The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marengo said:
I assume the duke of York will be retired to the country side for the time being? I can't see how he can continue his normal duties for the time being while his association with this monster is becoming more clear.

I have not seen any political reactions to this matter. In my own country I would imagine that the close friendship of a member of the Royal House with a pedophile would immidiately raise questions in parlament, which means the prime minister would need to get involved. Is that the case in the UK as well?
Click to expand...


To 'retire' from official duties now would be taken as an admission of guilt.

Andrew has not been charged with any offence.

Until he has been charged, tried and convicted he is able to continue his life as he wants and to suggest anything else is to ignore the main principle of the UK's legal system - INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law - not in the media.

I know many countries don't understand this concept but it is the cornerstone of the British legal system and has been for centuries.

Trial by media isn't a legal process. Nor is 'guilty by association'.

I would expect that come September Andrew will be doing any scheduled duties. The fact he doesn't publish his upcoming engagements ahead of time means we will never know if he cancels any engagements.

If Andrew has committed a crime, he will be charged, tried and convicted in a court of law. Only then should he be denied the rights to live his life - the same as everyone else.

The DM has made a big thing of him 'hiding in Spain' ignoring the fact that every year, after the Yorks have been to Balmoral they go to Spain or France or Switzerland for a couple of weeks together. They made it into a 'news' story when it is simply the normal practice of the family.
 
Last edited:
Andrew just might as well come clean about everything, because these small statements he’s releasing are bogus. The statements have more holes in them than Swiss cheese.
 
Dman said:
Andrew just might as well come clean about everything, because these small statements he’s releasing are bogus. The statements have more holes in them than Swiss cheese.
Click to expand...

He is claiming an "infrequent" acquaintance and that is an all out lie. It honestly is rather insulting, this statement.
 
Another odd statement that says nothing.
 
Unfortunately, I think what Andrew's statement says is that to him, there was nothing odd or unusual or worthy of concern in what he saw while he stayed with or visited Epstein, and if that is true, it speaks volumes about what is considered "normal" in the circles Andrew runs in.

I can't see how this statement does anything but raise even more questions about Andrew and what he got up to while in Epstein's company.
 
Zaira said:
He is claiming an "infrequent" acquaintance and that is an all out lie. It honestly is rather insulting, this statement.
Click to expand...

What else can he say? He's absolutely panicked. Everyone who was ever around Epstein has verified that he was always surrounded by random young girls in his homes and private plane. Even if Andrew was as innocent and naive as he claims and the girls accusing him of abusing them are liars wouldn't it have occured to him to have asked his pal who they were and why they were there? It's not as though Jeffrey hid the girls away when Andrew was around as the photo with Virginia Roberts proves and he is continuously glossing over the fact that he stood by Epstein even after he had been CONVICTED of sexual activity with a minor. He calls it 'a mistake' which is beyond pathetic. If the Queen continues to stand by him it gives the impression that she is condoning his behaviour and dosn't care about what happened to those girls and this is obviously very damaging to the Monarchy and the standing of the Queen in the eyes of the public, but what else can she do? He is a complete liability as a member of the royal family and has put his mother in an intolerable position.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think any of the victims of the criminal sex trafficking ring would say they were (forced) to have sex with Andrew if it didn’t really happen.

Members of the royal family are known to be quite careful in selecting their close inner circle of friends. They even vet their friends before they even let them in their exclusive circle of friends.

Come clean, Andrew. Cause I believe you just as much as I believe R. Kelly.
 
Lumutqueen said:
Sorry to whom are you referring to because all the women in the video look 25 years + to me...
Click to expand...

The one with the ponytail walking Epstein to his car and then going back into the house where Andrew remained after his friend had left.
 
Last edited:
sophie25 said:
The one with the ponytail walking Epstein to his car and then going back into the house.
Click to expand...



I thought that was the one you were on about, yeah everyone’s perception is different but I’d say she’s 20+.
 
Iluvbertie said:
To 'retire' from official duties now would be taken as an admission of guilt.

Andrew has not been charged with any offence.

Until he has been charged, tried and convicted he is able to continue his life as he wants and to suggest anything else is to ignore the main principle of the UK's legal system - INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law - not in the media.

I know many countries don't understand this concept but it is the cornerstone of the British legal system and has been for centuries.

Trial by media isn't a legal process. Nor is 'guilty by association'.

I would expect that come September Andrew will be doing any scheduled duties. The fact he doesn't publish his upcoming engagements ahead of time means we will never know if he cancels any engagements.

If Andrew has committed a crime, he will be charged, tried and convicted in a court of law. Only then should he be denied the rights to live his life - the same as everyone else.

The DM has made a big thing of him 'hiding in Spain' ignoring the fact that every year, after the Yorks have been to Balmoral they go to Spain or France or Switzerland for a couple of weeks together. They made it into a 'news' story when it is simply the normal practice of the family.
Click to expand...

That is the system indeed. But the fact remains that the Duke was a friend of a convicted pedophile who groomed and raped dozens of children. The duke himself is accused of all sorts of things.

Any charity or event that the duke will visit will be overshadowed by this case. It will distract from the purpose of a visit, in which case it may be better to send another member of the family.

I imagine few associations or people will be jumping with joy with the thought of a visit of the Duke at this moment. Some may even find it uncomfortable to see their charity or event associated with somebody who befriended a convicted pedophile, who at least condoned the behavior of this monster and perhaps even did worse.
 
Last edited:
Lumutqueen said:
I thought that was the one you were on about, yeah everyone’s perception is different but I’d say she’s 20+.
Click to expand...

Everyone's perception is but she's tiny and childlike in the face and, to me, looks early teens. That's not surprising though as that's the age group Jeffrey liked.
 
sophie25 said:
OMG, that little girl in the video only looks about 14, disgusting!
Click to expand...

I don't think one can accurately judge age from a brief video or photo. I looked 12 or 14 until I was about 30.

But I guess people see what they want to....
 
O-H Anglophile said:
I don't think one can accurately judge age from a brief video or photo. I looked 12 or 14 until I was about 30.

But I guess people see what they want to....
Click to expand...

Very well said.



sophie25 said:
Everyone's perception is but she's tiny and childlike in the face and, to me, looks early teens. That's not surprising though as that's the age group Jeffrey liked.
Click to expand...



I’m currently 26, and I got ID’d the other day when I was buying a lottery ticket which has an age restriction of 16.

I’m 5 foot 1 (5ft1.5 on a good day) height literally has nothing to do with age, unless by tiny you mean she’s thin which again has nothing to with age. In the video she stands at Epstein’s shoulder and he’s 6 ft.
 
Iluvbertie said:
Trial by media isn't a legal process. Nor is 'guilty by association'.
Click to expand...

This is my main issue with this whole thing. The Miami Herald investigation is one thing, most of the others are something else entirely.

Yes, Andrew had poor judgment in this friendship--but he is not alone. Many, many others in prominent positions in many fields are in the same boat. I do not believe they are all guilty of pedophilia.
 
Last edited:
O-H Anglophile said:
I don't think one can accurately judge age from a brief video or photo. I looked 12 or 14 until I was about 30.

But I guess people see what they want to....
Click to expand...

I don't see what I want to at all. The woman Andrew waved off from Epstein's house looked like a woman and the girl with the ponytail looked like a teenager. If you looked 12 or 13 when you were 30 who am I to argue with you but bearing in mind the sexual leanings of the man involved here I am prepared to guess that a girl who looked like a young teen entering his house was exactly that.
 
sophie25 said:
I don't see what I want to at all. The woman Andrew waved off from Epstein's house looked like a woman and the girl with the ponytail looked like a teenager. If you looked 12 or 13 when you were 30 who am I to argue with you but bearing in mind the sexual leanings of the man involved here I am prepared to guess that a girl who looked like a young teen entering his house was exactly that.
Click to expand...

And yet until Andrew's friend was identified and known to be a 28 year old woman, some people were saying she must be one of Epstein's young teen girls.
 
Did Andrew really and truly whine and compare his lot in life to that of Prince Albert of Monaco..who gets to " do whatever he wants" and no one bothers him?:lol:

Albert Grimaldi...the billionaire work horse non taxpayer funded ruler of an independent city-state?

THAT Prince Albert??

Because if so, every rumor ever uttered about Andrew's sense of entitlement and lack of intelligence is in fact true.:ohmy:

***Andrew's statement was quoted in the Guarduan article posted above, allegedly during his foot massage with Epstein".****
 
Even thought the image of Andrew's face was only a few seconds, what was most striking was how pleasant and friendly Andrew looked. He appeared absolutely at home and comfortable and totally content. In his public life he is often described as arrogant, haughty and distant. In this apartment, he seemed totally happy like a different man who have never seen before. Maybe this division in personality is the real cause of the tension. I do not think his brothers and sister can be associated with such a sharp distinction. They are basically comfortable with themselves in their public roles - and apparently also in their private lives now. Puzzling.
 
I wonder what kind of dirt is coming out next considering this desperate, full of lies statement that has been brought out. It's interesting to me how there is focus on the age of some of the girls. I mean, how many girls came forward with a similar story? Over 50? And they expect any critical thinker to believe it when he says that he didn't know why Epstein went to jail, or why there were young women hanging around the property all the time? He made an informed choice while bleating about the ''privilige'' of Prince Albert and the likes.

This is a guy who drove an expensive car into a closed fence because he couldn't be bothered to drive somewhere else or wait for it to open. This is not a man who has ever lived by fair judgement and a sound mind. He better buckle his seatbelt and stir more stories about the Suxxeses because it's not going away any time soon and nor should it.
 
Marengo said:
That is the system indeed. But the fact remains that the Duke was a friend of a convicted pedophile who groomed and raped dozens of children. The duke himself is accused of all sorts of things.

