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.
Mr Epstein is also a great philantropist and has given enormous sums for science, research and education. The Epstein Foundation is based in New York City ánd in St Thomas (the US Virgin Islands). Many Nobel Laureates, and many of the world's most eminent scientists have visited Mr Epstein. As he is also a big name in the fight against AIDS, in finding medication to cure hiv, to study molecular biology and the evolution of human cancer cells and viruses, etc. These "good causes" are also the reason why Mr Epstein is in the focus of high-profiled people, like former presidents and royals. Many of the UK's renowned scientific research institutes are working with and/or thanks to Epstein's involvement. The Duke of York, a trade ambassador for the UK, of course promotes this sort of developments on the highest level of innovation, research and development. :flowers:

Thank you, Duc_et_Pair. :flowers: Good context. The philanthropists are the real power-brokers, the ones channeling their wealth to worthy causes (those charities started up by young princes ;) ). Also explains Ghislaine Maxwell. I know her from her work with the oceans.

Seems like Epstein was providing 'benefits' for those who wanted such.

True, but I don't think the explanation about his financing was to excuse his actions. Just shed some light on other reasons famous people was hanging out with him.

Exactly so. :flowers: That's what I was getting. It's a story that I noticed initially but only in passing. Like most, I just passed over it and left it behind. Now that it's starting to gain legs, I am starting to see the issues afoot. Pretty seamy, and my guess is that there are few in certain rarefied circles who are not being touched by it, if only by association with Epstein. A bit like Bernie Madhoff who everyone knew.
 
Last edited:
Mr Epstein is also a great philantropist and has given enormous sums for science, research and education. The Epstein Foundation is based in New York City ánd in St Thomas (the US Virgin Islands). Many Nobel Laureates, and many of the world's most eminent scientists have visited Mr Epstein. As he is also a big name in the fight against AIDS, in finding medication to cure hiv, to study molecular biology and the evolution of human cancer cells and viruses, etc. These "good causes" are also the reason why Mr Epstein is in the focus of high-profiled people, like former presidents and royals. Many of the UK's renowned scientific research institutes are working with and/or thanks to Epstein's involvement. The Duke of York, a trade ambassador for the UK, of course promotes this sort of developments on the highest level of innovation, research and development.

:flowers:
Which, of course, explains why he has had such open access and acquaintence with the great and the good and why many, many, people who knew him had to believe even his prison sentence to be some sort of miscarriage of justice, that there had to be some mitigating reasons why this happened. It also explains why many of those, just like Andrew, kept contact after his release.

With people who rave on about how Andrew "should have known what sort of person Mr Epstein was" before the event, the fact that he was invited to HM Birthday celebration is hardly surprising as that "official" celebration is peopled by VIP's whose entree to such an occasion is Ministers of the Crown, etc. Are we going to blame HM because "she should have known"?
 
Too many important people implicated? :ermm:

Isn't it interesting that Bill Clinton is stated by one of the women as being on the plane with Epstein and the girls, but "he wasn't having sex with anyone." :unsure: Possibly so, as he is an older man now and has had health problems, but why do all that stuff with someone like him present if not for implication reasons? His wife (by association) could have her political ambitions thwarted.

As Thom Hartmann floats: could it be that Epstein had all these high profile men have sex with women they weren't aware were under age and then sprang the reality on them solely to get leverage for his own purposes? Hartmann seems loath to articulate the view but it's clear that Papantonio agrees. This seems to be a speculation that may have some legs. In which case the scandal may go deep and far. Why have the Republicans been so quiet about Bill Clinton's presence? Might some of them be involved in this? The potential of this could be large.

An older friend of mine commented that this reminds him of the Watergate scandal back in the 1970's under Nixon. He said that Watergate began as what appeared to be a minor bungled burglary, and ended with bringing down a president. The very silence of the US media suggests something big is at stake. Just a hunch.

Like what. Even if Bill was on that plane Hillary wasn't. And I doubt , as they have said, he was having sex with anyone. Alan Dershowitz doesn't care and who would want him. And Andrew is really a nothing with a job because of his mother. A lot of hooha for nothing, except for Epstein.
 
Which, of course, explains why he has had such open access and acquaintence with the great and the good and why many, many, people who knew him had to believe even his prison sentence to be some sort of miscarriage of justice, that there had to be some mitigating reasons why this happened. It also explains why many of those, just like Andrew, kept contact after his release.

Andrew has only himself to blame for what that has happened. He should have ended the friendship when Epstein was arrested.

The fact that he was invited to HM Birthday celebration is hardly surprising as that "official" celebration is peopled by VIP's whose entree to such an occasion is Ministers of the Crown, etc. Are we going to blame HM because "she should have known"?

I agree. Those who blame The Queen for this should be ashamed of themselves. She knew nothing about Epstein.
 
Which, of course, explains why he has had such open access and acquaintence with the great and the good and why many, many, people who knew him had to believe even his prison sentence to be some sort of miscarriage of justice, that there had to be some mitigating reasons why this happened. It also explains why many of those, just like Andrew, kept contact after his release.

With people who rave on about how Andrew "should have known what sort of person Mr Epstein was" before the event, the fact that he was invited to HM Birthday celebration is hardly surprising as that "official" celebration is peopled by VIP's whose entree to such an occasion is Ministers of the Crown, etc. Are we going to blame HM because "she should have known"?

The queen wouldn't have known but Andrew knew what kind of down low activities Epstein was involved in. Why bring this person to your Mama's house.
'Don't **** where you eat'
 
The queen mightn't have known but those in charge of security sure as hell should have. And her son did know


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Lol.. The only things we need to know about Epstein are documented by the courts. He's a sex offender, sex trafficker and paedophile.

That was of course not why Nobel Laureates, (former) presidents and royals hang out with him. Compare it with Bill Gates, another philanthropist. What if in three months suddenly ladies pop up and there claim that Mr Gates has sexually harrassed them? Does that retro-actively mean the royals "hang out with wrong friends"?
 
That was of course not why Nobel Laureates, (former) presidents and royals hang out with him. Compare it with Bill Gates, another philanthropist. What if in three months suddenly ladies pop up and there claim that Mr Gates has sexually harrassed them? Does that retro-actively mean the royals "hang out with wrong friends"?


What ladies. There were 40 underage people mostly girls. And Epstein has settled civil lawsuits with 17 so far including one who that involved a 12 year old girl.
This is not a case of retroactively saying you have the wrong friends. This is a case of a grown man not walking away from a suspicious situation. Of not using common sense. And of continuing to socialize with a convicted sex offender.
It not 'royals' it is Prince Andrew.
 
What ladies. There were 40 underage people mostly girls. And Epstein has settled civil lawsuits with 17 so far including one who that involved a 12 year old girl.
This is not a case of retroactively saying you have the wrong friends. This is a case of a grown man not walking away from a suspicious situation. Of not using common sense. And of continuing to socialize with a convicted sex offender.
It not 'royals' it is Prince Andrew.

Well... the 200 million US Dollars for philantrophic works are well-accepted, convicted or not convicted...

:flowers:
 
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy

Well... the 200 million US Dollars for philantrophic works are well-accepted, convicted or not convicted...

:flowers:


Charities have dropped a donor before. I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet in this case. Spellman college removed Bill Cosby's name from a scholarship and I believe a building. He's also had to step down from Temple university's Board of Trustees
The fact that Epstein's charities are still accepting money from him doesn't really sway me either way
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone was blaming the queen for Epstein being at the 2001 event, but the point is that perception goes a long way to outshine fact. There are people like us on this board who look at all the details and investigate, but we are far outnumbered by the people who hear a snippet of something on the street and believe it. It's just the perception that kills you a lot of the time.

Also, hindsight is 20/20, but sometimes that allows you to see things much more clearly.

To wit, as has been pointed out in numerous cases, if people "didn't know" what was going on with Epstein years and years ago, they absolutely should have and may have. So, when the guy gets released, and people still hang out with him, those individuals deserve whatever they get. They've played with fire at close range.

About the charity contributions, there will always be organizations that accept the money, but there are plenty of organizations that accept money from shadowy places but absolutely refuse to acknowledge or celebrate the fact publicly. They hide behind the veil of paperwork to secret the facts.
 
What ladies. There were 40 underage people mostly girls. And Epstein has settled civil lawsuits with 17 so far including one who that involved a 12 year old girl.

This is not a case of retroactively saying you have the wrong friends. This is a case of a grown man not walking away from a suspicious situation. Of not using common sense. And of continuing to socialize with a convicted sex offender.
It not 'royals' it is Prince Andrew.

At the very least putting himself into the position of being photographed with the man. :ermm: In Andrew's position that should always be on his mind, though in some respects, Epstein was still business. Anyway, I'll never know the full story and invariably the full story is always different from appearances, so I'm not going to fault Andrew.

BTW I am someone who believes I don't drop my friends (or family) because they do something, or choose to live in some way, to cause public comment. That's being a fair-weather friend, as the saying goes. I think no less of Andrew. I still like him, as far as one can 'like' a public figure one isn't really acquainted with. Prefer that to sending 'dislike' vibes to someone I can never really know at this distance.

However, in some of the more damming pieces about this situation, there is the clear opinion stated that how could these famous people not have known something fishy was up, even if they were not 'partaking'. They are saying that the situation lent itself to suspecting something untoward might be happening. Until a trial gets underway, and the evidence starts being laid out, that is all speculation imo. Massive estates have any number of ways and means of keeping locations on the estate private from other locations. It's not like the house was a 2-room bungalow, or the estate a 1-acre lot. It's very possible one could visit Epstein and be clueless, I would guess. Plus there is the fact that the wealthy and famous always have hangers-on. 'Groupies' are notorious. It's the way of it - and it's not always that easy to tell the legal age of someone, why else do 30-year olds find they have to show their ID for liquor and cigarettes and nightclubs. It's simply too easy to condemn. I suspend judgement until the facts are in.

What's the quote from The Philadelphia Story - "The time to make up your mind about people - is never."
 
Last edited:
The many millions of course are also not coming from Mr Epstein taking his wallet out of a pocket of his Levi's 501. It comes from funds and trusts. The Epstein Foundation is known for giving one of the largest amounts of private funding to individual scientists around the world. A man as the Dutch scientist Professor Dr. Gerard 't Hooft was not only seen with the Swedish royal family (as he won the Nobel Prize), he was also seen with the Dutch royal family (as he won the Praemium Spinoza and was created a Knight-Commander in the Order of the Netherlands Lion) but he also was a guest of Mr Epstein on the Virgin Islands. Does this mean this eminent scientist is now also cast with doubt? It is all hindsight and interpretation.
 
The many millions of course are also not coming from Mr Epstein taking his wallet out of a pocket of his Levi's 501. It comes from funds and trusts. The Epstein Foundation is known for giving one of the largest amounts of private funding to individual scientists around the world. A man as the Dutch scientist Professor Dr. Gerard 't Hooft was not only seen with the Swedish royal family (as he won the Nobel Prize), he was also seen with the Dutch royal family (as he won the Praemium Spinoza and was created a Knight-Commander in the Order of the Netherlands Lion) but he also was a guest of Mr Epstein on the Virgin Islands. Does this mean this eminent scientist is now also cast with doubt? It is all hindsight and interpretation.

:previous: Very interesting point and also the point about the size of Epstein's estate and what could go on there undetected.
 
I don't think anyone was blaming the queen for Epstein being at the 2001 event, but the point is that perception goes a long way to outshine fact. There are people like us on this board who look at all the details and investigate, but we are far outnumbered by the people who hear a snippet of something on the street and believe it. It's just the perception that kills you a lot of the time.

Also, hindsight is 20/20, but sometimes that allows you to see things much more clearly.

To wit, as has been pointed out in numerous cases, if people "didn't know" what was going on with Epstein years and years ago, they absolutely should have and may have. So, when the guy gets released, and people still hang out with him, those individuals deserve whatever they get. They've played with fire at close range.

About the charity contributions, there will always be organizations that accept the money, but there are plenty of organizations that accept money from shadowy places but absolutely refuse to acknowledge or celebrate the fact publicly. They hide behind the veil of paperwork to secret the facts.

Yes, exactly what I was trying to say - the Queen is not to blame, but due to Andrew's stupidity her name gets thrown into the waters because he refused to give up his connections with Epstein, and let's face it, might be guilty of what he is accused of.
 
Well... "loyalty" still has a meaning to a lot of persons.
 
Oh please, don't bring Bernie Madhoff name into this situation. Madhoff's name still brings horror to many friends and family even though he was well know for all his charity giving [well documented]. Epstein and Madhoff two entirely different types of low-class. More like Mofia loyalty springs to mind and CYOA first.
 
Last edited:
BTW I am someone who believes I don't drop my friends (or family) because they do something, or choose to live in some way, to cause public comment. That's being a fair-weather friend, as the saying goes. I think no less of Andrew.


This highlights the quandary (though, to me, it's not really a quandary): we're not talking about A hanging out with someone with whispers, patterns, or hints of bad behavior. We're talking about him hanging with someone who was proven to have committed horrible and disgusting acts.

Geez! We're not talking about judging here - the issue is common sense. And it doesn't really appear that Andrew (and many others) had any. :bang:
 
Jeffrey Epstein is accused of having sex with children as young as 12.. that's a child. Not only does it defy common sense to refuse to distance yourself from him when you are in a sensitive position, I think it says something about your moral character, especially if a person like Andrew was still benefiting financially from this friendship.
 
OK, so Epstein did a lot of good stuff for good causes, and that probably explains why so many prominent and world figures associated with him on one level, and if their time spent in his company was in circumstances which would have given them no clue about his predeliction for having sex with adolescent girls and trafficking them for sex, they cannot be criticised for associating with him. But being a supporter of good causes does not in any way excuse the other stuff and I do not believe that it should have entitled him to a significantly reduced sentence. It certainly does not justify abandoning the serious Federal charges which provided for a minimum of 10 years and sentencing him only to the day-release joke of a sentence that he in fact appears to have served for the State charges.

I understand the concept of loyalty to friends, and I can understand not wanting to abandon a friend and to an extent it is admirable that his friends did not do that. BUT, when you have a friend and you find out that friend has, unbeknownst to you, been engaging in some pretty shady activities, what do you do? Well, you certainly reassess your relationship and attitude to him, and withdraw from him to an extent commensurate with the nature of these newly revealed activities. It would even still be appropriate to provide him with a reference, provided - assuming the procedure is the same over there as it is here - that the reference states that he has informed you of the nature of the charges against him (and that's another thing that release of the papers would reveal).

Now in this case the plea bargain agreement recited, amongst a lot of other stuff, that the US Attorney's office and the FBI had conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that he may have committed from around 2001 to around September 2007, and then listed them. One of them carried a sentence of up to 5 years imprisonment, the second up to 30 years, the third 10 years to life (i.e. a minimum 10 years to life), the fourth not more than 30 years, and the fifth 10 years to life. So we had two possible charges providing for a minimum of 10 years imprisonment. Under the Crime Victims' legislation, the Jane Does should have been informed of all this before the agreement was made. They weren't. But I'm afraid I'm wandering off on a tangent here.

He in fact pleaded guilty to two Florida charges: the charge of solicitation of prostitution and also the charge of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution. That second one required him to register as a sex offender.

The agreement provided for him to be sentenced to 30 months in county jail. Apparently he served much less.

Andrew, and anyone else who provided references would surely have had to be made aware of the details of the charges pending against him. There would be no point in them making representations after the plea bargain deal was made because it was a done deal provided it was accepted by the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit as required by the agreement. If they made submissions without being aware of the nature of the possible charges, there would be no point in making them.

Anyone - anyone who had an ounce of commonsense - who knew about the pending charges, and, later, the actual charges, or even the actual charges and the fact he was registered on the sex offender list, would have distanced themself from him to some extent at least, regardless of how close they were before and regardless of all the good works he had carried out before his criminal activities were found out.
 
Anyone - anyone who had an ounce of commonsense - who knew about the pending charges, and, later, the actual charges, or even the actual charges and the fact he was registered on the sex offender list, would have distanced themself from him to some extent at least, regardless of how close they were before and regardless of all the good works he had carried out before his criminal activities were found out.

I agree. :flowers: It's why I mentioned that Andrew allowing himself to be seen and photographed with Epstein in public was not being too wise given his position vis-a-vis the monarch (or if I didn't say it outright that was what I was intending).
 
Last edited:
Prince Andrew tours Manhattan with billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein | New York Post

Prince Andrew talks of royal joy over Prince William’s wedding | Page Six


Perhaps we should ask Katie Couric, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos, et al. about Andrew's relationship with Epstein as at early 2011. It seems it was close enough for him to have spent four days with Epstein at his home in Manhatten.


Goodness me. What a find Roslyn !


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Friendships begin and they end, some last a lifetime, many do not. There are many reasons friendships end, one being that the person you thought you knew is not as they seemed. If I became aware that someone I was a 'friend' with was a paedophile then I did not know that person as well as I thought and based on this new aspect of his personality our friendship would be at an end.
Does anyone think Andrew would have remained friend's with Epstein if Epstein became a pauper?
Andrew chose to continue his friendship with a paedophile I assume because in his mind the advantages and benefits from having a billionaire as a buddy who has luxurious homes you can stay in for free, private jets to get you to those homes and spare change to help out your ex wife was more important to Andrew than any outrage, disgust or empathy for the victims he should have felt when the truth was known. Andrew's personal greed and arrogance simply blinded him to reality.
 
And you do have to ask did Andrew share his "interests"


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Friendships begin and they end, some last a lifetime, many do not. There are many reasons friendships end, one being that the person you thought you knew is not as they seemed. If I became aware that someone I was a 'friend' with was a paedophile then I did not know that person as well as I thought and based on this new aspect of his personality our friendship would be at an end.
Does anyone think Andrew would have remained friend's with Epstein if Epstein became a pauper?
Andrew chose to continue his friendship with a paedophile I assume because in his mind the advantages and benefits from having a billionaire as a buddy who has luxurious homes you can stay in for free, private jets to get you to those homes and spare change to help out your ex wife was more important to Andrew than any outrage, disgust or empathy for the victims he should have felt when the truth was known. Andrew's personal greed and arrogance simply blinded him to reality.

And this is the best we can say of Andrew - on top of this Virginia Roberts' allegations could be true.

And you do have to ask did Andrew share his "interests"


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The more social time they spent together, the more you have to wonder. Was their relationship a purely business one? The Post pieces found by Roslyn seem to suggest otherwise.
 
Prince Andrew tours Manhattan with billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein | New York Post

Prince Andrew talks of royal joy over Prince William’s wedding | Page Six


Perhaps we should ask Katie Couric, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos, et al. about Andrew's relationship with Epstein as at early 2011. It seems it was close enough for him to have spent four days with Epstein at his home in Manhatten.
It's a good question. While we are at it, I think we also ask Katie Couric, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos and the others about the nature of their relationship with Epstein? I was also struck by the way Page Six minimized Epstein's crimes.

This article may explain why the U.S. media has not really picked up this story.
 
It's a good question. While we are at it, I think we also ask Katie Couric, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos and the others about the nature of their relationship with Epstein? I was also struck by the way Page Six minimized Epstein's crimes.

This article may explain why the U.S. media has not really picked up this story.

In fairness, because this I do know about Charlie Rose, there is a New York social scene: every night dinner parties with glittering guest lists. One attends to make connections, make new contacts and friends. (Charlie Rose and Katie Couric as well as the other journalists would be vetting possible interviews, doing deep research in a way). Current events are discussed, the arts and the celebrity of the moment. More happens at these dinner parties than could ever happen at restaurants.

So are they close friends? I will suspend judgement. In the end it's not my place to say because I do not know. That they travel in a certain rarefied social circle - yes. That they may be close - sounds like. But I still am not willing to send negatives Andrew's way.

What is certain is we have a tragic situation. Victims aplenty of many kinds.
 
It's a good question. While we are at it, I think we also ask Katie Couric, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos and the others about the nature of their relationship with Epstein? I was also struck by the way Page Six minimized Epstein's crimes.

This article may explain why the U.S. media has not really picked up this story.

It is a good point. Someone posted information about Epstein's financial support for charities here. Those charities might have been turning a blind eye to some things, too.

We all like to think we'd do the ethical thing in a situation like this, or that we'd all figure out what Epstein was really doing with those girls. But Epstein may have been very good at compartmentalizing his life, so that no one saw the full extent of what was going on. Also, criminal behaviour always looks more harmless when it's camouflaged by wealth and the trappings of polite society.

An example is the story of Jian Ghomeshi, a popular CBC radio host in Canada. He apparently had a habit of sexually harassing women, choking his 'dates' and pulling their hair. This went on for years and years (he was in his late forties). Apparently, it was common knowledge in the radio/arts social circles that he frequented there was something 'weird' about Jian Ghomeshi and women. A woman at his workplace even filed a complaint...but nothing ever came of it. Apparently Jian Ghomeshi was too important to be removed from the show, because he 'was' the show. Also, he was very charming and personable on-air and even in person, apparently, until you went on a date with him and he started abusing you. He seemed so charming and nice, that apparently even the women he abused didn't feel they could speak up about his behaviour because most of the time he was so personable. It may have been the same way with Epstein...he looks sophisticated and he's rich, so a lot of people may have had an uncomfortable feeling about the women around him but not thought it was their place to question it.

If any of you saw that photo of Virginia Roberts with Andrew without knowing the backstory, would you think she looks like a 'sex slave'? She doesn't to me. She looks healthy and genuinely happy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom