years Working with Child Abuse & Trauma Victims, TeresaGilPHD.com, Author: "Women Who Were Sexually Abused as Children: Mothering, Resilience, and Protecting the Next Generation Joe Scott Morgan - Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author, "Blood Beneath My Feet", Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan" Charlie Lankston - FeMail Editor, DailyMail.com, Twitter/Instagram:@charlielanks Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Ghislaine Maxwell, Madame Herve, the henchman, the pimp for billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, literally trolling the schoolyard to hook little girls and bring them in for Epstein to molest. All done and said, right? Case closed. Guilty. Not so fast. Take a listen to our friend Tom Winter, NBC.

Tonight, in a trial that's centered on sexual abuse, two jurors reveal they too have experienced abuse. Their own personal experiences now pushing Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys to ask for a new case. At issue, legal experts say, whether or not the two were adequately forthcoming about their experiences before trial. A man identifying himself as Scotty David was one of the jurors. He spoke to several media outlets, including the Daily Mail dot com. I don't want to call her a monster. A predator is the right word. David, known as juror number 50, says other jurors voiced doubt about some of the accusers. Some people were like, how could they keep going back? Like, why would their moms allow them to do that?

And I was like, we can't judge them based on what they did or didn't do. They, they're 14. They don't really have the wherewithal to know really what's right and wrong. A second juror who requested anonymity told the New York Times they were sexually abused as a child and that they had also discussed the experience during deliberations. Is the Elaine Maxwell guilty verdict doomed? I say no, for legal reasons. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. Got an all-star panel to make sense of what we are learning as the minutes tick by. Are there more jurors stating that they have also been victims

of molestation? And will that jeopardize the guilty verdict? Will there have to be a new trial? With me, Dr. Teresa Gill, professor of psychology, has spent years working with child abuse and trauma victims. Joseph Scott Morgan, professor of forensics, Jacksonville State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon and host of Body Bags with Joe Scott Morgan on iHeart. Special guest joining us, Charlie Langston, editor at Daily Mail with female and Wendy Patrick, California prosecutor, author, read flags at Wendy Patrick, PhD dot com and hosted today with Dr. Wendy on KCBQ. First of all, Charlie Langston, before I get into the legalities of whether this requires a whole new trial for Ghislaine Maxwell, who no doubt did it over and over and over, even molesting some of the little girls herself. Tell me what's happening. This does, you know, Charlie, I find this really hard to believe because I never tried a case ever without asking the entire panel.

Do any of you know anyone, even if it's yourself, a neighbor, a family member that have been a victim of a crime? Have any of you been a victim of a crime? And the converse to that is, do you know anybody that's been convicted? Anybody, hint, hint, have you been convicted? So I find it really hard to believe that these high profile lawyers and veteran prosecutors did not ask that question. Well, I think it's worth pointing out that we don't actually know for sure right now that that question was not asked. What we do know is that jurors have said that they were not asked specifically whether they were victims of sexual abuse. So the question is whether they interpreted the question of, have you ever committed a crime? Have

you ever been the victim of a crime? It may be that they did not interpret that question correctly and did not feel that their experiences with sexual abuse were the correct answer to that. So, you know, if they were the victims of sexual abuse and their abusers were never convicted, they may not have felt that it was a crime that was committed, if that makes sense. Yes, I see what you're saying. They could have been molested or abused and not realize that that was a crime if it were never prosecuted. Exactly. Long story short, do you know that song, Wendy Patchett, California Prosecutor, I feel a bad moon coming? I feel a bad moon coming. I feel a bad moon rising.

I feel a bad moon rising. You know, there's trouble on the way. Charlie Langston with us, DailyMail.com. How many jurors do we think we have right now that are coming out? We believe that there are at least three. However, there is a fourth juror whose sources tell us is also under question and may have also been the victim of sexual abuse. So as we heard, the first juror who said that they were the victim of sexual abuse was Scotty David. He spoke to us about his experiences. A second juror who is remaining anonymous has spoken to The New York Times. And we reported over the weekend that a third juror has been found by Ghisl their own experiences with sexual abuse during deliberations.