Any charity or event that the duke will visit will be overshadowed by this case. It will distract from the purpose of a visit, in which case it may be better to send another member of the family.

I imagine few associations or people will be jumping with joy with the thought of a visit of the Duke at this moment. Some may even find it uncomfortable to see their charity or event associated with somebody who befriended a convicted pedophile, who at least condoned the behavior of this monster and perhaps even did worse.
Click to expand...

As there is NOTHING that has been revealed in the past few weeks that wasn't in the public domain in 2011 why would charities and organisations turn on him now when they have known all these details since 2011.

There is simply nothing new that has come out.

It was known as far back as 2008, when Epstein was convicted, that Andrew had been one of his friends.

It was known in 2011 that Andrew had visited Eptein's New York home in late 2010 (the time of the video).

It was known in 2011 that there were allegations that Andrew had flown on Epstein's planes (along with Clinton, Trump etc etc).

The Prosecution in the UK will have to prove guilt. It is not up to Andrew to prove his innocence. That is a crucial part of the system.

People who like to convict as a result of 'trial by media' have been burnt many times in the UK in recent times with literally 100s of cases of sexual and other assaults being thrown out of court once the accused is in the court despite the media's beat up. The media's evidence is not the whole story and often is even thrown out as compromising the case or cases are even dismissed as it is impossible to get an impartial jury due to the media's role in investigating a case. Good media outlets take their evidence to the police and work with them to get a conviction and then run an exclusive. They don't do the exclusive first as they would be compromising and subsequent legal case.
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
As there is NOTHING that has been revealed in the past few weeks that wasn't in the public domain in 2011 why would charities and organisations turn on him now when they have known all these details since 2011.

There is simply nothing new that has come out.

It was known as far back as 2008, when Epstein was convicted, that Andrew had been one of his friends.

It was known in 2011 that Andrew had visited Eptein's New York home in late 2010 (the time of the video).

It was known in 2011 that there were allegations that Andrew had flown on Epstein's planes (along with Clinton, Trump etc etc).

The Prosecution in the UK will have to prove guilt. It is not up to Andrew to prove his innocence. That is a crucial part of the system.

People who like to convict as a result of 'trial by media' have been burnt many times in the UK in recent times with literally 100s of cases of sexual and other assaults being thrown out of court once the accused is in the court despite the media's beat up. The media's evidence is not the whole story and often is even thrown out as compromising the case or cases are even dismissed as it is impossible to get an impartial jury due to the media's role in investigating a case. Good media outlets take their evidence to the police and work with them to get a conviction and then run an exclusive. They don't do the exclusive first as they would be compromising and subsequent legal case.
Click to expand...

That the problem, people treating this like old news. Andrew got the benefit of the doubt because the claims were dismissed without a full and thorough investigation. In the area of the Me Too Movement, a lot of bull from the powerful and well-connected aren’t flying anymore. There should be a full investigation into the claims and Andrew need to answer some serious questions, because these statements are weak and full of bull.
 
Edward VIII was never convicted of any crimes, yet his morals were judged to be lacking and he was forced to abdicate.
I see two separate issues with Andrew - the first being whether he committed a crime & could he be convicted of doing so - and given the passage of time and his likely diplomatic immunity I doubt that he could be convicted.
The second issue is whether in the era of ‘me too’ someone such as Andrew, whose defense now appears to be yes I’ve slept with 1000s of women but they were all adults & besides I barely knew Epstein, is a liability to the firm due to his actions & choices and if so, what actions will the firm or the charitable organizations Andrew is patron of take to limit the damage.
Last time the firm just rode it out, but this time more information is coming to light and the public mood seems different.
 
sndral said:
Edward VIII was never convicted of any crimes, yet his morals were judged to be lacking and he was forced to abdicate.
I see two separate issues with Andrew - the first being whether he committed a crime & could he be convicted of doing so - and given the passage of time and his likely diplomatic immunity I doubt that he could be convicted.
The second issue is whether in the era of ‘me too’ someone such as Andrew, whose defense now appears to be yes I’ve slept with 1000s of women but they were all adults & besides I barely knew Epstein, is a liability to the firm due to his actions & choices and if so, what actions will the firm or the charitable organizations Andrew is patron of take to limit the damage.
Last time the firm just rode it out, but this time more information is coming to light and the public mood seems different.
Click to expand...

What does Edward the VIII have to do with this situation-Nothing! And he wasn’t forced to abdicate for lack of morality.

The “playboy life defense” was supposedly said by an unidentifed “friend” in a DM article. Not said by Andrew and caught on tape by a microphone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -
6 7 8
Replies
223
Views
14K
Curryong
C
L
  • Locked
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003
3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
28K
Alexandria
A
J
  • Locked
Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik, Current Events 1: May 2003 - November 2006
17 18 19
Replies
564
Views
100K
norwegianne
norwegianne

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom