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

[HighGoalHighDreams]

If I understand it correctly he demands a trial which happens to be a jury trial but I could be mistaken.

The demand was specifically for a jury trial, as opposed to be a bench trial (where the judge determines the outcome without a jury).

However, it is necessary for both sides to "demand" (a legal term of art) a jury trial at this stage in the proceedings to preserve that right, in case this is how they wish to ultimately decide the case. It makes little sense observing the process from the outside, but this is in accordance with the rules of civil procedure. While the language is something like "I demand a trial by jury!" the actual meaning is something close to, "If it comes down to it, I reserve my right to be tried by a jury of my peers [er, no pun intended for Andrew] rather than settle or be tried in a bench trial."

The (simplified) reason for this is that either side can always say "I want to settle" or "I want a bench trial," but you cannot simply say "I want a trial by jury" at any point in the proceedings if you have not preserved that right in the previous court filings. It is a mere formality and not indicative of whether Andrew's team does, in fact, want a trial by jury.

 

[Kataryn]

Even in hte UK Virginia was barely of legal age.. and if Andrew knew that she was employed as a sex worker by Epstein I think htat he would have some legal guilt. She was not a freelance hooker, making her own deals iwht her clients.. and she was not going to bed with him because she was madly attracted to him.. but because she was told to by her pimp.

But one could look at the whole story from a different angle: maybe Andrew (if indeed he did!) slept with her because she presented as some sort of innocent girl. And maybe she courted him just like Diana had done with Charles. It was just five years after Andrew's divorce and I guess these old "ideas" of innocents agreed with Andrew? He was friend or acquaintance of many Russian or Arabian rich men and AFAIK young, "innocent" girls have always had a value there. And not always for marriage. That, of course, is pure speculation. But the company Andrew kept is surely not the circle of honorable knights of HM's court...



I'm not sure Andrew thought of her as some sort of "sexworker" rather than some sort of "ward" or "protegée" of Ms. Maxwell who was young, healthy and had a bit of lax morals. A girl you amused yourself with rather than marrying - which had been the fault he had made with Sarah! We know from all the stories about Anne with Camilla's husband, Camilla with Anne's brother etc. etc. that there was a certain liberal approach to life within those Royal/Guard circles, so why not Andrew with a young protégée of one of the members of these circles.



The Giuffre-case did not change my opinion of Andrew much, he is IMHO a rather sleazy guy, but I could understand this case as one where he didn't understand that this was something different than the way things happened normally. And the fact that it is the equally sleazy Ms. Giuffre is the one to accuse Andrew makes the whole story even sadder.

 

[Denville]

??? Andrew tended to like older women or women of his own age. This sleeping with younger girls is a new trend for him. And while he is no Einstein I very much doubt if he thought that Virginia was a young innocent girl of slightly lively ways... surely he knew that she was there to amuse him, and that Epstein wasn't keeping her around to look pretty or manicure nails?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Or there simply never was a question of Ms Giufffre being too young or not too young for a liason amoureuse because nothing of the sort has ever happened. The Duke categorically denies any accusation of having slept with Ms Roberts, of which he even has no recollection from in his memory.

 

[Denville]

of course he is going ot deny it. He is hardly going to admit it. He also said that he could not sweat, and that he had been at a party in Pizza Hut....

 

[Osipi]

Or there simply never was a question of Ms Giufffre being too young or not too young for a liason amoureuse because nothing of the sort has ever happened. The Duke categorically denies any accusation of having slept with Ms Roberts, of which he even has no recollection from in his memory.

of course he is going ot deny it. He is hardly going to admit it. He also said that he could not sweat, and that he had been at a party in Pizza Hut....

This is why when it comes to Ms. Giuffre's main complaints and the reason that she started this lawsuit to begin with is, in my eyes, totally he said/she said and there really isn't any way (that we know of right now) what actually ever happened behind closed doors with Virginia and Andrew.

We argue that Andrew has repeatedly denied the accusations but it's never been mentioned that perhaps Ms. Giuffre "serviced" so many men in her time in the Epstein circle that she "figures" she probably slept with Andrew because... um that's what she's been brought on to do.

Accusations of sexual abuse are very serious and very damaging to both parties whether innocent or guilty as charged. I just think that with this case, there isn't really enough basis on Ms. Giuffre's side that would warrant her winning a case against Andrew and collecting from him. This is why I do think it's a dog and pony show to bring attention to the victims that did suffer under the hands of Epstein and Maxwell and Andrew has been picked as the perfect foil for this. It also lays groundwork for, perhaps, many more civil cases by the victims against those that they serviced over the years. Depends on the recent Child Act (not sure I have the term right) expires due to statute of limitation rulings.

Andrew would be wise to just keep his yap shut and stick to his side of the story. I'd pay to watch the man take the stand though. Dang.... that's not a good attitude. Sounds like this whole lawsuit which is serious for Andrew, has entertainment value.

 

[Rayal]

Andrew either has the worst most incompetent legal counsel in the history of jurisprudence, or they are all geniuses.

We shall see.

His attorneys are shooting themselves in the foot by making this statement, "He also submitted 11 defenses calling for the case to be dismissed, including that Miss Roberts' claims should be barred by 'her own wrongful conduct' and 'unclean hands'."


A minor can't possibly be held accountable in a court of law. They are out of their depth, and then to request a jury trial..?? Past trials did not go well for other famous defendants. They will roast him alive. (R Kelly, Roman Polanski, and Warren Jeffs comes to mind).




I feel very bad for the queen as this is all very sad for the royal family.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

His attorneys are shooting themselves in the foot by making this statement, "He also submitted 11 defenses calling for the case to be dismissed, including that Miss Roberts' claims should be barred by 'her own wrongful conduct' and 'unclean hands'."


A minor can't possibly be held accountable in a court of law. They are out of their depth, and then to request a jury trial..?? Past trials did not go well for other famous defendants. They will roast him alive. (R Kelly, Roman Polanski, and Warren Jeffs comes to mind).




I feel very bad for the queen as this is all very sad for the royal family.

In my opinion minors can be held accountable. When a 15 year old classmate of your daughter stabs her with a knife, you (and the Justice) surely will held that minor accountable!

But the point is that the Duke categorically denies anything happened with Ms Roberts, so her possible minority during the alleged act is irrelevant because beforementioned act has not happened at all, according Prince Andrew.

 

[Alison H]

The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10, and in Scotland it's 8. If a 10-year-old is convicted of a serious crime, they will be sent to a youth offenders' institution, not an ordinary prison, and will probably not get a very long sentence, but they will certainly be held to account for their crime. Sadly, many horrific crimes are committed by people who are legally children. They can certainly be held accountable in court. I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but, as Duc et Pair said, if a 15-year-old stabs someone, of course they will be held to account.

 

[Osipi]

Here in the US, if a juvenile is a repeat offender or if they committed a serious crime, then they can be tried as an adult as early as the age of 13. Minors between the ages of 15 and 17 can be statutorily excluded and tried as an adult if they commit violent crimes, such as first-degree murder, armed robbery, or rape.

I think this applies to criminal court though and not to civil court but I'm not a lawyer and really don't know. I'm guessing.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

His attorneys are shooting themselves in the foot by making this statement, "He also submitted 11 defenses calling for the case to be dismissed, including that Miss Roberts' claims should be barred by 'her own wrongful conduct' and 'unclean hands'."


A minor can't possibly be held accountable in a court of law. They are out of their depth, and then to request a jury trial..?? Past trials did not go well for other famous defendants. They will roast him alive. (R Kelly, Roman Polanski, and Warren Jeffs comes to mind).




I feel very bad for the queen as this is all very sad for the royal family.

These are both legal doctrines. The lawyers did not just look at this woman and say, "Aha! Look at this bad woman! Let's say she is a bad actor!" There is actual, sound legal doctrine behind the concept that if if the person bringing suit has taken certain discernible steps, such person has committed "wrongful conduct," giving her "unclean hands" (both legal terms of art) and relieving the other party of legal liability. We have no idea the substance behind the claims-- in other words, we don't know what particular behavior caused the lawyer to raise this argument. So, we cannot possibly know whether the strategy is poor or whether anyone is shooting themselves in the foot.

Two important things are going on here with Andrew's lawyers raising this argument:

(1) If they don't raise the argument now, they lose the right to do so later. So, if there is any hint at all that she has engaged in behaviors that would give rise to this being a viable defense, it is absolutely imperative that Andrew's lawyers introduce it now as an argument. They can pursue it, or not pursue it, later. But to not introduce it would be an egregious malpractice.

(2) "Unclean hands" is a kitchen-sink type argument that is raised in almost every civil suit for the reason I explained above. You put it in there in case you later learn that your opponent engaged in behavior that legally makes you not liable for yours. You want to have preserved the argument just in case. I have not opened this filing, but I would bet the farm that this is just one of a dozen arguments raised in a long list. They are all included for this reason. You would be hard-pressed to find a civil suit where "unclean hands" is not raised in the initial filings, just in case it.

We might not like this from the outside looking in- the idea that the victim could have engaged in behavior that makes the perpetrator legally not liable is not an idea that sits well with us as a society- but thems the reality.

 

[Kataryn]

??? Andrew tended to like older women or women of his own age. This sleeping with younger girls is a new trend for him. And while he is no Einstein I very much doubt if he thought that Virginia was a young innocent girl of slightly lively ways... surely he knew that she was there to amuse him, and that Epstein wasn't keeping her around to look pretty or manicure nails?

What he knew or thought.... who knows? There are always two sides to each story...

 

[Denville]

I find it hard to beleive that Andrew thought that the young girls around Epstein were just his friends... and that if one of them slept iwth him, Andrew, it was just because she was so attracted to him. I think its possible that he just didn't notice them unless there was an offer of sex.... because he is so indifferent to people below him in class

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I find it hard to beleive that Andrew thought that the young girls around Epstein were just his friends... and that if one of them slept iwth him, Andrew, it was just because she was so attracted to him. I think its possible that he just didn't notice them unless there was an offer of sex.... because he is so indifferent to people below him in class

He can not be indifferent to people below him in class: he married one.

 

[Denville]

You know what I mean, Im sure. Andrew does not see people below the upper classes or the very rich

 

[Osipi]

He can not be indifferent to people below him in class: he married one.

Still, there is the verifiable story told of once upon a time when Andrew was going out with Koo Stark, they were getting out of the car somewhere to attend some function and Andrew was known to admonish Koo as they approached the entry door admonishing her "I go first. I'm the prince".

Oh he's not ever indifferent to those "beneath" him. He just is always consciously aware that they're there to serve a purpose, do something for him, follow one step behind him or any of those "entitled" reasons Andrew has "because he's a prince". Makes me wonder if asked, if he would actually know the names of those that work in and around Royal Lodge or does he just take it for granted they'll do what they're there to do and he needn't bother knowing anything about them at all. This is the attitude that I believe Denville was trying to put across of Andrew possibly not caring who the people were around Epstein and what they were there for. They were around Epstein and perhaps that's all Andrew cared to know.

 

[Denville]

Still, there is the verifiable story told of once upon a ti

Oh he's not ever indifferent to those "beneath" him. He just is always consciously aware that they're there to serve a purpose, do something for him, follow one step behind him or any of those "entitled" reasons Andrew has "because he's a prince". Makes me wonder if asked, if he would actually know the names of those that work in and around Royal Lodge or does he just take it for granted they'll do what they're there to do and he needn't bother knowing anything about them at all. This is the attitude that I believe Denville was trying to put across of Andrew possibly not caring who the people were around Epstein and what they were there for. They were around Epstein and perhaps that's all Andrew cared to know.

It seems like Andrew didnt even see his girlfriends as roughly equal to him.. never mind a girl hanging round the Epstein mansion. To him, she might have been a friend of Epsteins, one of his household staff, a mistress of Ep;s. He did not know or care. I would imagine if she offered sex or he was offered sex iwht her, however he would at least briefly be aware that she was not there to serve coffee or do the typing... he would know that she was there to be offered to Es guests as a sexual playmate.....so in that sense, he must have been aware that she was in effect a hooker on Ep's payroll who was there to amuse the guests. He may well have known this and forgotten it the minute he finished with her... because she WAS nobody to him.

 

[rmay286]

Something that just stood out to me while reading this discussion is that yes, indeed it does seem Andrew ignored everyone around him who was of a different station in life, and as a result probably can't recall details about these people. It is believable he might not remember the moment of that infamous photo.

However, Virginia not only has claimed he met her, but also slept with her, *and* participated in an orgy with her and several other girls (that claim is less-reported, but she did make it).

It seems almost impossible to believe Andrew does not remember any of the sex or claimed orgies if they happened. Also, Virginia did, at least to me, have mannerisms of someone telling the truth, in her TV interview. So I could conclude that Andrew is likely lying about not remembering.

However, no one who abuses or assaults or even sleeps with underage women seems to make it a one-time event. The original MeToo perpetrators like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby were accused by multiple women. Andrew, on the other hand, is not accused by any other woman of abuse or non-consensual sex (one other girl did say he groped her) and not of participating in orgies, either. From this, I could hypothesize that Virginia Roberts is at the least embellishing the truth.

If I were on a jury, I couldn't say definitively one way or the other whose story makes the most sense. It doesn't make sense that Andrew did all these things with and to Virginia and simply doesn't remember, and it doesn't make sense that he went wild one time and abused an underage girl and had an orgy, but the rest of the time only had consensual relationships with women his own age. The truth must be somewhere in the middle, but so much time has passed that I don't think we will ever know.

 

[Denville]

I dont think it is impossible that Andrew doesn't remember her even if he slept with her. I dont believe in the orgies... (havent heard this one and it is probably Virginia exaggerating on her original story) and I think that a few nights with a pretty girl meant so little to Andrew that it might well flip out of his mind within a short time. But even if he did remember or remembered once she came back inot his life, he's hardly going to say that he does remember sleeping with her.
So odds are that they are both telling a certain amount of untruths. She is making out that he knew she was not a free agent.. and that it was not just a few nights there was an orgy in there.. and he is probalbly making out that he can't remember ever meeting her and did not have sex with her.

 

[Osipi]

I think the whole lawsuit is going to boil down to the accusation of "abuse" by Andrew towards Ms. Giuffre. That is what she is accusing him of. Any incident of "abuse" is going to be very hard to sway a jury unless Virginia has some kind of "horror" story to tell about how Andrew treated her. It's been on record too that she's said that Andrew was always nice and polite to her and a "nice guy". That doesn't sound like an abusive situation to me. This is not about Andrew sleeping with an underage child. We know the Met Police have deemed Ms. Giuffre of the "age of consent". Andrew didn't "traffic" her although I do seem to remember it being said somewhere that Andrew *did* request her presence. My memory is fuzzy on all this so I'm sure I'll be corrected.

If Andrew did, and it can be proven, that he asked for Virginia to be "trafficked" to him, that's a unicorn of a different rainbow. I think, though, we'll just have to wait and see what comes out in the trial. I'm sure both sides aren't publicizing all their arguments and most likely have a few aces up their sleeves not to be divulged until the trial is in session. This is why I'm assured that the "snippet" about deposing the Queen or using conversations between Andrew and his mother are no longer in play. If they were, they'd be saving that information for the actual court case where it'd really be scoring points and have that shock and awe value.

 

[Denville]

but Osipi it is all going to be he said and she said. Problaby both of them are partly telling hte truth and partly lying.

 

[Osipi]

but Osipi it is all going to be he said and she said. Problaby both of them are partly telling hte truth and partly lying.

This is why I call the lawsuit a dog and pony show. I also think it's best if Andrew can be prevented from shooting off his mouth and just stick to his side of the story and let his lawyers do the work and perhaps make mincemeat pies out of Giuffre's accusations.

I expect the final verdict to be nothing awarded to Ms. Giuffre. His reputation and his character have already been damaged beyond repair and Ms. Giuffre has had international attention drawn to the plight suffered by *all* the victims of Epstein and Maxwell. I also think this will be one of many civil cases that will be filed against Epstein's estate and against Maxwell's bank accounts.

 

[victor1319]

I have not followed this case lately. Has any of the parties named Ms Maxwell as a witness or something? Not for the character of the Giuffre girl or the Prince, but for the infamous pic of both taken in her house in London?

I mean, Ms Maxwell is clearly on the pic and can probably say a thing or two about it and the night it was taken...

Ms Maxwell is now in prison and perhaps very angry about it!

 

[Osipi]

I have not followed this case lately. Has any of the parties named Ms Maxwell as a witness or something? Not for the character of the Giuffre girl or the Prince, but for the infamous pic of both taken in her house in London?

I mean, Ms Maxwell is clearly on the pic and can probably say a thing or two about it and the night it was taken...

Ms Maxwell is now in prison and perhaps very angry about it!

I would imagine that it pretty much upset Maxwell to hear Andrew claim that they weren't very close friends at all. That had to sting.

 

[Lady Daly]

A big reminder from the past as to who Jeffrey Epstein was in case it's forgotten what a despicable and heinous individual the man was. What kind of person would hang out with Epstein and Maxwell over the years and not engage in the same horrific behavior. No one, including Pince Andrew is off the hook! Plenty of corruption and bad acts to go around. Andrew is lucky this is just a civil trial.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/10/jeffrey-epstein-trump-clinton-friends

 

[Denville]

well that is not necessarily true. Its possible to hang out with a horrible person without engaging in the same behaviour. It may be evidence of poor judgement of character but it does not mean that both people are equally bad

 

[Lady Daly]

well that is not necessarily true. Its possible to hang out with a horrible person without engaging in the same behaviour. It may be evidence of poor judgement of character but it does not mean that both people are equally bad

I agree, definitely not "equally bad". I think Epstein might have been as bad as it gets. Yet Prince Andrew's long history with Epstein which included extensive travels with trips to Epstein's private island, Thailand, etc. since the early '90's heavily implicates him in many of the same behaviors... which makes Andrew's involvement with Epstein reprehensible, IMO.

 

[Denville]

Dont really know what Andrew got up to with Epstein. He mihgt have had a lot of girls that Ep introduced to him. He might have simply enjoyed partying and had a few girls - He might have used Ep's contacts to make money

 

[Silverpot]

Dont really know what Andrew got up to with Epstein. He mihgt have had a lot of girls that Ep introduced to him. He might have simply enjoyed partying and had a few girls - He might have used Ep's contacts to make money

Yes, Money! That is what I believe was Andrew's reason for hanging out with Epstein. Shady business and money laundering. The girls and parties were just a perk, not the reason. I think Andrew loves money more than young girls, a lot more. He can't say that of course, because an investigation into his dealings will land him in a far more dire situation.

This is something that interest me more about Epstein, where the heck did all his money come from?

 

[Denville]

Andrew is not rich, by comparison with his brother and mother.. and I think at first that didn't bother him.. but when he was married to Fergie who was very extravagant, he began to get annoyed and upset by it and Fergie was always in need of money.. so he began to use his Trade envoy position to meet rich people who could help him make more money....and Epstein was happy to hlep him and Fergie. And while he had some more serious relationships with women after his divorce, I think that he began to just rely on more casual things with younger women who were willing to sleep with him becuase of his wealth and positon, or who were introduced by Epstein.... and were in effect handed to him. I think he just found it easier than getting involved with serious affaires and the ever present Fergie being around and part of his life which Im sure put some people off. but I think the sex life was a bonus and the big attraction was money making