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.
Osipi said:
After reading actual court documents of a case filed in SDNY by one of Epstein's victims in 2016, its easy for me to believe that Ms. Giuffre was very much a victim and held by invisible chains. Threats of being "rubbed out" and harm done to family members is among some of the locks for those chains.

I won't go into more detail here as the lawsuit was not filed against Andrew or even mentioned him but I will state that reading the actual charges filed made me sick to my stomach.
Click to expand...

But the problem is proving this sort of thng years after the event. Grooming, pressure, non violent coercion etc.. its very hard to prove..
 
I would say almost impossible to prove. Especially as the incident involving Andrew in London was about 19 years ago in 2001.

Epstein made sure his "inner circle" were totally under his control. In this sense, I am even going to go as far as stating that in some ways, Ghislaine Maxwell also fell victim to the man. It doesn't excuse any of her actions whatsoever but it seems obvious to me that Epstein had total control over her and she did as she was told to do.
 
Osipi said:
I would say almost impossible to prove. Especially as the incident involving Andrew in London was about 19 years ago in 2001.

Epstein made sure his "inner circle" were totally under his control. In this sense, I am even going to go as far as stating that in some ways, Ghislaine Maxwell also fell victim to the man. It doesn't excuse any of her actions whatsoever but it seems obvious to me that Epstein had total control over her and she did as she was told to do.
Click to expand...

She could have walked out, and left him. SHe was not poor, or very young. She was from a privileged background. She had no need to procure girls for her boyfriend.
 
I think all this focus on Andrew is obscuring the very real problem of human trafficking of vulnerable girls (which is on the rise even in Canada, thanks to the Internet).

As Osipi has said a few times, whatever role Andrew played in this whole mess, it was a small part (if at all) in a large web of shady characters. Yet because of who he is, the media and U.S. attorneys are focusing solely on him.

I don't think all this attention on Andrew is going to help women get justice. I saw a tweet by Virginia Roberts Guiffre that said "Tick Tock Andy, time's up," or some such thing. I haven't been a victim of abuse myself so my opinion might not count for much, but something sounds off about that tweet. It doesn't sound like it's coming from a victim seeking justice. It sounds malicious.

Victims of human trafficking deserve better than the way this case is playing out in the media. Particularly, shouldn't the focus be on Ghislaine Maxwell? She probably knows more than anyone else.

Andrew might be protecting her; he might not want to testify in case he incriminates her. Or he might not want to testify because he really is lying about having sex with Virginia. But even IF he does speak to the American FBI (which as other posters have explained is unlikely), I don't think he is ever going to say he knew Virginia was being trafficked. And if he didn't know, no one can really prove he did anything criminal at all. I don't know much about American (or British) law, but it strikes me as being somewhat like purchasing stolen goods. If the person who bought them knew they were stolen, he's in the wrong. If he didn't know, he's innocent of any crime. If Andrew knew Virginia was being trafficked, he committed a crime, but if he genuinely thought she was a willing 17 year-old girl, his actions were creepy, age-inappropriate, but not criminally wrong.
 
Last edited:
rmay286 said:
I think all this focus on Andrew is obscuring the very real problem of human trafficking of vulnerable girls (which is on the rise even in Canada, thanks to the Internet).

As Osipi has said a few times, whatever role Andrew played in this whole mess, it was a small part (if at all) in a large web of shady characters. Yet because of who he is, the media and U.S. attorneys are focusing solely on him.

I don't think all this attention on Andrew is going to help women get justice. I saw a tweet by Virginia Roberts Guiffre that said "Tick Tock Andy, time's up," or some such thing. I haven't been a victim of abuse myself so my opinion might not count for much, but something sounds off about that tweet. It doesn't sound like it's coming from a victim seeking justice. It sounds malicious.

Victims of human trafficking deserve better than the way this case is playing out in the media. Particularly, shouldn't the focus be on Ghislaine Maxwell? She probably knows more than anyone else.

