- This topic has 9 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I wonder how many readers have heard of John Mark Dougan. A former Florida police officer involved in the Epstein investigation who has fled to Russia and apparently now has asylum there.
When I first learned of his story I was skeptical to say the least.
However, it seems that MI6 believes he may indeed possess copies of the Epstein videos. What is more they believe Dougan may possess videos of Andrew Windsor doing things he shouldn’t have.
https://nypost.com/2019/09/21/damning-evidence-on-prince-andrew-could-be-in-russian-hands-mi6/Of course, this is dynamite. It means MI6 believes/knows that Andrew Windsor has been less than completely honest in his repeated denials.
Why would a “security source” at MI6 tell the Times? I assume (because it is the Times) that it is trustable source.
It’s clearly not true
Which part isn’t true?
“The photo looks like someone rather being rather naive about the ways people attempt to exploit people like him. What made him vulnerable was the fact that he had a need for money as a result of Princess Ferguson and Epstein took advantage of that fact. It was not sex and she is apparently the only “victim”.
Had he been “up to something” or intending be “up to something”, he would not have posed with the victim and provided evidence.”The idiot who wrote that disinformation doesn’t understand that Andrew Windsor was one of Epstein and Maxwell’s targets. They were extremely manipulative and ruthless predators. Of course Andrew Windsor is not the brightest spark. He was a very easy target. Just look at Ghislaine grinning in the background. She set the photo up. According to Virginia Roberts it’s not all she set up.
But this is not he point.
Why is MI6 apparently confirming that videos of Andrew with Virginia Roberts (at least) presumably exist?
What is their game? Are they setting things up so that they can avoid blame if videos and photos become public? Will it be “the Russians are trying to bring down the Queen”?
And please don’t claim some drunk MI6 officer blabbed his mouth off in a pub. This information was given to the Times deliberately.
The idiot who wrote that disinformation doesn’t understand that Andrew Windsor was one of Epstein and Maxwell’s targets.
They were extremely manipulative and ruthless predators. Of course Andrew Windsor is not the brightest spark. He was a very easy target. Just look at Ghislaine grinning in the background. She set the photo up. According to Virginia Roberts it’s not all she set up.
Well, unlike SIS, the idiot which is apparently myself, spoke to Mark Douggan in 2017 and stayed at his flat. He does not have any such photos and moveover never said that he did. He just said “I have lots of things” which is quite common in intelligence related work, namely to claim that you have something when you do not.
And Virginia looks too happy to have been a sex slave and she moreover had made false claims about witchcraft and animal sacrifice before. Moreover she had similar fantastical dismissed before
So if you read the article properly you will see that the claims are untrue
Why is MI6 apparently confirming that videos of Andrew with Virginia Roberts (at least) presumably exist?
What is their game? Are they setting things up so that they can avoid blame if videos and photos become public? Will it be “the Russians are trying to bring down the Queen”?
And please don’t claim some drunk MI6 officer blabbed his mouth off in a pub. This information was given to the Times deliberately.
Where did they say such photos exist? I think perhaps you need to understand the meaning of the word “nuance”
They claimed that they were concerned that he may have compromising information pertaining to the FBI case (which he doesn’t). If they were such photos in existence on Mr Douggan’s archives, they would hardly be blabbing about it in the times would they so as to alert the Russian government to potential kompromat on a member of the royal family.
The purpose of the Virginia case is to use someone who is obviously a fantasist to make lots of false allegations concerning some important figures. These are then dismissed and future real allegations involving VIPs are thus discredited.
Much the same method was used in the Carl Beech case.
It is in other words to conceal sexual abuse and if that wasn’t the case why do you suspect he was killed
As for why they did they mention it?
Well it shows a lack of absolute concern for the royal family on the part of MI6 who tend to be a bit boorish but at the same time, as stated, making such an allegation in such a way shows that the information does not exist.
Well, unlike SIS, the idiot which is apparently myself, spoke to Mark Douggan in 2017 and stayed at his flat. He does not have any such photos and moveover never said that he did. He just said “I have lots of things” which is quite common in intelligence related work, namely to claim that you have something when you do not.
Is Dougan or you claiming he is involved with “intelligence-related work”? This is a bit of long shot. He was a police officer who got into difficulties with his superiors.
I did not believe Dougan’s story when I first read it. I do not personally believe he has any videos of Epstein’s targets. I am sure videos do exist. But it is very doubtful whether Dougan has them. Whether Andrew Windsor features on any of them we can only speculate. Virginia Robert’s story is believable because it has been largely corroborated by Epstein’s “other girls”, his driver and thousands of corroborating documents.
Do you think Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson and others flew on Epstein’s “lolita express” for the coffee?
