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

[Leopoldine]

VG's legal bills must be astounding. David Boies is top notch. Perhaps Andrew has some Achilles Heel that they know about which has not been revealed yet.

[padams2359]

If everything in Epstein’s house was recorded as stated, there could definitely be more evidence.

[Harald]

The Duke of York is considered a "person of interest' in the US investigation into disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, it has been claimed.

An unnamed source, said to be close to the inquiry, told the Reuters news agency that investigators viewed Prince Andrew as a "person of interest" over his friendship with Epstein as part of their investigation into possible co-conspirators.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-investigation

[Osipi]

This has been the way of things since any kind of an investigation started into Epstein and Maxwell. I do think that by Andrew not cooperating and addressing the questions that need to be asked, he's just allowing his reputation to slink further and further down into the mud to the point where it'll become fossilized and just stay there forever through history. Andrew is not doing himself any favors whatsoever and to a lot of people, that'll gain him a guilty verdict in the court of public opinion.

[MARG]

Prince Andrew has responded appropriately to the little "Official Legal enquiries" made by those investigating the original criminal case, nor has he attempted to invoke diplomatic immunity. This is a Civil Action and somewhere between the general tut-tutting and flog him to death schools of opinion, it seems that his rights have been well and truly abrogated. It would appear that only citizens of the USA are seen as being protected under the law and guaranteed legal representation when subpoenaed to appear at a trial. A Criminal trial, that is. Because Andrew has not been charged by the applicable District Attorney, nor has he been subpoenaed during the investigation, I would think it prudent to save our breath to colour porridge until something official changes that situation.

[Durham]

An article in today's Guardian speculating on whether there will be any engagement with the US civil case at all:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...claims-experts

[Susan D]

The Queen's four children were all spoiled according to reliable sources; some say the children are spoiled by the courtiers but I wonder if the "spoiler" is the Queen herself. Also, with Prince Andrew I see hellishly bad judgement.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by padams2359

If everything in Epstein’s house was recorded as stated, there could definitely be more evidence.

The authorities have already reviewed all those recordings. I am very sure that there would have been criminal charges against Prince Andrew by now if any of these recordings revealed that he had committed crimes, such as having sex with an underaged child, physically forcing himself on a girl, or indicating that he had actual knowledge of trafficking. The recordings may be embarassing, showing him with Virginia Guiffre or another girl. But if the girl was legally old enough to consent, I don't know how he can be held liable, either civilly or criminally.

[padams2359]

That is where his statement of never meeting her would come into question. Video of him in the house with her would basically prove him a liar, and the rest of his statements suspect. The picture of him in London is already doing him in.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by padams2359

That is where his statement of never meeting her would come into question. Video of him in the house with her would basically prove him a liar, and the rest of his statements suspect. The picture of him in London is already doing him in.

I thougt that he said he had no recollection of meeting her...

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by padams2359

That is where his statement of never meeting her would come into question. Video of him in the house with her would basically prove him a liar, and the rest of his statements suspect. The picture of him in London is already doing him in.

The Duke is to be seen on countless of pictures. "Proof" that he has met all these folks. Most likely he has no any recollection whatsoever on having met these people, while he factually has met them. Having no recollection is not the same as "I never met that person". It is important to be precise.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by padams2359

That is where his statement of never meeting her would come into question. Video of him in the house with her would basically prove him a liar, and the rest of his statements suspect. The picture of him in London is already doing him in.

I agree with what you are saying to a point - and I don't want to come across as an apologist for Andrew (if he indeed had sexual relations with a 17 year old). I was referring to whether the recordings have anything that would lead to a criminal charge or civil liability.

I think it is highly unlikely because Virginia Guiffre was 17 years old when she was first procured by Epstein. My understanding is the age of consent in London, New York and the Virgin Islands was 16 at the time. Therefore, even if Andrew is lying and there is irrefutable evidence that he had sex with her, I don't think he can be held civilly liable because sex with her was legal.

She is now claiming that he forced himself on her. If the recordings show him raping her, I cannot think of any reason why charges have not been brought. The prosecutor has revealed other information about Andrew, which is usually kept confidential in an investigation. I feel very strongly that there would have been a leak by now.

The other possible avenue of civil or criminal charges would be whether Andrew knew that she had been trafficked out of Florida, where the age of consent was 18. Again, if there is evidence on the recordings that he was involved with the trafficking, why haven't they brought charges?

[Moonmaiden23]

And how does Giuffre's current accusation that PA forced himself on her jibe with her past insistence that he was always nice, a perfect gentleman who even thanked her?

[Sandy345]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I agree with what you are saying to a point - and I don't want to come across as an apologist for Andrew (if he indeed had sexual relations with a 17 year old). I was referring to whether the recordings have anything that would lead to a criminal charge or civil liability.

I think it is highly unlikely because Virginia Guiffre was 17 years old when she was first procured by Epstein. My understanding is the age of consent in London, New York and the Virgin Islands was 16 at the time. Therefore, even if Andrew is lying and there is irrefutable evidence that he had sex with her, I don't think he can be held civilly liable because sex with her was legal.