Andrew might be protecting her; he might not want to testify in case he incriminates her. Or he might not want to testify because he really is lying about having sex with Virginia. But even IF he does speak to the American FBI (which as other posters have explained is unlikely), I don't think he is ever going to say he knew Virginia was being trafficked. And if he didn't know, no one can really prove he did anything criminal at all. I don't know much about American (or British) law, but it strikes me as being somewhat like purchasing stolen goods. If the person who bought them knew they were stolen, he's in the wrong. If he didn't know, he's innocent of any crime. If Andrew knew Virginia was being trafficked, he committed a crime, but if he genuinely thought she was a willing 17 year-old girl, his actions were creepy, age-inappropriate, but not criminally wrong.
Click to expand...

Again this is two cases, one the Epstein thing and another the abuse of Giuffre and maybe others.
 
rmay286 said:
I think all this focus on Andrew is obscuring the very real problem of human trafficking of vulnerable girls (which is on the rise even in Canada, thanks to the Internet).

As Osipi has said a few times, whatever role Andrew played in this whole mess, it was a small part (if at all) in a large web of shady characters. Yet because of who he is, the media and U.S. attorneys are focusing solely on him.

I don't think all this attention on Andrew is going to help women get justice. I saw a tweet by Virginia Roberts Guiffre that said "Tick Tock Andy, time's up," or some such thing. I haven't been a victim of abuse myself so my opinion might not count for much, but something sounds off about that tweet. It doesn't sound like it's coming from a victim seeking justice. It sounds malicious.

Victims of human trafficking deserve better than the way this case is playing out in the media. Particularly, shouldn't the focus be on Ghislaine Maxwell? She probably knows more than anyone else.

Andrew might be protecting her; he might not want to testify in case he incriminates her. Or he might not want to testify because he really is lying about having sex with Virginia. But even IF he does speak to the American FBI (which as other posters have explained is unlikely), I don't think he is ever going to say he knew Virginia was being trafficked. And if he didn't know, no one can really prove he did anything criminal at all. I don't know much about American (or British) law, but it strikes me as being somewhat like purchasing stolen goods. If the person who bought them knew they were stolen, he's in the wrong. If he didn't know, he's innocent of any crime. If Andrew knew Virginia was being trafficked, he committed a crime, but if he genuinely thought she was a willing 17 year-old girl, his actions were creepy, age-inappropriate, but not criminally wrong.
Click to expand...


Actually I don't notice the US media focusing that much on Andrew at all. Or the whole sorry mess since Epstein died.


More than Andrew I would like to see Ghislaine arrested. SHE was the one I think who procured these girls.


As for Virginia if I were trafficked I'd be malicious too towards those who I felt had abused me. She seems to put Andrew in this category. She's the victim, not Andrew.


It isn't just Andrew - there were all those hangers on who saw all this and did nothing. I don't believe they weren't aware - I think they turned a blind eye.


While they're not guilty of anything but bad judgement I don't feel too sorry for them having their names drug all through the papers.


So if all of this happened to Beatrice and Eugenie would you still be fine with it?
 
Last edited:
Second and final thing , I am from Wash Dc. Here outside of politicians lawyers are rock stars here and famous ones and infamous ones are well known. The attorney for Andrews accuser is David Boies. He is famous for a variety of ethics violations I will not go over here. The New York Times last December about a potential video tapes featuring Epstein famous and wealthy johns. This lawyer and another lawyer planned to try to get these tapes to extort these men into paying settlements. So much for true justice it would have been valuable evidence if it was real. The accuser stood by David on her Twitter account like it was nothing. For me just the choice of lawyer alone would have been enough for me to sideeye given his history. Might as well choose Michael avenatti while they were at it
 
Several posts have been deleted. We are not hosting any victim blaming here, nor are we happy to have overt speculation in regards to this case. Please keep to facts.
 
QueenMathilde said:
So if all of this happened to Beatrice and Eugenie would you still be fine with it?
Click to expand...

Oh dear - I'm not fine with it at all. I think Epstein was a sick, sleazy person and I believe he really abused various women. Anyone who collaborated with him to traffic these women should receive justice.

But there seems to be this disproportionate focus on Andrew. Why Andrew and not Alan Dershowitz, who Virginia Guiffre also accused of having sex with her? If I look at Virginia's tweets, there is no #Dershowitz...most of the tweets hashtag Andrew and Ghislaine. Why "tick tock Andy" but not similar tweets to other men?

What about all the other men who supposedly were at Epstein's mansion?
 