And both of those jurors have said that they believe that their stories helped to influence the way that the other jurors went about their deliberations. OK, here's one. Hold on just a moment. I want you to hear juror Scotty David speaking to Daily to dailymail.com our cut c you decided to share your story presumably that's something that you'd say yes to in the questionnaire it was something that people were aware of when you were selected as a juror no they don't ask your uh sexual abuse history they didn't ask it in the questionnaire I thought in the questionnaire there was a question that asked if you were a victim or if you were a friend or relative of a victim. Pretty sure it was number 48.

I don't remember. Somebody sent me the questionnaire today and there was a question. Interesting. I mean, I guess, when did you fill in that questionnaire? I definitely, on the first day of jury selection, I would have definitely marked yes. But I honestly don't remember that question. You're not in the sand right now, don't worry. No, no. I mean, I know my face is red because I can feel the blood.

But I honestly, that's why I answered it that way. I don't remember it being there. But I did answer. I definitely remember a family or relative or something, but being sexually abused. I was honest on all my questions. Okay. So he sounds a little unclear on what he remembers. Okay. Back to you, Wendy Patchett, California prosecutor. Jurors always talk about their own experiences in jury deliberations. That's not uncommon. We expect that to happen. So tell me what you see as the big issue here, Wendy Patrick. I think the big issue is how these jurors were interpreting sexual abuse. You know,

I know that if we don't break down that term, as we often do in deliberations, if it's actually part of what's charged, if we simply ask them in voir dire and let it hang out there, I can tell you many jurors think it means forced intercourse. They don't think about it as being touching, masturbation, some of the, you hate to say, lesser forms of abuse, but we have to put them on a spectrum somewhere because if jurors are honestly envisioning the rape scenarios, when they hear a word like sexual abuse, that kind of a term, they're not going to disclose some other types of abuse until they get in the deliberation room. So this may be legally significant because it wouldn't necessarily indicate dishonesty during the voir dire process. Okay. What I'm trying to get at is, is there going to be a brand new trial for Madam Herve, Ghislaine Maxwell,

or will the state take a cheap plea rather than retry the case? If it rises to that. Now, the fact that jurors during jury deliberations talk about their own personal experiences, there's nothing wrong with that. That always happens. You expect that to happen.

You want people to draw on their past experiences as they reach a verdict. That's not going to be a problem. I want you to listen to our cut B, our friends at CBS News. Before the trial, potential jurors were asked to fill out this questionnaire, including this question. Have you ever been the victim of sexual assault?

One juror, using only his first and middle names, Scotty David, told Reuters he can't remember if he disclosed his own claims of sex abuse, saying he flew through the initial questionnaire. He told Reuters he would have answered the questions honestly. Prosecutors told the judge overseeing the trial the statements merit attention by the court. Maxwell's lawyers then told the judge she can and should order a new trial. A separate juror told the New York Times they spoke of their own sexual abuse during deliberations, which the paper says appeared to help shape the jury's

discussions. And that is absolutely all right under the Constitution when jurors talk about their own past experiences. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. For all of you just joining us, bombshell in the Ghislaine Maxwell conviction. according to a jury, according to multiple child victims, went out even on school playgrounds trolling for little girls around 14 that we know of to bring back to her boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire that hangs out with Clinton and Trump and all sorts of millionaires and very wealthy, influential people for him to molest over and over and over until they aged out and he wanted somebody even younger. Yes, this is her. She just gets convicted finally after a massive federal trial. And now, only now, do the jurors decide they're going to come forward and say,

oh yeah, I was molested. Well, what about that juror questionnaire? Did anybody hear what I just heard? The question, number 48, specifically asks, have you ever been the victim of sex assault, according to CBS News? Now, here's the reality. When you're talking about a jury trial, back to you, Wendy Patrick, a lot of people may have been a crime victim. But the issue is, can you listen to the facts and evidence brought in at trial, not what you may have read in the paper, and render a verdict that speaks the truth? That's the question. Doesn't matter if you've been a victim, not a victim, if you're black, if you're white, if you're a man, if you're a woman, if you're a Christian, if you're an atheist, it doesn't matter. It's can you render a verdict that speaks the truth? Yes, no, Wendy Patrick. Yeah, absolutely. The answer is yes. And so the jurors that are talking out

afterwards are basically saying what they said influenced the other jurors ability to be fair and try to case on the facts they heard from the witness stand. No, no, no, no, no. That's not what they said. They said it in Charlie Langston. Aren't they saying that them recounting their experiences affected the jury deliberations, not that it made them unfair or partial. They didn't say that it made them unfair. What they said, I mean, what the second juror said specifically was that their experiences of sexual assault had helped to shape the jury's discussions. So effectively, what the two jurors who have spoken out have said is that in them sharing their recollections of sexual abuse, it made the other

jurors understand more how victims of sexual abuse may continue to recall their experiences. And I think in doing so, the jury was maybe able to realize a little bit more clearly just how well the trauma of abuse sticks with you throughout the years. So Maxwell's legal team, one of their big arguments was to try and say that these women were coming forward because they wanted money, that they couldn't really remember what had gone on. And these jurors who spoke of their own experiences of sexual abuse were effectively helping the other jurors to realize that, no, these recollections do really stick with you. And, you know, you are still able to recall a lot of details in very kind of specific ways. However, other facts might be a little bit more blurry as time goes on.

Nancy, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Okay. This happens when you're a crime victim. I will never forget for years and years and years, even when I was a prosecutor, I would not reveal, did not, didn't want to talk about it to other people that my fiance had been murdered just before our wedding. And that changed the course of my life and my career. And that's why I became a prosecutor. It was nobody's business. I didn't want to talk about it, but I remember it very well.

And then I finally am publicly telling my story at request of Larry King. And do you know, he asked me, when did this happen? And I said, August 6th. And I screwed up the year. I don't remember what year I said, but I screwed up the year Keith was murdered. Why did I do that? I don't know. Now, I remember so many things vividly. And then, of course, I was attacked like crazy about just everything because I screwed up the year on national TV.

Now, one thing, correct me if I'm wrong, and then everybody jump in, Charlie. This guy, Scotty David, explained to the jurors some aspects of his abuse had been easier to recall than others. Quote, I remember the color of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video. I do that, too. But I can't remember all the details. There are some things that run together. And in his talking to the jury, according to him, Charlie, he says that the jurors were going, wow, why didn't the parents let this happen? Didn't they notice their children weren't home at the right time? And because of what he had gone through,

he told the jurors, wait a minute, you can't judge the victims like that or their parents. They're just 14 years old, for Pete's sake. So do I have that right, Charlie Langston? Yes, effectively, he was helping the jury to understand as a victim himself, why some of these women might be able to recall certain details, as you said, in a very specific way, but not be able to remember other things, as you said, like dates or times or, you know, even the location of where the abuse happened, because that, you know, I'm not unfortunately an expert, but that's the way the human brain works. When you go through an incredibly traumatic

experience, sometimes you do try and block out the more painful aspects. Okay. I heard everybody jumping in. I heard, I know I heard Joe Scott Morgan, Professor of Forensics at Jacksonville State University. Hit me. Yeah. Listen, I got to tell you, you know, I'm hearing the words molestation and sexual abuse being thrown around a lot. I got to remind everybody here that she was not charged or accused of those things officially from a legal perspective. She's charged with enticement of a minor, transportation of a minor, sex trafficking of a minor, and three counts of conspiracy. So, you know, if abuse or molestation is an element of that crime, which, you know,

for those that don't understand elements, it's a it's a building block of the crime. Maybe that's the case. But, you know, to to the other point here, were these, you know, during this this questionnaire where they actually ask, well, do you have any experience with trafficking? Do you have any experience with enticement? Do you have any experience with the transportation of a minor? You know, you know, tit for tat, you know, is that the case? Because right now, all I'm hearing is molestation and abuse, and she wasn't charged with those things, Nancy. To Dr. Teresa Gill, joining us, professor of psychology and author. Weigh in, doctor.

Well, in terms of memory, we know that the hippocampus is important for memory formation and recall. However, people under stress, such as children who are experiencing abuse, the body goes into fight-flight, adrenaline and cortisol are released, and all of a sudden the hippocampus is switched off and it goes into the amygdala. And the amygdala is not good for memory recall, formation, or retrieval. And that's why a lot of the people who were on trial and his victims don't have really clear memories. And that's why they can do what you did, particularly if they're under stress during the trial. They go back to the amygdala and they can remember feeling and body memories, but they can't remember particular facts. And that's actually what Elizabeth Loftus was bringing out in the trial was why there is false memories.

And that's what the juror said that he tried to clarify to the jury when they were in deliberations, because many of them said that they were confused why in 2018, 19, and 20, they gave one story, the victims gave one story to the federal government, and now they're giving another story in the trial. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Charlie Langston joining me, female editor with the Daily Mail. I don't think that the victims gave different stories. I think that under the appropriate questioning, more facts came out on the stand.

Because when you ask somebody, okay, what happened? And then they tell you, well, then you may want to ask, well, do you remember what time of year it was? Do you remember what the perp was wearing? Do you remember what you were wearing? Do you remember who let you into the home? Do you remember if there were any maids there or anybody else at Epstein's home? I mean, there are a million questions that you can ask where the victim would add to the story, not necessarily change the story, Charlie. No, and I don't think, I mean, you know, from my experience of kind of reading through everything that went on with the trial, I don't think that any of the victims were particularly doubtful in any of that, you know, kind of testimonies. I think that all of the victims

spoke very clearly about what they had been through and Ghislaine's part in that, which, as we've pointed out, we aren't kind of looking here at a charge for sexual abuse at the hands of Ghislaine. What we are looking for is kind of these charges of trafficking and enticement. And every single one of the victims was able to give very clear testimony about the part that Ghislaine played in, you know, kind of Epstein's trafficking ring effectively. So when it comes to a juror like Scotty David explaining to his other jurors, you know, what it is like to be the victim of sexual abuse and what it is like to kind of try and recall those memories. I don't think that he in any way kind of made jurors completely change their minds about witness testimonies. I think

what he was trying to do was offer what some of the victims weren't able to say, which is sometimes my memory is a little bit blurry. Sometimes I can't recall certain facts. But what I can recall and what I know to be true is what I went through. Just because I can't remember whether it happened on a Tuesday or a Wednesday doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Guys, take a listen to Erica D. This is Joe Pike with Sky News. This juror says that he, quote, flew through the questionnaire. He doesn't remember answering a question about abuse, but if he did answer it, he answered it honestly. Certainly, both sets of lawyers on the prosecution and on the defense side recognizes a problem here. The first lawyers to get in touch with the judge write to them asking for an inquiry

and a court hearing in a month's time was the government lawyers. But since then, in the last hour or so, Gideon Maxwell's team have also been in touch with Judge Nathan saying that the interviews and the fact that Scotty David was a victim of abuse presents, quote, incontrovertible grounds for a new trial.

He could potentially be in some legal trouble if he has misled the court although i'm sure he would deny that anna what we could potentially see although it is early days is the judge declaring the first trial a mistrial and starting again from scratch that's something i'm sure that the government the prosecutors here in the u.s i would want to avoid but that that is what Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers are now calling for. Ah, the potential of a brand new trial, putting the victims back up again, doing it all over, would be devastating to the state. But the reality is, to Wendy Patrick, California prosecutor, host of Today with Dr. Wendy on KCBQ, the reality is that what must be shown is not that a juror or multiple jurors had been molested

in the past, not that, but that that information was either not requested by the state, that the state had some type of misconduct. And we see in question number 48, the state did ask that question. So we don't have any prosecutorial misconduct. Did a juror lie? That would be an issue. And if so, did that lie make the juror impartial? And would it have changed the outcome of the trial otherwise? That is a very steep burden, Wendy Patrick.

No, it is. And I won't say that I haven't had to try cases twice due to jury misconduct because I have. But that doesn't mean that it is a slam dunk as the defense is contending. Not only is it a steep hill to climb, but it also involves something courts really don't want to do, which is really invading the purview of jury deliberations. I mean, that's why we have the jury system is they're entitled to get together and talk and share and to go beyond that veil and then start what polling jurors to see if in fact this did make them unfair when they heard this that's not something a judge is going to do lightly

so i do think that this judge will take a very thoughtful view as to whether or not what's being raised here actually will cause her to even think about going down that road and this occurring the potential of a new trial being ordered for Ghislaine Maxwell, if there was prosecutorial misconduct, the whole thing could be over, the conviction could be thrown out, and the case may be barred from retrial. I do not see any prosecutorial misconduct, but will there have to be a new trial? That would be a huge victory for the defense. But statistically, when there is a second trial, the state usually wins. But it will be painful.

While all this is happening, another bombshell in the case of another Epstein-Gillian Maxwell victim, Virginia Jeffries, an Epstein victim, that is. Take a listen to our cut 15. This is the BBC's Emily Maitlis interview with Prince Andrew. July of this year, Epstein was arrested on charges of sex trafficking and abusing dozens of underage girls. One of Epstein's accusers, Virginia Roberts, has made allegations against you. She says she met you in 2001. She says she dined with you, danced with you at Tramp Nightclub in London. She went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Gerlaine Maxwell, your friend. Your response? I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady.

None whatsoever. You don't remember meeting her? She says she met you in 2001. She dined with you. She danced with you. You bought her drinks. You were in Tramp Nightclub in London. And she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell.

Didn't happen. Do you remember her? No. Okay. Prince Andrew says he has no recollection of meeting Virginia Roberts underage at that time, much less having sex with her. But there's a picture of him with her in one of the homes that she describes. Now, brace yourself. Take a listen to our Cut 19. Again, our friends at BBC with Prince Andrew.

Do you recognize yourself in the photo? Yeah, it's pretty difficult not to recognize yourself. Your friend suggested that the photo is fake. I think it's from the investigations that we've done, you can't prove whether or not that photograph is faked or not because it is a photograph of a photograph of a photograph. So it's very difficult to be able to prove it. But I don't remember that photograph ever being taken.

But it's possible that it was you with your arm around your head. That's me, but whether that's my hand or whether that's the position, but I have simply no recollection of a photograph ever being taken. Okay, well, we have the photograph. So it happened. Now brace yourself one more time. Hour cut 21, our friends at BBC. So why would somebody have put in another hand?

You think it is you next to her in the photo? Oh, it's definitely me. I mean, that's a picture of me. It's not a picture of, I don't, that's a picture of me. It's not a picture of, I don't believe it's a picture of me in London because when I go out in London, I wear a suit and a tie. That's what I would describe

as those are my traveling clothes if I'm going to go, if I'm going overseas. I've got plenty of photographs of me dressed in those sorts of, that sort of kit, but not there. OK, mystery solved. Those are his traveling clothes. All right, Charlie Langston joining us, DailyMail.com female editor, F-E-M-A-I-L editor. Charlie, that settles the whole thing. Of course it's all a big fat lie

because those are his traveling clothes, which he would not have worn the night he molested a teen girl. Let us not forget the claims that he also is not able to sweat and therefore could not have been sweaty while dancing with a teenage girl. crime stories with nancy grace for those of you just joining us another bombshell in the case relating to gillane maxwell and now prince andrew and jeffrey epstein in the case relating to Ghislaine Maxwell and now Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein.

In the last hours, we learn a judge has dealt a major blow to Prince Andrew. Don't you know the Queen is doing a backflip right now? To you, Charlie Langston, tell us about the decision that has been made in the last hours regarding Andrew's attempt to stop Virginia Jeffrey's case. Well, I first would like to point out that we have had a huge blow to Prince Andrew talking about the Virginia Roberts picture because a witness at Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, who was one of the victims, has waived her anonymity and has come forward to say that she remembers Virginia Roberts telling her at the time that she had not only gone out with Ghislaine, Jeffrey, and Prince Andrew, but that she had had sex with Prince Andrew. She then returned to the U.S., picked up this friend from school and showed her the exact same picture that Prince Andrew was just talking about in those clips.

So that is a major, major blow to Prince Andrew, because this is the first time that we have heard someone else claiming to have a an account of what Virginia Roberts is saying. Previously, we haven't had anyone else say I was there at the time. Virginia told me at the time what had gone on. So the fact that there is another person coming forward saying I heard Virginia tell me this when it happened, that's a major blow to Prince Andrew's case. In the last hours, the Prince Andrew team lost a major legal battle. There had been a settlement, so to speak, between Epstein and certain victims. And in that settlement, some victims were paid off and they agreed to never prosecute. Now, Prince Andrew had hoped that that settlement would have covered him, that he could not be prosecuted for underage sex as it related

to Jeffrey Epstein. Think about it. The Prince of England, Queen Elizabeth's son, allegedly her favorite son. We all knew he slept around getting the name Randy Andy, but with minors, they have tried everything possible to stop this case. A judge unseals the sealed settlement and in the settlement, Prince Andrew is not mentioned. He's not part of the settlement, Prince Andrew is not mentioned. He's not part of the settlement. There is no reason that a case against him cannot go forward. That's the big bombshell that has happened in the last hours. Guys, when it comes down to the picture that you hear Charlie Langston from dailymail.com talking about, you know, Andrew just, he keeps trying. It wasn't me. I wasn't there. I didn't have sex. I don't remember. Oh, okay. That is me in that picture, but I would never have done that. And that's not my hand.