She is now claiming that he forced himself on her. If the recordings show him raping her, I cannot think of any reason why charges have not been brought. The prosecutor has revealed other information about Andrew, which is usually kept confidential in an investigation. I feel very strongly that there would have been a leak by now.

The other possible avenue of civil or criminal charges would be whether Andrew knew that she had been trafficked out of Florida, where the age of consent was 18. Again, if there is evidence on the recordings that he was involved with the trafficking, why haven't they brought charges?

The thing is he was friends with a couple who trafficked young women. It as not as if they met in a bar. He was not doing any trafficking but he should have not associated with Ghislaine and Epstein, at the very least, IMO he knew what they were doing. Trafficking is illegal for obvious reasons. Andrew should at the very least steered clear of the pair. If he lacked common sense at the very least, why did not any of his relatives (his parents) or courtiers warn him off going there?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Sandy345

The thing is he was friends with a couple who trafficked young women. It as not as if they met in a bar. He was not doing any trafficking but he should have not associated with Ghislaine and Epstein, at the very least, IMO he knew what they were doing. Trafficking is illegal for obvious reasons. Andrew should at the very least steered clear of the pair. If he lacked common sense at the very least, why did not any of his relatives (his parents) or courtiers warn him off going there?

But having acquaintance or friendship with Epstein and/or Maxwell is no crime. Many people were around these two.

It is clear the Duke missed any fine-tuned antenna in this, or he is a naive person who is not able to see through façades and decode people's real intentions.

He is not the only royal with poor, very poor judgement.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

But having acquaintance or friendship with Epstein and/or Maxwell is no crime. Many people were around these two.

It is clear the Duke missed any fine-tuned antenna in this, or he is a naive person who is not able to see through façades and decode people's real intentions.

He is not the only royal with poor, very poor judgement.

I'm also sure that many decent people avoided them. He also said on the BBC that he still didn't regret the friendship, that's not poor judgement that's a man who clearly didn't think that Epstein had done anything particularly wrong. If he was naive at the time (even though JE was a convicted felon during their friendship) he was certainly aware of what that pair had been doing by the time he spoke to Emily Maitlis yet he didn't seem to think it was a big deal.

[Leopoldine]

Is this something that can be partially blamed on palace flunkies? Or, an acceptance at a certain high level of palace service that Royal men are essentially libertines? I'm not really blaming anyone, just taking note of what may be a culture.

Charles had the same unfortunate connections with child abusers. He was not ever implicated or even suggested to to know about or be participating in the abuse, except when he wrote to Bishop Ball to commiserate with him about the accusations.

.... but certainly palace officials would have been aware of rumors about the lot of them -- Bishop Ball, Laurens Van der Post, Jimmy Savile, and Andrew's Epstein. If courtiers are there to assist royals, why are they powerless to steer them away from questionable people?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by sophie25

I'm also sure that many decent people avoided them. He also said on the BBC that he still didn't regret the friendship, that's not poor judgement that's a man who clearly didn't think that Epstein had done anything particularly wrong. If he was naive at the time (even though JE was a convicted felon during their friendship) he was certainly aware of what that pair had been doing by the time he spoke to Emily Maitlis yet he didn't seem to think it was a big deal.

The world outside Buckingham Disneyland is full of crooks, liars and fakers. From a former President grabbing ladies by their furry miaowing pets, from a CEO of the IMF assaulting a chamber maid in a hotel, from a Cardinal channeling millions of gifts to secret bank accounts, from a King shooting an elephant during a safari trip with his maîtresse. We can not count how many were befriended with these folks.

The Queen welcomed Arab rulers whom let women be stoned or whipped, welcomed Putin who sees no problem in poisoning opponents, welcomed Ceausescu whose Securitate terrorized the Romanians, the list is endless. Mingling with disgusting people is part of royal life. And God knows how Epstein and Maxwell were..., probably great hosts and very nice folks to mingle with. No idea.

In the end the question is: what crime is Andrew to be held responsible for. Not his friendships or acquaintances.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The world outside Buckingham Disneyland is full of crooks, liars and fakers. From a former President grabbing ladies by their furry miaowing pets, from a CEO of the IMF assaulting a chamber maid in a hotel, from a Cardinal channeling millions of gifts to secret bank accounts, from a King shooting an elephant during a safari trip with his maîtresse. We can not count how many were befriended with these folks.

The Queen welcomed Arab rulers whom let women be stoned or whipped, welcomed Putin who sees no problem in poisoning opponents, welcomed Ceausescu whose Securitate terrorized the Romanians, the list is endless. Mingling with disgusting people is part of royal life. And God knows how Epstein and Maxwell were..., probably great hosts and very nice folks to mingle with. No idea.

In the end the question is: what crime is Andrew to be held responsible for. Not his friendships or acquaintances.

Andrew's friendship with Epstein has nothing to do iwth his role as a royal. The queen has to meet people as a head of state, following governement policy. Andrew was not mixing with Epstein on a working basis... he did so on a personal basis

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Denville

Andrew's friendship with Epstein has nothing to do iwth his role as a royal. The queen has to meet people as a head of state, following governement policy. Andrew was not mixing with Epstein on a working basis... he did so on a personal basis

That speaks volumes for his lack of a social antenna, which should have warned him to avoid certain folks. But mingling with disgusting people on itself is no crime.