Well now we got another press conference. At this point I would just tell the feds what I knew because honestly if you have zero to hide then why not? This is never going away.
 
rmay286 said:
Oh dear - I'm not fine with it at all. I think Epstein was a sick, sleazy person and I believe he really abused various women. Anyone who collaborated with him to traffic these women should receive justice.

But there seems to be this disproportionate focus on Andrew. Why Andrew and not Alan Dershowitz, who Virginia Guiffre also accused of having sex with her? If I look at Virginia's tweets, there is no #Dershowitz...most of the tweets hashtag Andrew and Ghislaine. Why "tick tock Andy" but not similar tweets to other men?

What about all the other men who supposedly were at Epstein's mansion?
Click to expand...

Well we do nit know if some if them did yet cooperate. And as I said some she might not even know the names.
The fact that there are kore does not reduce Andrews involvement.
But guess if being in Giuffre's position the feeling of powerlessness might be even bigger when seing a weird system protecting a Royal from being hold responsible.
By the way Giufrre has any right to choose how she wants to deal with it.
 
ACO said:
Well now we got another press conference. At this point I would just tell the feds what I knew because honestly if you have zero to hide then why not? This is never going away.
Click to expand...

A new one, from who where, when? Thanks.
 
Leopoldine said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rince-Andrews-birthday-flying-Union-Jack.html

The man who ordered this was most likely trying to stir the pot.

edit - for those who don't click on the DM, the article states that some government official ordered councils to fly the Union Jack in honor of Prince Andrew's 60th birthday.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok thanks. I thought a press conference was held.
Anyway this is an interesting point, I dis not know this even is usual to happen, funny thing, I guessed they'd probably do it for HM but everyone?
I hope the councils refuse to do it!
 
It seems nothing will be done because at this time there is nothing to done. Andrew is as any other man in the UK. He is not innocent, he is not guilty. He has been tried and convicted in the Court of Public Opinion and now that the media storm has passed the self righteous are wanting to pass sentence.

It is not enough that life as he knew it is over, that he he being spoken of as some sort of pervert or paedophile. There seems to be those who will not stop while he draws breath on the basis of media allegations. The Guardian? Since when did the FBI release official statements through them.
 
Liverpool is the 1st council to refuse to fly the union flag for Prince Andrew's birthday. I suspect others will also refuse.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-council-not-fly-flag-17698825


The Prime Minister's spokesperson just now:
"I understand that DCMS and the Royal Household are considering how the policy applies for changing circumstances such as when a member of the Royal Family has stepped back from public duties."

(DCMS is the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
 
Last edited:
The Union flag's flown for the birthdays of all senior Royals, and for the Queen and Prince Philip's wedding anniversary. I'm not honestly sure why - most people wouldn't know that it was a Royal birthday, and wouldn't have a clue why the flag was flying. Anyway, most of us are glad to forget about our birthdays once we get past 21!! Liverpool city council is and has long been extremely left-wing and is probably glad of an excuse to have a dig at the system, but there's so much controversy about Prince Andrew at the moment that even moderate councils will probably follow suit. Seeing as he's not doing royal duties any more, I think his birthday could have been quietly removed from the list (as Harry and Meghan's have been) without it suggesting that anyone thought he was guilty of everything - as it is, it's just caused yet more trouble.
 
The Yorkshire Post publishes its opinion:

"Duke of York does not deserve Union flag honour until Epstein affair is over – The Yorkshire Post says

The respect for the Queen and senior members of her family is such that district and parish councillors automatically fly the Union flag on Royal birthdays.

It is called civic pride. Yet the fact that a civil servant has sent out an official reminder ordering councils to do their duty on February 19 when the now disgraced Duke of York turns 60 is both crass and insensitive."

More here: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...ir-is-over-the-yorkshire-post-says-1-10242992
 
Not only are the flags supposed to be flying, but Westminster Abbey is supposed to be ringing the bells to mark Andrew's 60th! Someone really didn't stop to think about this. It's now liable to open up a whole can of worms about whether or not the Union flag should be flown to mark Royal birthdays at all, which wasn't an issue until today.
 
I can't believe they're still going with the bells - it won't be popular.

From Sky News:

"Councils will no longer be forced to fly flags to mark the Duke of York's 60th birthday - but the occasion will still be marked by the ringing of bells at Westminster Abbey."
(...)
"A government spokesman said: "The Department of Culture, Media and Sport will be advising councils that there is no requirement to fly flags on 19 February following the decision by the Duke of York to step back from public duties for the foreseeable future."


