In late November, the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell will begin in a New York courtroom and prosecutors have promised to disclose an “exhaustive” list of “unindicted co-conspirators” – those alleged to have worked with or benefitted from her and Jeffrey Epstein’s global sex trafficking ring.
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.
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 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.