It's my body. I was there at that location, but that's not my hand around this underage girl. Plus, those aren't the correct clothes. I would never wear that to a party. All right. Take a listen to our cut 22. Just to clarify, so you think that photo has been faked? Nobody can prove whether or not that photograph has been doctored, but I don't recollect that photograph ever being taken. And you don't recollect having your hand round her waist in Gerlaine Maxwell's house on any occasion, even if it was a different date? If I, as a member of the Royal Family, and I have a photograph taken and I take very, very few photographs, I am not one to, as it were,

hug and public displays of affection are not something that I do. So that's the best explanation I can give you. And I'm afraid to say that I don't believe that photograph was taken in the way that has been suggested. Okay, wait for it. Take a look at our cut 27. Again, the BBC. Epstein's housekeeper, also in a Florida court legal deposition,

said that you visited the Palm Beach residence around four times a year. You got a daily massage. Four times a year? That was what he said in a Florida court legal deposition. No. I'm just wondering, when you look back now, is there a chance that those massages might have been the services of someone who was being sexually exploited or trafficked by Epstein?

No. I don't think, I mean, no, definitely not. Definitely not. And I definitely did not visit his Palm Beach house three or four times a year. Absolutely not. How many times would you say you visited? In total, probably four times in total throughout the time that I knew him.

Okay. You may ask, why would the son of Queen Elizabeth hang out with a pedophile who had been convicted. Why? Well, what it boils down to, according to sources, Charlie Langston, joining us from DailyMail.com, is it's all about money. Is it true that Prince Andrew had a lawsuit leveled against him? He needed money and he went to Epstein to get money. I mean, I think so much of this is all revolving around money. And what we know about Prince Andrew's friendship with Epstein is that no matter how many people came forward and no matter how many scandals were leveled at Epstein, Prince Andrew did not end his friendship with this disgraced financier. You know, we have those famous pictures of the two of them in New York together after Epstein had been accused of sexually assaulting several women. You know, Prince Andrew has since said that he felt as though he needed to speak to Epstein in person to tell him that they could no longer be friends. But that to me is just absolutely ludicrous. How on earth, as a senior member of the royal family, as the son of the queen,

how can you think that it is okay to even give this person any face-to-face time? An email would have sufficed saying, I'm sure you can understand, in light of everything that's going on, we can no longer be seen together, be seen to have any form of relationship whatsoever. But of course, when it came to Epstein, one of the reasons that he was able to continue his relationships with so many powerful people, not just Prince Andrew, was because of the wealth and the power that he himself had. And he was able to use that in order to form very close friendships with a very high number of high profile and important people. And what we're learning is that the money that

Andrew allegedly owed was not that much when you think about royalty. I mean, has this guy ever worked a day in his life? I mean, I know he was with the Navy, correct? The Royal Navy. Is he about to be stripped of all of his military titles? There is a huge amount of pressure right now on the Queen to strip Andrew of his honorary military titles. And you have to remember, Prince Harry was very recently stripped of all of his honorary military titles. And the reason for that was because he stepped down as an active member of the royal family. He is no longer an official member of the working royal family. Well, neither is Prince Andrew. You know, it was made very clear by the Queen and by Prince Charles after this whole scandal broke that Prince Andrew would no longer be an active working member of the royal family. So if Prince Harry lost his

military titles for that same reason, surely Prince Andrew also needs to be stripped of his titles, even if the royal family is, you know, kind of standing by him, defending him, you know, paying no mind to these accusations against him. The fact that he is no longer a working member of the royal family would give them enough reason to remove his military titles. Take a listen to our cut 35. This is Virginia Roberts Jeffrey speaking to NBC. Virginia says the abuse moved from the bathroom to a bedroom. He wasn't rude or anything about it. He said, you know, thank you. And some kind of soft sentiments like that and left. I just couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe that even royalty were involved. She says Prince Andrew abused her two more times, once in New York in Epstein's mansion,

and again at his Virgin Islands estate. Prince Andrew, of course, denies that this ever happened. He denies that it ever happened, and he's going to keep denying that it ever happened, but he knows the truth. And I know the truth. We wait as justice unfolds. Nancy Grace, crime story signing off. Goodbye, friend. You're listening to an I heart podcast.