Also, there's this news about Prince Andrew's promotion to the rank of Admiral:

"The Duke of York has asked to defer an honorary Navy promotion he was due to receive when he turned 60, Buckingham Palace has said. Prince Andrew was set to be promoted to Admiral on 19 February, in line with a policy that sees senior royals treated as serving military members. But the palace said he had asked the Ministry of Defence to defer it until a time when he returns to public duty.

He stepped back from royal duties in November. It followed after a backlash over his past friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51409732
 
Last edited:
Lilyflo said:
I can't believe they're still going with the bells - it won't be popular.

From Sky News:

"Councils will no longer be forced to fly flags to mark the Duke of York's 60th birthday - but the occasion will still be marked by the ringing of bells at Westminster Abbey."
(...)
"A government spokesman said: "The Department of Culture, Media and Sport will be advising councils that there is no requirement to fly flags on 19 February following the decision by the Duke of York to step back from public duties for the foreseeable future."


Also, there's this news about Prince Andrew's promotion to the rank of Admiral:

"The Duke of York has asked to defer an honorary Navy promotion he was due to receive when he turned 60, Buckingham Palace has said. Prince Andrew was set to be promoted to Admiral on 19 February, in line with a policy that sees senior royals treated as serving military members. But the palace said he had asked the Ministry of Defence to defer it until a time when he returns to public duty.

He stepped back from royal duties in November. It followed after a backlash over his past friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51409732
Click to expand...

If that statement is entirely true and not just worded that way to save face, then it certainly indicates that he does, at some point or another, plan to return to public duties. I honestly have no idea how he expects to accomplish that but it will most definitely be interesting to watch. I'd be quite surprised if Charles and William don't have very definite thoughts on the matter.
 
_Heather_ said:
If that statement is entirely true and not just worded that way to save face, then it certainly indicates that he does, at some point or another, plan to return to public duties. I honestly have no idea how he expects to accomplish that but it will most definitely be interesting to watch. I'd be quite surprised if Charles and William don't have very definite thoughts on the matter.
Click to expand...

I’m sure that he does hope one day to return, so even if he thinks it unlikely, he would want to keep the option open. This isn’t the kind of stain that can ever be removed, so I agree that neither Charles nor William are likely to ever be open to this possibility.

As to celebrating his birthday, it’s ridiculous that the bells will still be rung as if this is a happy occasion the BRF wants to celebrate with the public. This is not about crucifying Andrew in the court of public opinion, it’s the fact that even if he’s not guilty of any crime, he still did some extremely nasty things. I just think it would be better if this kind of thing - re: the flags as well- were silenced for awhile.
 
Betsypaige said:
I’m sure that he does hope one day to return, so even if he thinks it unlikely, he would want to keep the option open. This isn’t the kind of stain that can ever be removed, so I agree that neither Charles nor William are likely to ever be open to this possibility.

As to celebrating his birthday, it’s ridiculous that the bells will still be rung as if this is a happy occasion the BRF wants to celebrate with the public. This is not about crucifying Andrew in the court of public opinion, it’s the fact that even if he’s not guilty of any crime, he still did some extremely nasty things. I just think it would be better if this kind of thing - re: the flags as well- were silenced for awhile.
Click to expand...

I hope that Charles and William are definitely against the idea of his ever returning. He is 60 so while that's young for a roylal to retire, its not impossibly young. The trouble is I suppose the queen perhaps hoping that his public image will improve in time.. AND there is the fact that the RF have lost 2 young workers just a few weeks after Andrew had to step down. Maybe Andy thinks that with Meg and Harry gone, tehre is a chance for him to creep back later on... While possibly C and Will hope that in a year or 2, Meg and harry will feel they don't want to stay abroad and will agree to come back at least part time?
 
Weel, I think Andrew has showed a high level of unawareness so maybe he really thinks about a comeback which I hope will be denied by Charles.
 
I hope it is face saving on his part.. but I fear he IS that arrogant.. and I fear the queen is still too indulgent to him. I think Charles will not ever give him another chance..but - of course there is the issue of their losing 2 young members of the team who were pretty much hoped for to have a lifetime of work for the firm.. With the Sussexes gone and Andrew the RF have lost their workers, suddenly and there doesn't seem to be anyone who can fill in...
 
