It is likely, if the evidence prosecutors uncovered during its investigation was presented before a grand jury and deemed within the public’s right to know, that Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, if found to have done something illegal, could well be named as an unindicted co-conspirator.
The circumstantial evidence against the man who is ninth in line to the British throne seems compelling, to say the least.
Prince Andrew has not testified before the grand jury or answered questions from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York; although victims of Epstein and Maxwell, such as Giuffre, could have appeared before the grand jury to provide.
Crucial is whether prosecutors were successful in introducing testimony of what is called “prior bad acts”. This is where testimony of wrongs that cannot be proven or which are barred from prosecution by the statute of limitations, are deemed admissible to prove criminal conduct.
- She 'Holds All The Secrets': Ghislaine Maxwell Could Still Squeal On Prince Andrew, Lawyer For Epstein Accusers Warns
- Ghislaine Maxwell Surrenders Fight To Keep Sealed The Names Of 8 High-Profile John Does Mentioned In Virginia Roberts Giuffre's Lawsuit Ahead Of Prince Andrew's Trial
- Prince & The Paedophile Next Door: Examining The Evidence Against Andrew… Questioning Why Has It Been Ignored?
In the first part of a Knewz.com explosive investigation, it detailed how the British police force willfully ignored sex crimes committed on British soil by Jeffrey Epstein, in order to preserve his status as government informant – and protect high-profile British figures associated with him.
Now Knewz.com examines just how that cover-up could come crashing down.
For more, go to Knewz.