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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The refused letter;

@RE_DailyMail: The Fed-Exed letter that Buckingham Palace refused to accept #PrinceAndrew #JeffreyEpstein http://t.co/NIfrAD74jM
 
But the "real" problem now is the extent of his knowledge. Did he just think he got lucky with a young woman or did he know more?


I really believe he thought he got lucky!
Andrew has always had a sense of entitlement; it wouldn't surprise me if he sincerely believed women were queuing up to sleep with him because he's royalty.
 
Even if it was legal, it's positively predatory for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl, unless they have some feelings for each other, and even then it's questionable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "back in the day", but keep in mind this was in 2001.

For me it's not the mere fact (if it is a fact, and IMO it probably is) of him, at 40, having sex with a 17 year old girl that is a problem, it is the sleazy circumstances in which it seems to have happened.

I really believe he thought he got lucky!
Andrew has always had a sense of entitlement; it wouldn't surprise me if he sincerely believed women were queuing up to sleep with him because he's royalty.

In which case he really is stupid. Or was stupid. I wonder if he still thinks the same way?
 
She is really playing hardball isn't she? Somehow I have to wonder if this is really all about her "just getting the word out". That may be it, but I still think there are big $ signs in her eyes. If this continues on and it is "proven" that Andrew did have sex with her, (though I will always think it is a she said/he said situation) I'm guessing she is looking at book proposals, interviews, TV and films. In no way do I think this is just some innocent little miss who wants people to know how badly she and others were mistreated by Epstein. She is looking at the big picture .... future financial gains for herself. JMO!!!
 
The refused letter;

@RE_DailyMail: The Fed-Exed letter that Buckingham Palace refused to accept #PrinceAndrew #JeffreyEpstein http://t.co/NIfrAD74jM

I love the little threat in the last paragraph! :lol:

The plot thickens.

This letter would certainly explain why Andrew would engage a prominent QC. It's the sort of letter that one would only respond to through one's own lawyers.

I find it interesting that the letter does not say that they want to take a sworn statement from him with a view to him being a witness in proposed proceedings against another person; it is couched in terms which suggest to me that they are gunning for him. But what proceedings are they contemplating? What has he done wrong that could result in civil proceedings against him? I thought that he could only be in the firing line for the Federal charges relating to sex trafficking. Over here any criminal proceedings would be instituted by the Crown prosecutor, not a private individual, so it would be the Crown (giggles, inappropriately) that would be seeking him out to take a statement. What is the procedure in the USA?

She is really playing hardball isn't she? Somehow I have to wonder if this is really all about her "just getting the word out". That may be it, but I still think there are big $ signs in her eyes. If this continues on and it is "proven" that Andrew did have sex with her, (though I will always think it is a she said/he said situation) I'm guessing she is looking at book proposals, interviews, TV and films. In no way do I think this is just some innocent little miss who wants people to know how badly she and others were mistreated by Epstein. She is looking at the big picture .... future financial gains for herself. JMO!!!

It seems that if the women are successful in proving their rights in the current case against the US Attroney under the Crime Victims legislation, they would be entitled to "restitution", and I think "restitution" might include money. I don't know how much though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The most interesting part of that letter from counsel is that they plan on new court filings with some more details.

Andrew is in some serious trouble. It is naive to think he is not. Even if he is immune from suit, the damage to his reputation is all but sealed now, and his refusal to speak up voluntarily will cause a lot of people to believe it is Ms.Roberts who is telling the truth.

Not good, not good at all.

To be honest I can't see how he could get away with claiming immunity as he wasn't meeting Epstein as a representative of the British Government but as a private individual. It would be hard for anyone to argue he should get immunity for what he does as a private individual.
Remember (and I know the circumstances are massively different and don't involve another country) that Princess Anne didn't get immunity when she was taken to court over her dog attacking someone.
 
IMO she is not a "sex slave" (source: British tabloid media) as she received payment for sex (her admission according to UK media).

Her father has retracted statement re "meeting the Queen".

She is promoting her book.

AS I understand it, she was not part of the original case against Epstein but has been asked to be included in the case against the defendant's lawyers (in the case against Epstein) to pleaded too lenient a sentence. Happy to have this challenged if my understanding is wrong.

She has come out of left field and I ask why wasn't she there re the original charge to start with?

It's a mess but even though it is a mess - Andrew has not been charge, has denied allegations and therefore is innocent till PROVEN guilty.

EDIT: Clarity: Andrew is not claiming immunity (he couldn't anyway) - he is saying the allegations are wrong. She is already writing her book!
 
Last edited:
I love the little threat in the last paragraph! :lol:

The plot thickens.

This letter would certainly explain why Andrew would engage a prominent QC. It's the sort of letter that one would only respond to through one's own lawyers.