I think we can pretty much assume that Andrew has been put out to pasture never to return to work for the "Firm". If it really was to be something temporary, I don't think they would have shut down Andrew's office and staff in BP.

Its just logical too that after all that has transpired with charities and patronages dropping him left and right, there's not going to be a huge demand out there that will even want Andrew to represent them should it be announced he's returning to the "Firm".
 
Osipi said:
I think we can pretty much assume that Andrew has been put out to pasture never to return to work for the "Firm". If it really was to be something temporary, I don't think they would have shut down Andrew's office and staff in BP.

Its just logical too that after all that has transpired with charities and patronages dropping him left and right, there's not going to be a huge demand out there that will even want Andrew to represent them should it be announced he's returning to the "Firm".
Click to expand...

Lets hope so.. but the fact that they are still ringing bells for his birthday, worries me. I wonder if some parts of the RF including of course Andrew hope that in time he will be asked back. the loss of H and Meghan has hit the RF at the same time as Losing Andrew.. and they ARE very short of workers now. I have seen mention that the senior royals have not ruled out the prospect of a return. I hope it is not true.
 
Denville said:
Lets hope so.. but the fact that they are still ringing bells for his birthday, worries me. I wonder if some parts of the RF including of course Andrew hope that in time he will be asked back. the loss of H and Meghan has hit the RF at the same time as Losing Andrew.. and they ARE very short of workers now. I have seen mention that the senior royals have not ruled out the prospect of a return. I hope it is not true.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any chance of Andrew returning to royal duties. He might hope so but what could change to make that happen? He can't undo his interview where he said he didn't regret his friendship with a convicted sex offender because it was useful to him. He can't undo those photos of him at Epstein's house or walking in the park with him, knowing what he was. He can't justify staying with Epstein for 4 days "to tell him he couldn't continue the friendship" when he could have stayed elsewhere.

As for the BRF being short of workers, what exactly did Andrew do that was vital work for 'the firm'? Nothing at all. The charity work can just be cut down to fit the size of the working members. The core, essential work can be covered by the monarch & direct heirs.
 
Denville said:
Lets hope so.. but the fact that they are still ringing bells for his birthday, worries me. I wonder if some parts of the RF including of course Andrew hope that in time he will be asked back. the loss of H and Meghan has hit the RF at the same time as Losing Andrew.. and they ARE very short of workers now. I have seen mention that the senior royals have not ruled out the prospect of a return. I hope it is not true.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, the ringing of the bells for Andrew's birthday isn't something that he ever would have to have earned and is just part of tradition celebrating the birthdays of the royal family closest to the monarch.

I seriously doubt anyone in the RF or otherwise ever expect to see Andrew as a working royal again. That boat has sailed and left the horizon.
 
Lilyflo said:
I don't think there's any chance of Andrew returning to royal duties. He might hope so but what could change to make that happen? He can't undo his interview where he said he didn't regret his friendship with a convicted sex offender because it was useful to him. He can't undo those photos of him at Epstein's house or walking in the park with him, knowing what he was. He can't justify staying with Epstein for 4 days "to tell him he couldn't continue the friendship" when he could have stayed elsewhere.

As for the BRF being short of workers, what exactly did Andrew do that was vital work for 'the firm'? Nothing at all. The charity work can just be cut down to fit the size of the working members. The core, essential work can be covered by the monarch & direct heirs.
Click to expand...

Andrew was one of the busier royal workers. He did a lot of work.. If he had not had to drop out, he would probably have been asked to take on more stuff when the Sussexes left. But all three of them left around the same time..and while I would like to feel that they can all go and not be missed, I think it is going to be hard for Charles with an aging set of siblings, to cover the workload. The queen is very old now.. Anne is 70. THe Gloucesters and Kents are getting quite old.
I agree tht Andrew Should NOT be allowed back but I can't help feeling that maybe there are worrying signs that he hasn't been completed benched.. He has retained one of his military appointements, there is the ringing of bells for his birthday. Maybe the RF don't want to close the door completely? I hope they are standing firm and wont let him back..
 
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
101K
norwegianne
norwegianne

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom