The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022 - Page 65

MARG · #**1281** 02-03-2015, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal rob

I really don't think these people are out to get Charles. I don't think they sit and plot his downfall
He's always going to be written about
The daily mail writes this sort of thing that's what they do
If it upsets you don't read it

Unlike those that slavishly devour the trash from the DM et al, believing every word and photo, others have been around long enough to know when they are recycling stories and photos. . .

Same people, different day, different place.

Or

Different people, different day, different place.

The point is the "news" is interchangeable. I think they actually cut and paste to save the bother.

The Daily Mail doesn't "upset" me because it is a tabloid. Slavish devotees do!

Mirabel · #**1282** 02-03-2015, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss whirley

William and Harry are hardly a paragon of closeness either, at least according to Prince Edward and their priavte life actions. I imagine that royals are taught to trust no one, including their own family. Good advice I would say.

Before William married, he and Harry often went around together to clubs and parties, etc.

Of course, the age difference between Charles and his younger siblings precludes that. Still... by now the age difference is more or less irrelevant, yet still...he doesn't have much to do with them.

Iluvbertie · #**1283** 02-03-2015, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

If I'm not mistaken, Charles wrote his children's book for Andrew when he was little.

That was for Edward and nearly 50 years ago.

Queen Camilla · #**1284** 02-03-2015, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel

Of course, the age difference between Charles and his younger siblings precludes that. Still... by now the age difference is more or less irrelevant, yet still...he doesn't have much to do with them.

I think this is more to do with different stages in life and not residing near each other. Edward has young children, Charles is going to be a grandfather for the 2nd time. Andrew has unmarried daughters and Charles has sons.

I do think they are closer than most people think. During Christmas' early morning walk to church Charles was walking with Edward. (I believe one year Andrew & Charles were photographed doing the early morning Christmas walk together.)

Charles and Princess Anne are close. A few years back during the Order of Garter Charles was photographed lovingly helping Anne with her hat.

The reason William is close to Zara is because Charles and Anne had children near the same ages and lived near each other.

royal rob · #**1285** 02-07-2015, 04:09 PM

Latest
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...x-powerful-men

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Lady Nimue · #**1286** 02-07-2015, 04:37 PM

The existence of videos was known about since December. The question is: did the men (never mind the girls) know that they were being video-taped. This is very, very seamy.

LINK: Epstein Scandal Just Got Crazier: Enter Ken Starr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6-XN5pWCs4

TEXT: "Published on Feb 7, 2015: The mainstream media has largely ignored the Jeffrey Epstein child sex scandal, even though the details of the case keep getting crazier and crazier."

royal rob · #**1287** 02-07-2015, 04:50 PM

Thank you for that link. The whole affair has been so hushed up and it gets dirtier everyday

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Lady Nimue · #**1288** 02-07-2015, 04:56 PM

Scandal 01.06.15
I Tried to Warn You About Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003: When Vicky Ward profiled Jeffrey Epstein for Vanity Fair, allegations of his attempted seduction of two young sisters were excised from the final piece.

LINK: I Tried to Warn You About Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 - The Daily Beast

TEXT: "At first—it was the early stages of reporting—I was amused at having been so crassly underestimated. For a man who clearly considered himself a sophisticated ladies’ man (the only book he’d left out for me to see was a paperback by the Marquis de Sade), I thought his journalist-seduction technique was a bit like his table manners—in dire need of improvement.

"If only it had all ended there. This was what it had been meant to be. A gossipy piece about a shadowy, slightly sinister but essentially harmless man who preferred track-pants to suits but somehow lived very large, had wealthy, important friends, hung out with models, and shied away from the press.

"But it didn’t."

The article is excellent. The video is extremely interesting.

Vicky Ward discusses Jeffrey Epstein 6th Jan 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1jD0BgnY5M

TEXT: "Published on Jan 8, 2015: "I Tried to Warn You About Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003", said Vicky Ward. This is the msnbc interview with Vicky Ward who wrote the Vanity Fair feature in 2003. 'When Vicky Ward profiled Jeffrey Epstein for Vanity Fair, allegations of his attempted seduction of two young sisters were excised from the final piece'. "

One comment is very pointed: "Society is like a stew, if you don't stir it up every once in a while a layer of scum floats to the top."

royal rob · #**1289** 02-07-2015, 05:08 PM

Thank you it's very interesting. The power he had over all this people is amazing. It's such an incredible story that is being hushed up

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The comment about the stew is so very true

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Lady Nimue · #**1290** 02-07-2015, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal rob

Thank you it's very interesting. The power he had over all this people is amazing. It's such an incredible story that is being hushed up.

Sadly, even the fabulous Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair who did cut the damning part of the journalists's report, gets splashed with some of the muck. Though given the calibre if the man, there were legal issues that made the publishing of the allegations a problem. It was in 2005 that a girl went to the police to report Epstein, so anything before that would have been an allegation and not backed up with anything more substantial, like a police report.

NYC and Florida high society is a great swirl, everyone knows everyone. The possible people involved in this (and my mind is clicking away on some very interesting names) even innocently, may be huge. I think it's the FBI or the prosecutor's office that has possession of the video-tapes. This is either going to get jammed up in the legal system, or it's going to be broken wide open one day by the Justice Department. Time will tell, and meanwhile there have to be people out there who are sweating, not knowing how or when or with whom this will break.

royal rob · #**1291** 02-07-2015, 05:32 PM

I agree about people sweating and waiting. They would have thought it had all gone away and now it's back. But how did these intelligent people get so sucked in? Answering my own question I guess they weren't so intelligent.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Lady Nimue · #**1292** 02-07-2015, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal rob

I agree about people sweating and waiting. They would have thought it had all gone away and now it's back. But how did these intelligent people get so sucked in? Answering my own question I guess they weren't so intelligent.

It's never that clear-cut. In retrospect it's all 20/20 hindsight, but caught in the moment, a casual social encounter at a dinner party, or as a weekend guest at someone's palatial house, how many people question what they see, or even have the background to understand what they see?

A while back on this thread I suggested that Sarah Ferguson might not have been asked back by Epstein because she understood what she was seeing, or had a hunch, or something. It was pooh-poohed, but imo someone like Sarah would scent out the drift of a situation pretty quickly. I don't know, of course (this is all speculation on my part), but not being invited back tells me that whoever did not serve Epstein's purposes were expendable. Sarah was likely a risk he wasn't willing to take.

Saying all the above, my point is that Epstein likely knows people. He knows who he can fool and those he can't. Consider that he left out on the coffee table a book by the Marquis de Sade for the journalist to see.

That is very telling. He grooms. He entices. He draws in. Every step of the way he makes his target say 'yes'. It's an old story. We all know it.

Here is the link to the Vanity Fair article:

The Talented Mr. Epstein - MARCH 2003
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/...epstein-200303

royal rob · #**1293** 02-07-2015, 06:09 PM

Oh I had a shiver down my back reading your post really evil person and what don't we know

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

AfricanAUSSIE · #**1294** 02-08-2015, 12:57 AM

Thank you for the video links, they make me sick!!

Epstein has made a deal to get out. Does that mean he cannot ever be brought to justice? Surely, surely this BIG affair cannot go unpunished!! And to think that this goes on all the time!

I do hope those sick despicable excuses of man start to fall, one by one.

Young woman at the centre of Prince Andrew scandal says the FBI have videos of her having sex with Jeffrey Epstein and 'powerful friends' while she was underage | Daily Mail Online

GracieGiraffe · #**1295** 02-08-2015, 08:13 AM

I really want to know what's in those videos - not because of Andrew. I would like to know what the U.S. attorney helped to cover up with this sweatheart deal. The deal and the press's bypassing this story both then and now are very troubling.

Lenora · #**1296** 02-08-2015, 09:01 AM

I am afraid these videos could be linked to pedophilia.

Winnie · #**1297** 02-08-2015, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

I really want to know what's in those videos - not because of Andrew. I would like to know what the U.S. attorney helped to cover up with this sweatheart deal. The deal and the press's bypassing this story both then and now are very troubling.

I seriously doubt we ever will.

Duc_et_Pair · #**1298** 02-08-2015, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenora

I am afraid these videos could be linked to pedophilia.

Sexual intercourse with a 17 years old lady is really not 'pedophilia'. In your country, Latvia, the age of consent is 16. In my country, France, it is 15. I know that the USA are puritan in these cases but it goes to far to classify it as 'pedophilia'.

Lenora · #**1299** 02-08-2015, 10:13 AM

Right, but anyway it remains a dirty deal.

hernameispekka · #**1300** 02-08-2015, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Sexual intercourse with a 17 years old lady is really not 'pedophilia'. In your country, Latvia, the age of consent is 16. In my country, France, it is 15. I know that the USA are puritan in these cases but it goes to far to classify it as 'pedophilia'.

Exactly. Here it is 15. But even if it was 13-14 year old girls it isn't classified as pedophilia.

Pedophilia is attraction to kids before sexual development.

I am in no way saying any of this is right. Just that pedophilia is not the correct terminology.