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

[royal rob]

So if I'm reading this right, the judge didn't actually state whether her claims were true or false, he just said that the details weren't needed when deciding to reopen this case against Epstein.

So does this mean that she can still testify if the case is reopened?

Yes I think it does I wouldn't be celebrating just yet if I was Andrew
This still has a way to go


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[cepe]

So if I'm reading this right, the judge didn't actually state whether her claims were true or false, he just said that the details weren't needed when deciding to reopen this case against Epstein.

So does this mean that she can still testify if the case is reopened?

No - she and the other person (Jane Doe 4) are not allowed to join this case and therefore all their testimony is wiped from the record.

Same applies to Alan Dershowitz

Neither Prince Andrew or Dershowitz have been charged with anything.

But she'll do ok cos the Daily Mail will pay to serialise her book

EDIT: THis case is against the plea bargain agreed between prosecution and Epstein. Jane Doe 3 and 4 were not part of that case and they were attempting to join it. Today they were told that they couldn't so they cannot testify.

 

[royal rob]

No - she and the other person (Jane Doe 4) are not allowed to join this case and therefore all their testimony is wiped from the record.



Same applies to Alan Dershowitz



Neither Prince Andrew or Dershowitz have been charged with anything.



But she'll do ok cos the Daily Mail will pay to serialise her book

But didn't it say she could still be called as a witness


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[cepe]

But didn't it say she could still be called as a witness


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

That is only in regard to the existing case which is against the Prosecution Team which agreed Epstein's plea bargain. There is no case against Andrew or Alan Dershowitz to answer.

She would be called as a witness against Epstein.

Can I add that is my understanding of the reports I've read today with the key statement that the Judge has ordered all of the accusations against the 2 men to be wiped from the record.

But as the Lady said, as he walked away "Tomorrow is another day"

 

[Iluvbertie]

Too late to remove the allegations as they are now in the public domain and on the internet and that means that they will come up as soon as anyone googles the names.


Mightn't be part of the court record anymore but it still going to follow Andrew.


This case is about suing the prosecutors for making a deal with Epstein.


Somewhere I read that Virginia Roberts actually knew about the deal - if so she has no claim to join the case.


What this doesn't end is the possibility of legal action against Roberts herself.


She knows she can't sue Andrew personally because where she alleges that she slept with him it was legal due to her age. She wouldn't win.


Morally is a different matter.


Mud sticks and Andrew will be forever tainted by these allegations.

 

[cepe]

Too late to remove the allegations as they are now in the public domain and on the internet and that means that they will come up as soon as anyone googles the names.


Mightn't be part of the court record anymore but it still going to follow Andrew.


This case is about suing the prosecutors for making a deal with Epstein.


Somewhere I read that Virginia Roberts actually knew about the deal - if so she has no claim to join the case.


What this doesn't end is the possibility of legal action against Roberts herself.


She knows she can't sue Andrew personally because where she alleges that she slept with him it was legal due to her age. She wouldn't win.


Morally is a different matter.


Mud sticks and Andrew will be forever tainted by these allegations.

Only by those who prefer it that way and who do believe in guilty before proved innocent.

What you have written is a terrible indictment on the world as you see it.

I am happy to continue to believe innocent until proven guilty.

 

[soapstar]

No - she and the other person (Jane Doe 4) are not allowed to join this case and therefore all their testimony is wiped from the record.

Same applies to Alan Dershowitz

Neither Prince Andrew or Dershowitz have been charged with anything.

But she'll do ok cos the Daily Mail will pay to serialise her book

EDIT: THis case is against the plea bargain agreed between prosecution and Epstein. Jane Doe 3 and 4 were not part of that case and they were attempting to join it. Today they were told that they couldn't so they cannot testify.

No I get that her testimony is wiped from the record for this case, but if they are successful with getting the plea agreement overturned, would she be able to testify in that case?

Yes I think it does I wouldn't be celebrating just yet if I was Andrew
This still has a way to go


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Yeah, I'm wondering what happens if the case against Epstein is reopened.

 

[cepe]

Epstein was found guilty so the case does not have to be re-opened. It is the sentence he got that is in question and the role of the prosecution in agreeing that deal.

I think this feels like a compensation deal for those bringing the case, rather than giving Epstein more time in jail. But that is only gleaned from what I have read.

 

[soapstar]

Thanks for clearing that up. For some reason I thought the case would be re-opened.

I think it's a victory for Andrew in the sense that this gets struck from the court record, but unfortunately it's still out there. Plus if they do get the agreement thrown out, these accusations may very well come up again if she's called as a witness against Epstein.

 

[cepe]

what put this in perspective for me is that I have no info at all about Jane Doe 4. She hasn't said a word as far as UK is concerned.

Jane Doe 3 - names, parents involved, spoke at length to the media, book coming out etc etc etc.

