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

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

It's CANCEL CULTURE and we are living in the thick of it. I am all for calling out malignant predators where they exist, and holding them accountable.

But careers can be ended and lives destroyed now because..." Mr X told me I looked lovely in that color, or winked his eye, or held the door open for me when I walked in.

I deem it sexist and offensive. It has caused me lasting emotional distress and suffering."

I am only slightly exaggerating.

I agree.

In the 1980's and 1990's, I had horribly sexist male bosses. They would say terrible things to me in front of people who reported to me.

I got them back. Practical jokes that were weeks in the making. Also, some schemes that got me more money. Granted, I was a confident person from a comfortable background with a father who was very supportive.

If I waited 20 years and then sued for sexist treatment, it wouldn't be satisfying. I got them back in a timely manner that may have prevented them from telling other female employees what they told me.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

No, the friendship with Epstein and Maxwell and appalling lack of remorse and ongoing sordid legal issues and Newsnight idiocy and self-making into persona non grata are all facts, not allegations.

None of these are crimes and misdemeanours. If we go this way, we can couple a lot of people to unsavoury friends, to questionable characters, to poor judgements and to stubborness.

For so far the Duke of York not even had a traffic fine but hey, let us hang him high, nail him to the cross. And eeermmmm.... the eventuality of the Duke not at all being convicted? It is all way too premature.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by victor1319

I am sure that prostitution of a girl under 18 is not allowed in GB either... - and surely not in the USA, I think. This makes me wonder, if prostitution of a minor constitutes some kind of sexual abuse too, and falls under rape... But I have not the faintest idea about the American penal code.

And we can be somewhat sure, that the Prince was not in love... So, Ms. Maxwell, already sentenced, was there and the person, which took the photo (Epstein?).

And when the pic was taken of the Prince and the minor - This does not look like a rockstar with a groupie... It looks like the Virginia girl was pimped out!

I doubt Prince Andrew paid anyone to have sex with Virginia Roberts (assuming they had sex at all, which Prince Andrew denies, or at least does not remember). I don't know UK law, but I assume prostitution is not characterized unless there is some kind of monetary transaction, or, at least, some compensation in the form of goods, favors or services. And certainly there is nothing in the law that says that you have to be "in love" to sleep with someone else who is over the age of consent.

The Metropolitan Police looked into the affair and concluded there was no criminal case to be pursued there as far as UK law is concerned. You may argue that the British police might not be sufficiently impartial when the person under investigation happens to be a British prince, but I have no reason to distrust their judgment. Since Prince Andrew has not been charged with any crime either in the UK or in the US, I don't know why questions of criminal liability are being raised in a discussion pertaining to the current civil lawsuit that Prince Andrew is facing in the New York court.

[Denville]

It is the trafficking aspect of the sexual transaction that might be criminal. If he knew she was being trafficked, and went ahead and had sex with her, he mihgt be guilty of an offence. However I dont think it occurred to him.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Denville

It is the trafficking aspect of the sexual transaction that might be criminal. If he knew she was being trafficked, and went ahead and had sex with her, he mihgt be guilty of an offence. However I dont think it occurred to him.

Agreed, but again my point was that British police looked into it, most likely also considering the possibility of Prince Andrew having been an accessory to human trafficking, and concluded there was no criminal case to be pursued against him.

A criminal investigation in the US could conceivably have ended with a different conclusion, but, in any case, and maybe the US lawyers can clarify that point, I don't think a criminal case can be brought against Andrew now as he would be protected by the statute of limitations (note: I may be wrong).

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Agreed, but again my point was that British police looked into it, most likely also considering the possibility of Prince Andrew having been an accessory to human trafficking, and concluded there was no criminal case to be pursued against him.

A criminal investigation in the US could conceivably have ended with a different conclusion, but, in any case, and maybe the US lawyers can clarify that point, I don't think a criminal case can be brought against Andrew now as he would be protected by the statute of limitations (note: I may be wrong).

I suppose they did, but the girl was over hte legal age in the UK.. and Im not sure if she had raised the trafficking issue.... but long past sexual transgressions are very difficult to prove anyway....

[padams2359]

He had sex with the same young girl in multiple countries and could not deduct she was trafficked? I know he isn’t the brightest tool in the shed, but is he really that stupid?

[valeas]

Originally Posted by ACO

Also him dragging Beatrice into his drama was utterly irresponsible.

Funny, when he said this in the interview it was the inly moment I thought'ok, maybe it's true, because no father would be as stupid to mention his own child in auch a mess', but after all we talk about Andrew
the rest fo the interview his body language, the contradictions aso no doubt he is guilty but mentioning Beatrice? Well, stupid Andrew I bet.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by padams2359

He had sex with the same young girl in multiple countries and could not deduct she was trafficked? I know he isn’t the brightest tool in the shed, but is he really that stupid?

why would he deduce that? He doesnt pay much heed to people outside his own circle. If Virginia was around, in hte UK or in the US, she was working for/with Epstein and was willing to sleep with him. Why would he think much about what her exact job was or her relations with Epstein?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by padams2359

He had sex with the same young girl in multiple countries and could not deduct she was trafficked? I know he isn’t the brightest tool in the shed, but is he really that stupid?

It is not that simple. For a criminal case to be built, I suppose it would have to be proven that Andrew was either an assistant or an instigator to her being trafficked. Again, based on the available evidence, the Metropolitan Police (that is, the Greater London Territorial Police Force for the US readers) seems to have concluded that there was no criminal case there (or at least not one that was likely to lead to a conviction, I would imagine). No criminal charges have been brought against Prince Andrew in the US either and I don't think there will be any now. I am convinced that he got away on that count unless there is some unexpected new development.

[Denville]

I think that having sex with her if he knew she had been trafficked would be an offence.. though Im not sure. However I think that Andrew simply didnt know because he didn't care. He expects that there will be girls who are willing to sleep wiht him, there are girls who will do his nails, and there are servants who will look after him. He doesnt pay any attention to them....

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by padams2359

He had sex with the same young girl in multiple countries and could not deduct she was trafficked? I know he isn’t the brightest tool in the shed, but is he really that stupid?

It's not like the girl was chained up in the cellar and dragged out to accommodate Andrew, though.
She seemed willing (actually pleased) to sleep with him. So why would he think she was trafficked?

I doubt the idea ever entered his mind.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Moran

I mind the timing more than the acting thing. I mean, were these charities meant to stay without an acting patron indefinitely? Two years is long enough. And I do agree about Andrew's appalling judgment and the disastrous interview reflecting badly on the BRF.

The thing is, actions were taken immediately after the last court news and so it looks like the BP acted not on Andrew's actions but the court news which weren't Guilty. Guilty, Guilty, Off with His Head.

I mean, what did Andrew do in the interim between the news breaking out and the hour of the decision being announced? He conducted the behavior people object to literally years ago... and at the time, it wasn't considered bad enough to act on.

So forgive me if I see this as what we call "comrade's court". It was a thing real jurists sneered at. Basically, it was everyone saying whatever they wanted about anyone else and the accused only had the right to talk after the "comrade's court" (made up by no jurists) has already proclaimed them guilty in the presence of everyone who wanted to come and could jeer and insult all they wanted. They could talk but not to defend themselves, just do some good and sound self-critique. And yes, I know he was given the right to talk and he blundered very badly. But it wasn't considered bad enough for the BP then. Now, when he didn't do anything to make it worse, came this.

So yes, I'll keep thinking it's comrade's court and the BP bowing to public pressure, as well as being afraid to look like they were blaming a victim. And I'm saying it as someone who believes this should have been settled long ago and doesn't mind the action itself. How long were Andrew's charities supposed to be left without a patron? How long would they have been left without a patron if the court had arrived at a different decision?

I concur that the measures were long overdue, and you make a very good point in that the delayed timing clearly indicates that the Duke of York's objectionable conduct, by itself, was not the final straw which motivated the Queen to act decisively.

