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

[Camsterlaird]

Originally Posted by Curryong

So (in 2001) Andrew was 41 years of age and this girl was 17. No, it wasn't illegal, just completely disgusting.

Of course there is no proof that the allegations are real. In British law one is innocent until proven guilty.

[cepe]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

What I find interesting is he's hired a criminal defence barrister. Not someone who specialises in libel or defamation but criminal defence.

Andrew seems like a man with a lot on his mind at the moment

I'm catching up, so apologies.

Has he actually hired this lawyer or is it alleged by a certain newspaper? Is there actually any proof?

UK media is not to be trusted as a stand alone source.

[HRHHermione]

I really wish some journalist would do their job and behave like a journalist and track Andrew's travel and engagements and see if this woman's story is plausible logistically. That would be a good start...


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by cepe

I'm catching up, so apologies.

Has he actually hired this lawyer or is it alleged by a certain newspaper? Is there actually any proof?

UK media is not to be trusted as a stand alone source.

The fact that he has hired a barrister should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt. As I see it, the prince is concerned he might be charged with a criminal offense (US spelling), as many innocent people often are, and is taking precautionary steps to make sure he can defend himself should that happen.

[Curryong]

Why would Andrew be charged with a criminal offence though, if the girl was above the age of consent (in Britain?) She hasn't alleged rape has she, at least not yet? !! A British barrister who is a well-known defence counsel in the UK wouldn't be much help with advice on matters wending their way through US courts.

[sndral]

The retention of the British barrister, if true, is interesting to me for two reasons:
1) Timing - the Judge rules suggesting he was leaning towards unsealing the 1500 pages of sealed documents and right after Prince Andrew hires a criminal defense lawyer.
2) Why a British barrister, rather than one from the U.S. - the issue being whether Andrew was a co-conspirator in Epstein's violations of the Mann Act, or maybe there's something in those papers about him using his position to minimize Epstein's consequences which could violate U.S. Law. Perhap's the British barrister is in contact with a discrete U.S. Law firm.
I will say that if someone retains a lawyer in, say, a murder case before they are charged (or even a strong suspect) it's like waving a red flag at the investigators - if they weren't a suspect before they become one.
Having said all that, I suspect Andrew and the Queen are under some stress about all of this and even though the normal lawyers have probably opined that there wouldn't be any criminal consequences from all of this, it certainly doesn't hurt to get confirmation from a criminal law specialist, although one who is an expert in U.S. Federal criminal practice makes more sense.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by sndral

The retention of the British barrister, if true, is interesting to me for two reasons:
1) Timing - the Judge rules suggesting he was leaning towards unsealing the 1500 pages of sealed documents and right after Prince Andrew hires a criminal defense lawyer.
2) Why a British barrister, rather than one from the U.S. - the issue being whether Andrew was a co-conspirator in Epstein's violations of the Mann Act, or maybe there's something in those papers about him using his position to minimize Epstein's consequences which could violate U.S. Law. Perhap's the British barrister is in contact with a discrete U.S. Law firm.
I will say that if someone retains a lawyer in, say, a murder case before they are charged (or even a strong suspect) it's like waving a red flag at the investigators - if they weren't a suspect before they become one.
Having said all that, I suspect Andrew and the Queen are under some stress about all of this and even though the normal lawyers have probably opined that there wouldn't be any criminal consequences from all of this, it certainly doesn't hurt to get confirmation from a criminal law specialist, although one who is an expert in U.S. Federal criminal practice makes more sense.

I agree with you about the timing. Andrew could well have written something in support of Epstein that he does not want published, and he might also be aware of other damaging documentation that is with the papers. Further, the Jane Doe plaintiffs' applications seek to have the terms of the plea bargain set aside and I am assuming this also includes the agreement to not prosecute Epstein's "co-conspirators" as well as Epstein under the Federal Law relating to sex trafficking. It is possible that Andrew was seeking advice about the prospects of success of the plaintiffs' applications and his position if the agreements are set aside.

The barrister he has apparently engaged is a prominent defence QC and it is likely he is acquainted with eminent US criminal lawyers and is consulting with one or more of them on Andrew's behalf.

[Tiggersk8]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Most of the 'drivel' Andrew has brought on himself. He consorted with some shady characters and continued his friendship with a convicted paedophile. So whether its fair or not, his name is now being brought up again in relation to having sex with minors.

Can't blame this one on the tabloids

Thank you!!

Just adding...These allegations, while *at the moment* are only that, are of the type that in this day and age it doesn't matter if it is true or not. Anyone who is accused of anything to do w/any kind of sexual abuse towards Women/Minors, who is well known for whatever reason to the Public and who is someone where there have "rumours and/whispers" about for years? The Public will wonder and tend to believe said Allegations. Just look at the entire Bill Cosby scandal and mess for an example.

Now let's go back to the Duke of York's situation...When you add on Andrew's "baggage" such as the "Air Miles Andy" years, then there's the Money for Access mess w/Sarah from a few years ago and now this? Of course the Public is going to lean more in the direction he's done what he's been accused of doing. It's taking into account his past behaviour over the years and thinking this might not be out of the Realm of Possibility when it comes to Andrew.

Is it fair? No, because as has been said, he hasn't been charged w/anything as of yet. Is it perfectly understandable for most of the Public to think Andrew might have done what's been said due to past behaviour? Yes, because it's Andrew we're talking about here. His reputation of being nothing but "Air Miles Andy" has stuck. A certain amount of that is due to the Tabloids, but Andrew hasn't exactly helped himself out either in that department. Just who ended up w/Sunninghill Park and the price they got it for comes to mind for example.

I really, really wish when this all started a few weeks ago that the BP Press Office's Statement had been along the lines of "We are aware of the Allegations being levelled at HRH the Duke of York. At the present time we have no comment, but will if events warrant it." Instead, they outright denied it, which has tied their hands completely if or when something else comes out. Now we hear not only is Andrew still going to Davos, representing the UK at a Major World Forum on Economics, but is also considering making a statement during a reception hosted by UK Trade?

Who is running the BP Press Office right now? Daffy Duck and Wylie Coyote? Because they're the only ones I can think of who would think this would be a great idea. This has disaster written all over it.

Then we hear Andrew has hired a Criminal Lawyer today. Why would anyone do that for what is a Civil Case? Or at least has been to this point?

I think a quote from Star Wars sums up my thoughts...."I have a bad feeling about this..."


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

[rmay286]

My reaction in this case is to feel sad for Andrew, at least somewhat. The events under investigation happened almost 15 years ago! Even his trade ambassador role was given up several years ago. Now he is under fire for things that happened long ago, even though he has worked very hard to turn his image around and is well-regarded by some people in the British business/trade school/entrepreneurship community.

Also, I think it's rather ridiculous how the media runs away with this story, tallying up Andrew's travel history, the Air Miles nickname, the word pedophile...when really these girls were nearly-adult women, not children.

On the other hand, I can see how Andrew got himself into trouble. He is not inexcusable; he deserves to bear a large portion of the blame. Andrew has terrible judgment sometimes...either he really is not bright, or he deliberately turns a blind eye to many things around him at times. He was rumoured to be one of the last people to realize Sarah was having an affair, even while everyone else knew...he also supposedly knew nothing about the cash-for-access scandal...now he supposedly didn't know Epstein's girls were underage. It might be true that he knew none of these things were happening under his nose, but at some point, that makes him look very gullible and easily taken-advantage of...certainly not someone you'd choose to steer British business in the right direction.

However, I wish this would be a wake-up call for Andrew and that he and his staff would take it as a sign to drop international trade work...not the clamour for him to disappear from public life, leave the country, change his role completely. The media reaction is not constructive, is over-the-top and ultimately pretty unhelpful.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Tiggersk8

Then we hear Andrew has hired a Criminal Lawyer today. Why would anyone do that for what is a Civil Case? Or at least has been to this point?

In our legal system, which is based on and still very similar to the UK one, a QC will practise in more than one jurisdiction and will appear in criminal matters and civil matters, especially matters with overlapping elements. Here is William Clegg's web site. I think a quick read of it will make it clear why Andrew has engaged him. William Clegg QC, 2 Bedford Row, London. QC Barrister UK

[royal rob]

I don't feel sad for Andrew yes it was a long time ago but that doesn't mean we can just say forget about it. Once again remember some of Epstein girls were 13 and 14 so yes he is a pedophile and Andrew continued a friendship with him and maybe helped him get a lighter sentence. That should never of happened and should be reopened



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by cepe

I'm catching up, so apologies.



Has he actually hired this lawyer or is it alleged by a certain newspaper? Is there actually any proof?



UK media is not to be trusted as a stand alone source.

There is no proof he has hired said lawyer, the information came from the MailOnline who on Sunday said Andrew was going to speak about this incident in Davos. Something that has since been denied.

[Nice Nofret]

I see the thing like LumutQ: Too many people take allegations as facts and speculate wildly.

To be clear: This women was 17 by her own claims - and over the age of consent, when (if) sex with Andrew happend. So it is merely a question of morals and not criminal.

She claims to have been paid for sex e.g. a prostitute - but how was Andrew to know? Because by her own claim it wasn't Andrew who paid her but Epstein.

There is no case against Andrew, and I guess, there will never be one, because legal foundation is just not there.

[MARG]

I have to agree. Time was we left the speculation to the rags, now we see it here, right down to gutter level. It beggars belief.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Nice Nofret

She claims to have been paid for sex e.g. a prostitute - but how was Andrew to know? Because by her own claim it wasn't Andrew who paid her but Epstein.

There is no case against Andrew, and I guess, there will never be one, because legal foundation is just not there.

This is where it gets murky. Andrew knew Epstein and had known him for some time. He knew his proclivities. Ought he have made enquiries? Would a reasonable man in his position have reasonably suspected that there was something amiss? Or that there might have been something amiss? Was it reasonable to assume that everything was above board, and that these very young women were there because they made the fully informed and uncoerced choice to be there? I don't know the law in this area and particularly not in the relevant countries, but my training tells me that there are issues here that have not yet been fully explored but are likely to be.

And though there might not be a case against Andrew yet, if the US Attorney-General or whatever the correct terminology is, is required to produce all the submissions and other paperwork that the Jane Does are asking to be produced, and if the Jane Does are successful and the plea bargains are set aside, all hell could break loose.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Nice Nofret

I see the thing like LumutQ: Too many people take allegations as facts and speculate wildly.

To be clear: This women was 17 by her own claims - and over the age of consent, when (if) sex with Andrew happend. So it is merely a question of morals and not criminal.

She claims to have been paid for sex e.g. a prostitute - but how was Andrew to know? Because by her own claim it wasn't Andrew who paid her but Epstein.

There is no case against Andrew, and I guess, there will never be one, because legal foundation is just not there.

THANK YOU the capital letters are for my enthusiasm :)

[HRH Princess Sonya]

The legal age of adulthood here in the US is 18. So if anything happened between them which there is no way to prove it unless it's on film somewhere God forbid. So she would have been underage when this allegedly took place. It's similar to what is going on with Bill Cosby here in the US a lot of allegations but unless I missed something no proof. When scandals like this happens people are tried and convicted in the court of public opinion not the court of law.

[Rudolph]

Richard Palmer, the royal reporter for the Daily Express made the comment if Andrew was a government figure, a MP for example he would have been put out to pasture years ago. Too much baggage over the years.

Fair or not, when scandal of this level is involved people fall on their swords or they are pushed.

I think if this 'scandal' continues with any steam or legs, someone at BP needs to sit Andrew down and tell him to do the right thing.

And I'm not in anyway stating he is guilty of anything other than maybe bad judgement but it still makes for terrible headlines and it drags the Firm down

[KittyAtlanta]

Age of majority should not be confused with the age of sexual consent, marriageable age, school leaving age, drinking age, driving age, voting age, smoking age, etc., which all may be independent of, and sometimes set at a different age from, the age of majority.


If Andrew has engaged counsel, a head-start can be achieved in the interpretation of the paperwork he has handed over. I think this is a smart move, if he has engaged representation.

[Winnie]

RUDOLPH #997 = Very well stated. IMO, the more I read in proper media outlets, Andrew "MIGHT" have had sex with a young person [maybe even many or more than once] which is done thousands of times by both married and single older men in this day-and-age. Everyone seems to have a different slant on morals now. The only person I could personally even take extreme action against would be my own late husband, if in this situation. But, that being said, Public Opinion is a huge item for anyone in public life. I usually get things wrong anyway. I watched the OJ trial daily and thought he was guilty of killing his wife--wrong, he was found innocent. I again watched the Casey Anthony case and was certain she killed her beautiful child--wrong, she was also found not guilty. So I guess I am the wrong person to make an intelligent opinion about Andy, even though I do not personally believe he is lily white in all his doings. I just feel that he and Fergie both feel entitled to live the lifestyle they demand no matter when or how they have to achieve it. The sex isn't the big deal for Andrew, the court paper, if any, will bring him down and Charles will have to step in fast and make a fast judgment against it all for his mother. Shame. The British Royals do not deserve these awful headlines especially now with Fergie opening her un-popular mouth. God Bless the beautiful Queen through all this scandal.