That makes me a tad skeptical

 

[Dman]

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter · 4h 4 hours ago
Prince Andrew is by no means 'in the clear' despite a US judge ordering lurid underage sex allegations to be struck from the record today.

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter · 4h 4 hours ago
The judge who decided Virginia Roberts could not join a case challenging a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein still says she could give evidence.

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter · 4h 4 hours ago
Striking the allegations from the court record will not stop them being reported every time Andrew's name is mentioned.

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter · 4h 4 hours ago
Prince Andrew, like most of the Royal Family, is not working this week but I gather he's been informed of developments.

 

[MARG]

The judge must have concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to include Prince Andrew in the record. And no, I don't think that the Prince has enough sway in the US to have orchestrated some kind of cover-up. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Was all possible evidence presented? What happened to all the evidence Epstein held back from the courts?

Prince Andrew wasn't on trial. As for the 'hidden evidence', I don't think there's real proof--such as the videos and photographs--that it actually exists. There are rumors. Rumors aren't proof, and I'm not one who believes that 'where there's smoke, there's fire.'

Wow, the Judge rules and you question the professional ethics of that judge because Virgina Roberts said it was so! When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras!

Too late to remove the allegations as they are now in the public domain and on the internet and that means that they will come up as soon as anyone googles the names.

She knows she can't sue Andrew personally because where she alleges that she slept with him it was legal due to her age. She wouldn't win.

Morally is a different matter.

Mud sticks and Andrew will be forever tainted by these allegations.

Only by those who prefer it that way and who do believe in guilty before proved innocent.

What you have written is a terrible indictment on the world as you see it.

I am happy to continue to believe innocent until proven guilty.

As am I. This whole "Trial by Media" has been nothing but smoke and mirrors.

what put this in perspective for me is that I have no info at all about Jane Doe 4. She hasn't said a word as far as UK is concerned.

Jane Doe 3 - names, parents involved, spoke at length to the media, book coming out etc etc etc.

That makes me a tad skeptical

Indeed! If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think her "Talk Show" circuit could be somewhat curtailed and am wondering about her memoirs . . . there is both slander and libel to consider having roused the sleeping tigers . . .

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that Ms. Roberts should fade into the background and forget about writing her memoirs, for her own sake if not for the sake of those she'll write about.

I think her "Talk Show" circuit could be somewhat curtailed and am wondering about her memoirs . . . there is both slander and libel to consider having roused the sleeping tigers . . .

 

[Iluvbertie]

If I understand the proceedings correctly Roberts wanted to be added to a civil action being brought by two others of the deal Epstein made with the prosecutors.


There were a number of reasons why she was initially excluded I believe (can't find the reference now but remember reading something along the following lines): she had accepted money AND knew about the deal. If that is the case she was never going to be added to this case.


That doesn't mean that she is lying - or that she is telling the truth either - just that she didn't meet the requirements to be added to this civil case.


She could still take civil action herself, if she wants to do so ... but she will have to prove it and open herself up to a lot of cross-examination.


If she does publish a book she will also have to be able to prove her allegations - as again she could very easily find herself being sued for damages.


Regardless of why the judge made the decision or the decision itself - the allegation is out there and mud sticks so many people will continue to believe that Andrew is guilty, even though he was never charged with a crime and has never been given the chance to defend himself in a court of law.

 

[AdmirerUS]

To the extent that some people thought Roberts bringing the motion to add Andrew to the action was a sign of his guilt...
The court's refusal is some sort of sign of his lack of provable culpability.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

- Ms Roberts is denied to intervene in the lawsuit against the USA.
- Mr Dershowitz has not been charged with anything at all.
- The Duke of York has not been charged with anything at all.

So far Ms Roberts' achievements. Mr Marra (the Judge) ruled that it was unnecessary for her to join the lawsuit, already under way for seven years, to undo a non-prosecution-agreement between the USA and Mr Epstein.

The fact that Mr Marra ordered the "lurid" accusations against Mr Dershowitz and the Duke of York to be struck from the records says enough. It seems that Mr Dershowitz wanted to go further but Mr Marra wrote in his judgement that his order to struck was "sanction enough" for Ms Roberts and her lawyers.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Quite so, which is why this whole case is so bothersome. So many people seem to want to believe the worst of public figures. Andrew has shown a lack of judgement with some of the company he keeps, but that isn't a crime in itself.

Regardless of why the judge made the decision or the decision itself - the allegation is out there and mud sticks so many people will continue to believe that Andrew is guilty, even though he was never charged with a crime and has never been given the chance to defend himself in a court of law.

 

[Dman]

Quite so, which is why this whole case is so bothersome. So many people seem to want to believe the worst of public figures. Andrew has shown a lack of judgement with some of the company he keeps, but that isn't a crime in itself.

I'm not sure it's all about wanting Andrew to be found guilty, he hasn't been charged with committing a crime, but it's about getting down to the truth about what really happened with these ladies.

 

[Curryong]

I do think that the mud of these allegations and Andrew's terrible judgement in friends is going to stick, perhaps for ever.

I've also noted that on many royal forums posters have inevitably jumped to the conclusion that this judgement came about because of who Andrew is and his friends in high places. The vast majority believe that he did indeed have sex with her and are looking forward to Virginia writing a book about it. Whether that will ever see the light of day, who knows.

However, the general impression left on the British public who haven't followed the legal proceedings is probably going to be that Andrew is a sleaze who likes young girls.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Judge has dismissed Ms Roberts request to join the already 7 years pending lawsuit challenging the USA for making an agreement not to prosecute Mr Epstein if he entered guilty pleas to state charges. Now that is off the table, one of the accused, Professor Dershowitz, has opened his counter-attack: he has filed a twenty-six pages long (!) counterclaim against Ms Roberts and her laywers.

Apparently this week Ms Roberts has been tracked down in Colorado by Professor Dershowitz' investigators. They succeed in delivering Ms Roberts a subpoena to compel her to testify under oath in the defamation lawsuit against him.

“If she repeats she had sex with me on Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico where I was at for one hour in the presence of five people, she will have committed perjury,” so stated Professor Dershowitz. If she says I had sex with her on Jeffrey Epstein’s island where I was one day with my wife, my daughter, professor Michael Porter, his wife, and four members of his family,” he added, “she will be committing perjury.”

 

[Curryong]

A report from the Mirror.

Friends of Prince Andrew's paedophile pal Jeffrey Epstein 'spared child sex charges' - Mirror Online

 

[Roslyn]

I didn't think we'd heard the last of this. Roberts might not have succeeded in joining in the action, but the action is still underway.

 

[Rudolph]

Virginia Roberts, 31, is suing Ghislaine Maxwell, 53, who she alleges set her up to have sex with paedophile Epstein, 62, and his friends at the age of 15

Prince Andrew could be called to give evidence in a law suit being brought by his billionaire pal Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex slave.

Virginia Roberts, 31, is suing Ghislaine Maxwell, 53, who she alleges set her up to have sex with paedophile Epstein, 62, and his friends at the age of 15.

Roberts has alleged she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew in Epstein’s New York home.

She could call the prince, 55, who has always denied any wrongdoing, as a witness in the defamation action.

Read more: Prince Andrew faces court appearance in 'sex slave' case against Jeffrey Epstein - Mirror Online

 

[Mermaid1962]

The important words as "could be called." Personally, I don't think that's going to happen; not because I'm a cynic, but because I don't think Prince Andrew was involved in the shady goings-on.

 

[Rudolph]

^^^ I agree. Mirror just wants the headline.

 

[Princess of Durham]

Virginia Roberts is a bore, looking for an additional fifteen minutes to reap some extra $$, IMO.

 

[Dman]

I'm always hoping that none of this stuff is true, but I'm not dismissing these claims very easy and trashing this young lady.

 

[Roslyn]

Just like any other plaintiff, if what Roberts alleges is true she is entitled to make her claim for damages and recover, and I hope she's successful. If Andrew is subpoenaed to give evidence, he should be treated like any other potential witness and should respond to the subpoena and tell the truth.

I'm rather curious about the legal issues like whether there is a limitation period and how she overcame it.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Just like any other plaintiff, if what Roberts alleges is true she is entitled to make her claim for damages and recover, and I hope she's successful. If Andrew is subpoenaed to give evidence, he should be treated like any other potential witness and should respond to the subpoena and tell the truth.

I'm rather curious about the legal issues like whether there is a limitation period and how she overcame it.

The article is poorly worded, but it looks like -from a glance at just this article that Roberts is suing Maxwell for comments made this last year, calling Roberts a liar, stating that her claims were "obvious lies" amounted to defamation.

Generally, the statutes of limitations for defamation in the U.S. are very short. As I recall, it's only about one year in New York (although may have changed, but I doubt it). Although it was filed in Federal Court, defamation is really a state claim. The Federal Court will therefore apply the law of the jurisdiction where Maxwell made the statement, including its applicable statute of limitations. (Unless there is some federal defamation statute - but I doubt it). So if she is seeking redress for comments made this year, she's well within the statute.

If this suit survives the dismissal stage, it really puts Andrew in possibly a worse position than the Jeffrey Epstein case. The 'obvious lies" involved whether she was coerced to have sex with Andrew. Therefore, whether she did or didn't and who did the coercing is going to be a pivotal issue in this case.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The statute of limitations is one year in New York and Maxwell made her claims earlier this year - so she is within the statute of limitations. Had Maxwell said nothing, Roberts wouldn't have been able to do anything.