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

[GracieGiraffe]

There are those who will never believe he did nothing wrong and there are those who will never believe he did anything wrong. By the time this is done, there will be a lot of reputations in shreds.

Perhaps his legacy will be to serve as a cautionary tale to others in the public eye; be careful who you pal around with.

He could still sue Ms. Roberts for defamation - that would go a long way to repairing his reputation.. or not.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

There are those who will never believe he did nothing wrong and there are those who will never believe he did anything wrong. By the time this is done, there will be a lot of reputations in shreds.

Perhaps his legacy will be to serve as a cautionary tale to others in the public eye; be careful who you pal around with.

He could still sue Ms. Roberts for defamation - that would go a long way to repairing his reputation.. or not.

I doubt him suing would do any good. This is a typical David and Goliath situation and the Goliath (in this case Andrew, the rich and powerful) can never show to much power and aggressiveness as the David because the David is seen as a fighter but if the Goliath does the exact same he's seen as an oppressor. So he has to be really careful!

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by MARG

So, Andrew hasn't done anything illegal and, that he has done anything "immoral" is up for debate, depending on who you believe.

For that very reason IMO Prince Andrew is innocent. End of story. I don't believe his reputation has suffered as much as you might think and I certainly don't believe that it is in "the dumper" or that it is "in shreds".

Most decent, ordinary people believe what the papers say when he walks out of Court but, since there was no court and no charges and an absence of any evidence of immorality save those of the plaintiffs on the Civil Suit, given a reasonable time and no legal action, it won't really impact him or his family at all.

And under these circumstances, nor should it.

What you have expressed is certainly true in the fact that legally he cannot be found with any wrong doing. The bad thing for him is that there was not an open court case proving without a doubt his innocence. Now people will just think it was all a "cover-up", money talks, royals pulled strings, etc. It certainly will hang over his head until the day he dies and will impact on him and his ex-wife. It will just be another theory that will make chatter whenever his name is mentioned in media or at social gatherings. Right or wrong, true or false. Really doesn't matter. It is a fact of life that people will always bring it up and make snide remarks People would not have two or three opinions on this case. Just reading this forum alone gives credence to that fact. If every one believed in his innocence, no one would ever address this subject again here. So I personally feel that his reputation is certainly in the sewer and will take a few years to recover. If he was smart, he will just play the role of Good Prince and do only what Queen wants and lay low the rest of the time for a few years until people just forget his Playboy old ways. JMHO

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by hernameispekka

I doubt him suing would do any good. This is a typical David and Goliath situation and the Goliath (in this case Andrew, the rich and powerful) can never show to much power and aggressiveness as the David because the David is seen as a fighter but if the Goliath does the exact same he's seen as an oppressor. So he has to be really careful!

Nope, trust me on this one.

A good lawyers knows how to get around all that. He must sue at this point, if he is completely innocent of what he is accused of.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Yes, I agree. His reputation is in shreds and even if he (and his ex) remain silent and out of the news for the next twenty years Andrew will still be tainted by this and the other scandals.

Once in a debate about the royal family in Dutch Parliament a representative (now the Lord Mayor of The Hague) remarked: "My ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the royal family, not the Holy Family."

With that simple remark he succeed in letting the air out of the swollen balloon of a media-hype which reached the Parliament. Very applicable as well in the "case" around the Duke of York.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

Nope, trust me on this one.

A good lawyers knows how to get around all that. He must sue at this point, if he is completely innocent of what he is accused of.

Maybe in the legal case. But not in the general public. Him suing at all would be enough Goliath act to bring on "big man trying to force little person into silence".

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by hernameispekka

Maybe in the legal case. But not in the general public. Him suing at all would be enough Goliath act to bring on "big man trying to force little person into silence".

Unless the contra-evidence by the legal team of the Duke is só strong, showing Ms Roberts as a blatant phantast and pathetic liar, then public opinion will turn against her.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Unless the contra-evidence by the legal team of the Duke is só strong, showing Ms Roberts as a blatant phantast and pathetic liar, then public opinion will turn against her.

That is true if it is super strong and no other morally questionable things show up on his end. Not to sound rude, what are the odds of him not having any more skeletons that the opposite team could use?

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

Nope, trust me on this one.

A good lawyers knows how to get around all that. He must sue at this point, if he is completely innocent of what he is accused of.

I agree. If he is completely innocent, he better defend himself and publically, just to shut people up, one way or the other.

[Iluvbertie]

Andrew is alleged to have 'slept' with her. How can he 'prove' he didn't? This is the problem. He can't prove he didn't as this is a 'he said', 'she said' situation. She can't prove he did either - unless she has a witness in the room when the deed was done. Otherwise it is her word against his and thus no way can he win a 'defamation' case - no way to 'prove' anything either way on the evidence presented so far.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Winnie

I agree. If he is completely innocent, he better defend himself and publically, just to shut people up, one way or the other.

But what can he do? He's already denied Roberts' allegation that he had sex with her. What more can he do? Nothing short of incontrovertable evidence he was nowhere near Roberts at the time she alleged she was having sex with him will shut people up, and at the moment he has no reason to produce that sort of evidence. There are no charges for him to defend himself against.

He is in a tricky situation, for sure. She has given sworn evidence in Court proceedings that Andrew had sex with her, but not in proceedings against him, and she isn't alleging he's done anything illegal. He wasn't married or engaged at the time or even in a serious relationship as far as we know, so he hasn't even been accused of having done anything immoral, either, except for those of strict religious views who don't approve of any sort of sexual activity outside marriage. At most he's being painted as a man who isn't very discriminating in who he chooses as friends, and who likes to have sex with very young women. His ongoing friendship with Epstein proves the former and he's certainly not alone in the latter proclivity if it is true. And there is that rather damning photograph of him with his arm around her and a rather 'cat-got-the-cream" expression on his face.

So people are going to judge him and he may well be found guilty in the Court of Public Opinion. But what can he do?

It's very difficult to prove you didn't do something when it's your word against the other person's. And why would he try to? He's not a party to the proceedings so he has no reason to file an affidavit. And what would his affidavit say? Nothing more than he's already said. There are other ways he could defend himself if the need arises, the obvious one being to provide evidence of his travel movements at the times Roberts has alleged he was with her, proving beyond reasonable doubt that he was elsewhere, but that could be a risky at this stage since she hasn't nominated specific dates for their assignations. He would be unwise to reveal these details before she gets specific. And, of course - and importantly - he could get evidence of his movements from his protection officers who travelled with him. I suspect statements from them are already on file. The question is: do they help him?

Yep, this is troublesome for him, but what can he do at this stage?

[Winnie]

ROSLYN, I agree that at this point "what can he do?" hits the nail on the head. I personally believe that 100% proof by this protective personnel knows exactly where he was at all times. That is what they get paid for. To protect him. But knowing where he is does not say exactly what he was doing at all times. But, there is 100% proof if he was not anywhere near Roberts [or anyone else] at a certain date and time. If he has nothing to hide and can positively prove his payment records for body guards, he should certainly defend himself. But none of this proves if he pushed Jeffrey's case to only a small slap on the wrist, which is what started this whole nonsense.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

But what can he do? He's already denied Roberts' allegation that he had sex with her. What more can he do? Nothing short of incontrovertable evidence he was nowhere near Roberts at the time she alleged she was having sex with him will shut people up, and at the moment he has no reason to produce that sort of evidence. There are no charges for him to defend himself against.

He is in a tricky situation, for sure. She has given sworn evidence in Court proceedings that Andrew had sex with her, but not in proceedings against him, and she isn't alleging he's done anything illegal. He wasn't married or engaged at the time or even in a serious relationship as far as we know, so he hasn't even been accused of having done anything immoral, either, except for those of strict religious views who don't approve of any sort of sexual activity outside marriage. At most he's being painted as a man who isn't very discriminating in who he chooses as friends, and who likes to have sex with very young women. His ongoing friendship with Epstein proves the former and he's certainly not alone in the latter proclivity if it is true. And there is that rather damning photograph of him with his arm around her and a rather 'cat-got-the-cream" expression on his face.

So people are going to judge him and he may well be found guilty in the Court of Public Opinion. But what can he do?

It's very difficult to prove you didn't do something when it's your word against the other person's. And why would he try to? He's not a party to the proceedings so he has no reason to file an affidavit. And what would his affidavit say? Nothing more than he's already said. There are other ways he could defend himself if the need arises, the obvious one being to provide evidence of his travel movements at the times Roberts has alleged he was with her, proving beyond reasonable doubt that he was elsewhere, but that could be a risky at this stage since she hasn't nominated specific dates for their assignations. He would be unwise to reveal these details before she gets specific. And, of course - and importantly - he could get evidence of his movements from his protection officers who travelled with him. I suspect statements from them are already on file. The question is: do they help him?

Yep, this is troublesome for him, but what can he do at this stage?

I agree with everything you say, except for the underlined. I am a religious person, although I understand that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable to most people in the West. But I draw the line at a 40+ year old man sleeping with a 17-year old girl. She may have been over the age of consent for sexual activity but she was still a minor.

If she had been 21 or even 19, I would find it distasteful, but it's immoral when a rich, powerful man has sex with a girl who isn't even old enough to vote.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Winnie

ROSLYN, I agree that at this point "what can he do?" hits the nail on the head. I personally believe that 100% proof by this protective personnel knows exactly where he was at all times. That is what they get paid for. To protect him. But knowing where he is does not say exactly what he was doing at all times. But, there is 100% proof if he was not anywhere near Roberts [or anyone else] at a certain date and time. If he has nothing to hide and can positively prove his payment records for body guards, he should certainly defend himself.

Winnie, that is a good point but would the bodyguards remember after 14 years? Would their records be available.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by hernameispekka

That is true if it is super strong and no other morally questionable things show up on his end. Not to sound rude, what are the odds of him not having any more skeletons that the opposite team could use?

The odds IMO, would be slim to none. But that is Andrew's responsability.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Winnie

If he has nothing to hide and can positively prove his payment records for body guards,

His bodyguards are paid for by the Metropolitan Police so he would have no record of any payments to them.


They are government employees whose job is to protect Andrew from an attack but not to stop him doing immoral acts.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I agree with everything you say, except for the underlined. I am a religious person, although I understand that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable to most people in the West. But I draw the line at a 40+ year old man sleeping with a 17-year old girl. She may have been over the age of consent for sexual activity but she was still a minor.

If she had been 21 or even 19, I would find it distasteful, but it's immoral when a rich, powerful man has sex with a girl who isn't even old enough to vote.

Yeah. I was actually a bit "iffy" about using that word when I wrote it, but by the time I inserted that bit I was sick of thinking about the possibility of Andrew with a 17 year old girl and just wanted to finish it. I was craving a cup of tea and a change of subject.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Andrew is alleged to have 'slept' with her. How can he 'prove' he didn't? This is the problem. He can't prove he didn't as this is a 'he said', 'she said' situation. She can't prove he did either - unless she has a witness in the room when the deed was done. Otherwise it is her word against his and thus no way can he win a 'defamation' case - no way to 'prove' anything either way on the evidence presented so far.

I love the way the court of public opinion runs directly opposite to that of a court of law. There is now way that Andrew can "prove" he didn't but even if he could I doubt he would bring an action against miss Roberts. The BRF just don't. If that woman is perceived as a "victim", the Andrew that both Sarah and Koo know and have talked about would never re-vicimise her.

As to the age thing, you know . . . if she'd been 19 or . . . all I can say is age and young women is a trap for any player. Even I often cannot tell if a girl is under or over 20, their makeup and dress is not only aimed to please, but also aimed to reflect confidence and sophistication. It's a minefield and somehow I think most men would take it for granted that their 'friend' would enjoy the company of women rather that "girls".

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by MARG

I love the way the court of public opinion runs directly opposite to that of a court of law. There is now way that Andrew can "prove" he didn't but even if he could I doubt he would bring an action against miss Roberts. The BRF just don't. If that woman is perceived as a "victim", the Andrew that both Sarah and Koo know and have talked about would never re-vicimise her.

As to the age thing, you know . . . if she'd been 19 or . . . all I can say is age and young women is a trap for any player. Even I often cannot tell if a girl is under or over 20, their makeup and dress is not only aimed to please, but also aimed to reflect confidence and sophistication. It's a minefield and somehow I think most men would take it for granted that their 'friend' would enjoy the company of women rather that "girls".

I have to agree on this. I'm 23 and without makeup I could be anywhere between 16-25 probably and makeup makes it even harder to tell (not an excuse, maybe a little). I myself wasn't one of the girls "doing stuff" when I was younger, but I surely knew of girls who had sex with men in their 30s or maybe 40s. This isn't just the most party/scandalous of the girls either, "many" girls around 16 that has a active sex life would find it fun not to rely soley on inexperienced guys of the same age. So even though I wouldn't do it, and I'm not saying that Roberts isn't a victim of alot of things, just based on a line "40+ man having sex with 17 year old girl" there is no way to tell if the girl was taken advantage of. Many times the girl is very much in on it. I'm not saying this is right, the way the world should be and I agree that it can seem kind of icky. But if you have sex for sex's sake (which alot of people do) having a one night stand or something with an older man is not that unusual is all I'm trying to say. You can have different opinions whether it's morally right or not, but don't pretend that it doesn't happen.

[Grandma828]

Just look at all the May/December marriages.