This isn’t a case of a fantasist. There is too much documentary evidence. In fact there was a huge amount of evidence presented during Epstein’s first trial. He wasn’t acquited. He was mysteriously let off with a slap on the wrist.
making such an allegation in such a way shows that the information does not exist
Really? MI6 wants to help Mark Dougan by adding credence to his claims? Why would MI6 say anything at all?
Is Dougan or you claiming he is involved with “intelligence-related work”? This is a bit of long shot. He was a police officer who got into difficulties with his superiors.
He has access to the FBI files so he is involved.
It is moreover possible, as the cleaners at RAF Little Sai Wan (the former GCHQ base) will tell you or indeed the local residents at Menwith Hill to have access to intelligence related material.
I did not believe Dougan’s story when I first read it. I do not personally believe he has any videos of Epstein’s targets. I am sure videos do exist. But it is very doubtful whether Dougan has them. Whether Andrew Windsor features on any of them we can only speculate. Virginia Robert’s story is believable because it has been largely corroborated by Epstein’s “other girls”, his driver and thousands of corroborating documents
What other documents pertaining to prince Andrew are there? She is the only accuser.
Do you think Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson and others flew on Epstein’s “lolita express” for the coffee?
The allegations against others may or may not be true and I cast no judgement but this is a case of discreditation by association. You associate a claim which may or may not be true (Bill Clinton) with a claim which isn’t (Prince Andrew). When the later is revealed not to be true as it will be this has the effect of discrediting allegations against the former.This isn’t a case of a fantasist. There is too much documentary evidence. In fact there was a huge amount of evidence presented during Epstein’s first trial. He wasn’t acquited. He was mysteriously let off with a slap on the wrist.
Yes it is, quite obviously so
In 1998, a 14-year-old Roberts swore that two acquaintances sexually assaulted her inside a car at a wooded area near West Palm Beach, Fla. But following a months-long investigation, prosecutors declined to pursue the case “due to the victim’s lack of credibility and no substantial likelihood of success at trial,” court records state.
The girl’s mom, who pushed police to investigate the incident after a social worker at a group home reported it, told a detective “about her daughter’s past drug abuse and also how many kids in Royal Palm Beach are involved in drugs, witchcraft and animal sacrifice,” according to a confidential report by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office.
Really? MI6 wants to help Mark Dougan by adding credence to his claims?
No they are doing the opposite
1) This is the organisation behind the pissgate allegations with respect to Trump so their reputation in this regard is somewhat tarnished
2) MI6 would hardly alert the Russian government through a national newspaper to the existence of Kompromat if such kompromat existedWhy would MI6 say anything at all?
1) MI6 allow a fantasist to make lots of allegations about important people and go along with this in the short term
2) MI6 do so in the knowledge that in the future the allegations will be dismissed even if it is slightly boorish to do so
3) MI6 know that there will be outrage when the allegations are dismissed and umbrage against the authorities who went along with the case, as in the Carl Beech case.
4) When anyone claims that there is a paedophile ring/usage of sex slaves by the establishment in the future, the public will be less likely to go along with this and the police will not pursue these claims.In short the authorities allow a fake claim to go ahead in the knowledge that it will have the effect of concealing real abuse.
Simple really and very effective
Fascinating discussion chaps. I’m leaning towards Terry’s explanation.
The interview set up seems to be planned by persons other than the royals – a great boost to their support in the future too.Well I hope you’ll like the following. It’s from the article
Prince Andrew has nonetheless conducted an interview without knowing the questions where he states that he has no recollection of meeting the girl, which given that he is royal and meets lots of people, seems not unreasonable. He also states that he was at Pizza express at the time of the incident. Indeed what marks out the fact that he is telling the truth is the following
1) It would be reasonable for him to have information about his visits and what he got up to over the course of his lifetime given that as a member of the royal family, he will have people who plan such visits for him and keep records.
2) Phillip Cross someone works on behalf of the deep state of which Simon Shercliff forms a part as the director of national security at the foreign office. Mr Shercliff is responsible for promulgating information (IOPS) on behalf of the state and a member of the DSMA commitee which suppresses information on behalf of the state. Funnily enough Philip Cross deleted referenced to Prince Andrew’s visit to Pizza Express in order to discredit him.
3) The reason why that girl made the allegation that the attack occurred on that particular date is because of the fact that it was known that he had visited Pizza Express. Pizza express was founded by a member of St Catharines college Cambridge, Peter Boizot and as the director of national security, along with the previous director of national security also come from that college, they could no doubt through the old boys network rely upon that restaurant to deny the fact that he had visited.One other things. Alumni from the same college (Johnathon Allen and Simon Shercliff) are responsible for departments which have made allegations against
1) Donald Trump with respect to some girls urinating on him in a flat in Moscow
2) Michael Flynn being compromised by Russia.
3) Donald Trump having colluded with RussiaDoes anyone believe this horsesh*t and are the Americans really so utterly foolish as to lend any sort of credence to this girl given who she is and given who has been the director of national security at the FCO?