However, I don't think the timing was provoked by public perceptions of guilt or victim-blaming. No news emerged over the last few days that would cause the Duke of York to appear more guilty or more victim-blaming than he already did. What transpired over the last few days was that it became apparent a civil trial was anticipated in the near future (because the judge ruled against dismissal on technical grounds and then both parties' representatives indicated a desire to proceed to trial rather than immediately settle out of court). And the consensus of British media analysts was that the prospect of a dragged-out series of depositions and courtroom testimonies, which are certain to generate new (and, from the royals' point of view, embarrassing) headlines and revelations, spurred Queen Elizabeth to at last distance the monarchy officially.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

No, the friendship with Epstein and Maxwell and appalling lack of remorse and ongoing sordid legal issues and Newsnight idiocy and self-making into persona non grata are all facts, not allegations.

True but having siad that, there does seem to be an idea now that noone can make up for misdeeds in their past. Even if they are genuinely sorry or at least trying to do better for the future.

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Since Prince Andrew has not been charged with any crime either in the UK or in the US, I don't know why questions of criminal liability are being raised in a discussion pertaining to the current civil lawsuit that Prince Andrew is facing in the New York court.

Well, the civil lawsuit is based on an underlying damage to Virginia Giuffre caused by a criminal act!

I believe this act was according to Virginia Giuffre, that Andrew forced himself in some kind of rapish act onto the Virginia girl.

But this was said by her - and she can say what she wants, she is an juristical amateur. It is not needed that she exactly knows what she is saying.

[Lori138]

Originally Posted by ACO

Hasn't he already backtracked on that though? So what was the point in dragging her into it? Now if this goes to trial, she will 100% be called to give a statement. And that is all in him for directly naming her.

And how is Beatrice going to remember something that supposedly happened 20 years ago? Unless it was a very memorable birthday party at Pizza Express I doubt she remembers it at all, let alone whether her father was there or not.

[Alison H]

That interview was just ridiculous. Why did he say that? Who remembers going to Pizza Express on a particular date 20 years ago? Most people can't remember what they ate two weeks ago, or even two days ago. If he'd just said that he had no recollection of meeting Virginia Giuffre, but that he went to a lot of events and met a lot of people so it was possible he'd met her but didn't remember, that would have been perfectly plausible. He really has made things more difficult for himself.

I doubt that Beatrice will be hauled into court just to be asked whether or not she remembers going to Pizza Express.

[Tatiana Maria]

As ordered by the judge, each of the parties has submitted their requests for international judicial assistance in order to obtain evidence from overseas.

The Duke of York's lawyers are seeking to question Virginia Giuffre's husband Robert Giuffre and her psychologist Judith Lightfoot, both of whom are residents of Australia.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...prince-andrew/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...prince-andrew/

Virginia Giuffre's lawyers are seeking to question Shukri Walker, who told the press she witnessed the Duke of York at the club Tramp, and Robert Olney, a former equerry to the Duke of York whose name appeared in Jeffrey Epstein's phone book. Both are residents of the United Kingdom.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...prince-andrew/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...prince-andrew/

In spite of their previous suggestions to the media, Ms. Giuffre's lawyers are not seeking to depose any members of the British royal family.

Originally Posted by ACO

Hasn't he already backtracked on that though?

I don't think the Duke of York has publicly discussed his alibi since the 2019 interview.

[Prinsara]

The Washington Post's coverage: https://archive.ph/8TMmG

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Alison H

That interview was just ridiculous. Why did he say that? Who remembers going to Pizza Express on a particular date 20 years ago? Most people can't remember what they ate two weeks ago, or even two days ago. If he'd just said that he had no recollection of meeting Virginia Giuffre, but that he went to a lot of events and met a lot of people so it was possible he'd met her but didn't remember, that would have been perfectly plausible. He really has made things more difficult for himself.

I doubt that Beatrice will be hauled into court just to be asked whether or not she remembers going to Pizza Express.

I think htat it is plausible.. as ANdrew said it was unusual for him to go to a place like Pizza Express