I find it interesting that the letter does not say that they want to take a sworn statement from him with a view to him being a witness in proposed proceedings against another person; it is couched in terms which suggest to me that they are gunning for him. But what proceedings are they contemplating? What has he done wrong that could result in civil proceedings against him? I thought that he could only be in the firing line for the Federal charges relating to sex trafficking. Over here any criminal proceedings would be instituted by the Crown prosecutor, not a private individual, so it would be the Crown (giggles, inappropriately) that would be seeking him out to take a statement. What is the procedure in the USA?

Only a prosecutor could bring criminal charges - but if the evidence is clear and they decline, it puts them in a bad light, particularly if we are talking about the sex trafficking of underage girls by Masters of the Universe.

Civil suit - I'm not sure if she can bring a civil suit based on any convictions, if any other civil causes of action are not time-barred, or if the court could even obtain jurisdiction over Andrew.

You're right, the letter is meant to box him into a corner in the he said-she said fight. He can't very well go under oath when it's unclear he might face criminal charges in the future - no lawyer will let him do that. It makes him look extremely bad in the public eye even though there's no way he can do it now, and it makes him look even worse now that the flight logs have been made public.
 
I'm not defending Andrews behavior, but this thread is starting to look like the comments section in the mail.
 
It seems that if the women are successful in proving their rights in the current case against the US Attroney under the Crime Victims legislation, they would be entitled to "restitution", and I think "restitution" might include money. I don't know how much though.

Ah, there you have it! I think it is more that "might" include money. I think these women are out for big bucks to last them a life time. Let's be honest putting Epstein or god forbid Andrew behind bars will really do nothing for them. It's the $$$$$$$$$ that are the point here, I think.
 
Even if it was legal, it's positively predatory for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl, unless they have some feelings for each other, and even then it's questionable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "back in the day", but keep in mind this was in 2001.

Well, it may be illegal, but today these 17 year old girls and boys know what they're doing and can do it pretty well. They consider themselves grown and feel like they can do what they want. That's all I'm saying.
 
Ah, there you have it! I think it is more that "might" include money. I think these women are out for big bucks to last them a life time. Let's be honest putting Epstein or god forbid Andrew behind bars will really do nothing for them. It's the $$$$$$$$$ that are the point here, I think.

Lots of litigation is all about money. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in seeking financial compensation for legal wrongs committed against you.
 
But is it bad that they may have had sex? I mean, being 17 today is different than being 17 back in the day.

Charlie Chaplin( age 53) and Oona O'Neill (age 17) were considered one of Hollywood's most legendary love stories. Of course, his previous history with teenage girls wasn't so successful, hence the inspiration behind the novel Lolita. lol

I guess it depends on the people and the situation. it's usually a bad idea.
 
Diplomatic immunity covers certain individuals, regardless of the purpose of a particular visit or meeting. It's to protect diplomats from being harassed.


The manifests shed little light on this story. We already knew that she and Andrew met. But they don't prove whether they slept together. If she had "proof," she would have revealed it. The question is her credibility. Some people are going to believe her, others won't. Most of us don't know and never will.


Buckingham Palace denied that Andrew had sex with her, but no one has denied that Andrew tried to intervene on Epstein's behalf. Even if he did, it doesn't mean that he slept with her, just that his moral compass is really, really, really off.
 
Ah, there you have it! I think it is more that "might" include money. I think these women are out for big bucks to last them a life time. Let's be honest putting Epstein or god forbid Andrew behind bars will really do nothing for them. It's the $$$$$$$$$ that are the point here, I think.

The current case is NOT about putting Epstein behind bars (he's been there) - its about the plea bargain.

Epstein and Andrew, and some Prime Minister and a lawyer are added info to the case that the plea bargain was wrong.

As a UK citizen, what I dont understand is that Jane Doe #3 (virginia whoever) and JD #4 have been allowed to "join" this case, when they weren't part of the original prosecution which put Epstein behind bars.
 
IMO she is not a "sex slave" (source: British tabloid media) as she received payment for sex (her admission according to UK media).

Her father has retracted statement re "meeting the Queen".

She is promoting her book.

AS I understand it, she was not part of the original case against Epstein but has been asked to be included in the case against the defendant's lawyers (in the case against Epstein) to pleaded too lenient a sentence. Happy to have this challenged if my understanding is wrong.

She has come out of left field and I ask why wasn't she there re the original charge to start with?

It's a mess but even though it is a mess - Andrew has not been charge, has denied allegations and therefore is innocent till PROVEN guilty.

EDIT: Clarity: Andrew is not claiming immunity (he couldn't anyway) - he is saying the allegations are wrong. She is already writing her book!


I believe she is suing the U.S. Prosecutors that did the deal with Epstein.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
The current case is NOT about putting Epstein behind bars (he's been there) - its about the plea bargain.

Epstein and Andrew, and some Prime Minister and a lawyer are added info to the case that the plea bargain was wrong.

As a UK citizen, what I dont understand is that Jane Doe #3 (virginia whoever) and JD #4 have been allowed to "join" this case, when they weren't part of the original prosecution which put Epstein behind bars.

Prince Andrew accuser and another denied right to join lawsuit - CBS News

This report suggests that their application has been denied.
Andrew will be firmly in her sights now.
 
That's just the prosecutors' case filed in answer to the two new Jane Does' claims. I must read it.

The matter still has to be heard by the Court.

Thanks for clearing that up Roslyn.
 
Nothing illegal needs to have taken place for this to ruin Andrew's reputation. As the sleazy accusations start to pile up it doesn't really matter whether it was legal to have sex with a 17 year old girl. People will believe what they will believe.

Obviously Andrew is not accountable in the way a MP or a Prime Minister is, as long as the Queen wants to fund him, Andrew can travel the globe and not answer to anyone because he strikes me as someone who doesn't give a hoot what anybody thinks of him.

Interesting few days ahead in Davos
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that Jane Doe 1 and 2 are going to cause serious problems for Andrew, and all the others named and mentioned [prime minister?] without 3 and 4's help

I imagine 3 and 4 won't object to being called as witnesses
 
Last edited:
I believe she is suing the U.S. Prosecutors that did the deal with Epstein.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

My question is why didn't the states bring charges against Epstein at the time? My understanding is that the U.S. prosecutor can't force the states to file or not file charges. If the Jane Does didn't like the original plea bargain, why didn't they contact the state prosecutors about the deal?
 
Surprised no one has touched on what to me was an even bigger bombshell from today : The Allegations levelled at Andrew's Protection Officers at the time and that they knew what was going on, but left Andrew alone w/a Teenage Girl anyway.

Between how there will be demands in Parliament for an investigation into their conduct and, IMO, the sheer stupidity of Andrew saying anything at all in Davos, Tomorrow could be (and thinking this is a beyond any doubt in the World circumstance) very, very ugly *and* messy in many sad ways.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
My question is why didn't the states bring charges against Epstein at the time? My understanding is that the U.S. prosecutor can't force the states to file or not file charges. If the Jane Does didn't like the original plea bargain, why didn't they contact the state prosecutors about the deal?

These were federal charges, it was the U.S. Attorney's Office that made the original plea deal.
 
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy

My question is why didn't the states bring charges against Epstein at the time? My understanding is that the U.S. prosecutor can't force the states to file or not file charges. If the Jane Does didn't like the original plea bargain, why didn't they contact the state prosecutors about the deal?


He did plea to soliciting a prostitute in Florida. Apparently according to this NY post article, he made a deal with the Feds not to prosecute if he plead to the state charge in FL

http://nypost.com/2011/02/25/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-im-a-sex-offender-not-a-predator/

I believe this fed no prosecution deal is what Jane Does 3&4 are suing about.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
He did plea to soliciting a prostitute in Florida. Apparently according to this NY post article, he made a deal with the Feds not to prosecute if he plead to the state charge in FL

Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein: I’m a sex offender, not a predator | New York Post

I believe this fed no prosecution deal is what Jane Does 3&4 are suing about.

Yep, and what he pleaded guilty to is a bit worse than stealing a bagel! Epstein pleaded guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution and the US Attorney's Office agreed to not prosecute him for Federal offences, but those agreements were kept secret from the Jane Does. Jane Doe 1 wanted Epstein charged with the Federal Offences and shortly after she found out about the non-prosecution agreement she filed the petition to enforce her rights under the CVRA. Jane Doe 2 then joined the action and now the two others are trying to, too.

Here is a re-post of the link to the September 2011 judgment which sets out a nice summary of the background: http://www.ncdsv.org/images/JaneDoes1and2vsUS_9-26-2011.pdf

It just registered for the first time that these Federal proceedings remained inactive for 18 months or so in 2008/2009/2010 while Jane Does 1 & 2 litigated civil proceedings against Epstein, which they then settled. I don't know the basis upon which the matters were settled. I am assuming they were after money but I have no idea what they got out of it, if anything.
 
Last edited:
He did plea to soliciting a prostitute in Florida. Apparently according to this NY post article, he made a deal with the Feds not to prosecute if he plead to the state charge in FL

Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein: I’m a sex offender, not a predator | New York Post

I believe this fed no prosecution deal is what Jane Does 3&4 are suing about.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Thanks Skippyboo. I am sorry that I didn't explain my question fully. Why did the states go along with the deal?

I understand that the Jane Does are not suing the state prosecutor because state laws don't allow it. This suit is a result of a federal law regarding federal victims' rights.

It just seems odd to me that so many people went along with this plea bargain. And not just Florida, apparently several states could have brought charges.

I know there is no statute of limitations for the Mann Act but that is so they can prosecute people if crimes are discovered after years and years. Can the prosecutor know about the crime at the time and then file charges 10 years later?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom