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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sorry but I have not followed this story closely from the beginning. I have a question, in the interest of speed, were these young women detained or kept in some kind situation where they were unable to "walk away"? I am curious ... thanks for any answers that can be quickly given.
 
So these are civil rather than criminal proceedings? Are the girls after damages? Must be. One of them seems to have filed an affidavit alleging that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew. Seems to be a material fact in the matter. The best way to meet that allegation and refute it is to file an affidavit by Andrew denying the alleged acts took place. Then it becomes a matter of credit, 'cos you can bet the witnesses will be cross-examined at length. And there's the rub. :)

Commonsense dictates Andrew would welcome the opportunity to deny the allegations himself ... if they are not true. A statement issued by his Mummy's Palace is not evidence of anything other than the fact The Palace feels under pressure.

:popcorn:
 
Last edited:
MARG said:
:previous: Wow! The only thing missing is here is the "Hanging Judge".

Please correct me if I am wrong but at this point Prince Andrew has been named in a "Civil Suit" in Florida.

He is not the Defendant.

The only substantiated information thus far is that he was a friend of Epstein.

The suit was filed in Florida where the age of consent is 18.

The alledged incidents occured in place where the age of consent is 16.

January is a slow news month.

Andrew has been found guilty by association in the Lower Court of the forum and must be excised from all royal connection, resign his charities and move to an isolated island in exile.

Whatever happened to family loyalty? Are the royal family required to distance themselves from him as a show of public righteousness? He has been accused of nothing and charged with nothing but there seems to be some confusion here as he has been all but named as a paedophile and the speed with which some forum members have grabbed this label and run with it, is downright scarey. Due process anyone? No, here it seems it's guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

Marg dear, as always, you're the voice of reason. Thank you very much.
 
Roslyn said:
So these are civil rather than criminal proceedings? Are the girls after damages? Must be. One of them seems to have filed an affidavit alleging that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew. Seems to be a material fact in the matter. The best way to meet that allegation and refute it is to file an affidavit by Andrew denying the alleged acts took place. Then it becomes a matter of credit, 'cos you can bet the witnesses will be cross-examined at length. And there's the rub. :)

Commonsense dictates Andrew would welcome the opportunity to deny the allegations himself ... if they are not true. A statement issued by his Mummy's Palace is not evidence of anything other than the fact The Palace feels under pressure.

:popcorn:
Click to expand...

My understanding is that they are not suing Prince Andrew or Jeffrey Epstein, they are suing the prosecutor because Epstein received a fairly light sentence as a result of the plea bargain. It's hard to see that the case will be successful but, who knows.

I'm actually surprised the women are not suing Epstein, Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and any other rich man they allege was involved. I guess that will be next.

I don't know what to think. On the one hand, statutory rape laws in the U.S. can be unfair, especially to foreign visitors. The age of consent varies from state to state. It also doesn't matter if the girl (or boy) claims that s/he is actually older. The adult is expect to confirm the true age.

I also don't think that every 17 year old girl needs legal protection. If it is true these children were forced into sexual slavery, that is a crime in and of itself, regardless of their age.

However, I can't be too sympathetic to Andrew. He should have cut off Epstein after his conviction. Inviting Epstein to Sandringham and then having his photo taken with him wasn't just dumb, it was immoral.
 
tommy100 said:
I agree about Andrew needing to be proven guilty before everyone assumes the claims made now are true and I actually doubt they are true.

However what has been proven is that Andrew continued to associate with Epstein after Espstein was arrested on charges of soliciting sex (some say he only pleaded guilty to lower the charges from more serious ones) and after Espstein was forced to register as a sex offender. Personally I judge Andrew to be lacking in judgement and intelligence based on this alone.
Click to expand...

I don't know the Much about this story, mu knowledge is about .1%
So Andrew was still friends after this man was arrested charged and convicted? But what was his crime, molestation children or having sex with a girl who said she was 20 when she was really 16?
Are peo saying that Andrew should not have been friends with him anymore? Because it looks bad for the RF or because Andrew is guilty by association?
 
Whether true or not, this will not help his image at all
 
US Royal Watcher said:
My understanding is that they are not suing Prince Andrew or Jeffrey Epstein, they are suing the prosecutor because Epstein received a fairly light sentence as a result of the plea bargain. It's hard to see that the case will be successful but, who knows.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Interesting cause of action.

I'm actually surprised the women are not suing Epstein, Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and any other rich man they allege was involved. I guess that will be next.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised they aren't suing these men, too. What's the limitation period for such an action?

I don't know what to think. On the one hand, statutory rape laws in the U.S. can be unfair, especially to foreign visitors. The age of consent varies from state to state. It also doesn't matter if the girl (or boy) claims that s/he is actually older. The adult is expect to confirm the true age.

I also don't think that every 17 year old girl needs legal protection. If it is true these children were forced into sexual slavery, that is a crime in and of itself, regardless of their age.

However, I can't be too sympathetic to Andrew. He should have cut off Epstein after his conviction. Inviting Epstein to Sandringham and then having his photo taken with him wasn't just dumb, it was immoral.
Click to expand...
Stupid move on Andrew's part. Actually lots of stupid moves. And icky, too, for want of a better word. Those girls were only a few years older than his own daughters at the time. ETA They still are, of course, but my point is he would have had an awareness of the extreme youth of the girls.
 
Last edited:
Roslyn said:
Hmm. Interesting cause of action.

I'm surprised they aren't suing these men, too. What's the limitation period for such an action?
Click to expand...

According to this website, a victim can bring a civil suit within 7 years after turning 18. Since the alleged abuse happened as late as 2002 I think it is too late. State Civil Statutes of Limitations in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

There doesn't seem to be a criminal statute of limitations for sexual battery of a minor, but I am not sure that is the same as statutory rape.
 
Epstein was arrested in 2005 after the stepmother of a 14 yo told the authorities he paid her 14 year old step daughter $200 for a erotic massage after that over 40 more illegally procured girls were identified by prosecutors. Many of these have been settled out of court. The Florida thing is a little confusing surely whatever happened would have to have occurred in Florida where the legal age of consent is 18. If it happened elsewhere how can Florida make charges on it. No one is saying Andrew is guilty what most are saying is he is stupid for remaining in contact and going to parties with a registered sex offender. We may never know if he did or didn't I doubt he will say anything in which case people are going to come to their own conclusions and it won't be a good one. Look at Rolf Harris, Bill Cosby etc all are word of mouth cases no actual physical evidence. At this stage Andrew isn't being sued but this girl could sell her story and that would make her a lot of money. If Andrew took it to court then he would have to prove it wasn't true. Andrew has once again shown terrible judgement in keeping company with such a man and accepting financial help from him. It is a fact that Andrew went to parties and spent time with him after his conviction and of course people are going to think that Andrew might be more involved and there are pictures of Andrew with a young girl who could be the victim. This doesn't bode well for him if he doesn't answer people will say he has something to hide if he does come out and makes it very clear he had nothing to do with it all then it could help unless of course there are pictures. I think this would have been a big story no matter what the month it isn't everyday a Royal get's named in a lawsuit involving this kind of thing.
 
US Royal Watcher said:
My understanding is that they are not suing Prince Andrew or Jeffrey Epstein, they are suing the prosecutor because Epstein received a fairly light sentence as a result of the plea bargain. It's hard to see that the case will be successful but, who knows.
Click to expand...

I have never heard of such a thing - I thought prosecutorial immunity was absolute. The DM indicates its a suit claiming a violation of their civil rights for not being consulted on a generous plea deal. Interesting.

Dman said:
'I will not be bullied into silence': Woman who claims Prince Andrew abused her while she was billionaire's 'underage sex slave' says she is being 'unjustly victimised'-
Woman who accuses Prince Andrew of abusing her says she will 'not be victimised' | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

Oh. My. God. Hey, I don't know what to think at this point, but I'm afraid that true or not, Prince Andrew is damaged. Period.

Again, from a cursory glance of the DM, Andrew was only named in connection with a motion to be allowed access to certain documents in the government's possession - his alleged lobbying of the American Government to go easy on Epstein. Yikes. :eek:
 
Dman said:
I said it about Bill Cosby and I'll say it about Prince Andrew, their innocent until proven guilty.

Buckingham Palace has issued a statement on behalf of Prince Andrew denying he was in any way involved in sexually abusing an under-age girl in the United States. His name has come up in legal documents there, served on a friend of his, Jeffrey Epstein, financier and sex offender:
Video:
PRINCE ANDREW ALLEGATIONS: DICKIE ARBITER INTERVIEW-
http://news.itnsource.com/?SearchTerm=PRINCE ANDREW ALLEGATIONS: DICKIE ARBITER INTERVIEW

Interesting Article-
Woman who sued convicted billionaire over sex abuse levels claims at his friends-
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...els-sex-claims-at-alan-dershowitz-200495.html
Click to expand...


But like my Granny said. When you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.
P. Andrew did not use good judgement running with this hedonistic crowd.
Bill Cosby May not have drugged these women but he cheated on his wife multiple times with young women and kept them silent with money,jobs, and threats.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community
 
sthreats said:
But like my Granny said. When you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.
P. Andrew did not use good judgement running with this hedonistic crowd.
Bill Cosby May not have drugged these women but he cheated on his wife multiple times with young women and kept them silent with money,jobs, and threats.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community
Click to expand...


My mother would also use that saying. I do worry about some of William and Harry's friends ( making a porn movie in front of the palace etc) and that saying comes to mind. I think Andrew was very silly to continue this friendship makes me wonder what this man had on Andrew


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy

If it isn't true, and I'd like to think we all want it not to be because if so then a horrible immoral act occurred, then all it would take for me and perhaps Prince Andrew's image is something a bit more than a statement from the Buckingham Palace.

How about a sit down interview or video message from the Duke of York himself categorically denying the allegations. Look everyone into our eyes and tell us they aren't true, show us your character and how you are against any type of sexual abuse or slavery. Use it as an opportunity to bring up the issue of sex slavery, which I dont believe too political for a member of the royal family. And lastly, a sincere apology for the lack of judgment in befriending man. He should admit wrong, apologize, learn from the situation and move on. If he gives us that much, were good. If just a word from the palace, I'm honestly not sure you take the matter of sexual abuse and slavery seriously enough.

And given the Duke of York's purported social media savvy and online presence, I don't think a video message or interview should be unthinkable. Who's running the palace PR machine these days anyway.
 
Last edited:
This story has been going on since 2005. If he hasn't publicly denied it in the last decade why would he think it necessary to do so now?


The only way his name is cleared in this case is through a counter-defamation suit that he wins. Anything less and he will be forever tarnished - and in many people's minds, due to the continuing negative press and the 'Air-Miles Andy' tag etc then he will never recover.


The BRF may think they can ride this out - but I am not so sure. Another bigger scandal may help him now e.g. someone comes up with the definitive proof that George isn't William or Kate's baby - as alleged in many places - with less evidence to support their belief but it is there.


Harry's paternity keeps coming up - despite BP denials - due to his mother's poor judgement in sleeping with a man other than her husband. This will dog Harry and his descendants for generations.


Andrew and his descendants will be dogged by these allegations unless there is a court ruling that says that he is 'Not Guilty' of these claims - but he isn't on trial so not going to happen.
 
I know it has to do with nothing and is OT, but after reading the DM interview I just have to ask the question ... Where was this girl' s mother when all this was going on??? I guess it was all fine then with the money coming in!


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
The girl claims she slept with Andrew actually she was forced and told to do whatever he demanded and she and her lawyer also claim Andrew lobbied to get Epstein a reduced sentence. So Andrew needs to be careful if he does come out and deny it. If he did lobby then he is an even bigger idiot because that is basically supporting a man convicted of sexual slavery. There will be something in writing somewhere and if her team finds it then it's going to make Andrew look even worse and her claims will hold more weight. I think Andrew has really done it this time because he will never face any sort of court unless he brings action himself which I don't see him doing. Even if he denies it how many people will believe him? She is going through with this and he and Epstein could be next on the list for a lawsuit. I think Andrew will find it very hard to come out of this underage sex, slavery and prostitution make great headlines and mud sticks. He has no one to blame but himself I seem to remember the press making a big deal about his relationship with Epstein but Andrew ignored them and kept being friends and even got papped with him. Andrew has bad judgement that doesn't make him guilty it just makes him arrogant and stupid not that the press will care.
 
It'll be interesting to see what happens with his upcoming engagements. Will he soldier on as though nothing has happened? Will he take an opportunity to address the allegations? Will he cancel anything?...
 
Last edited:
USAPolitics said:
If it isn't true, and I'd like to think we all want it not to be because if so then a horrible immoral act occurred, then all it would take for me and perhaps Prince Andrew's image is something a bit more than a statement from the Buckingham Palace.

How about a sit down interview or video message from the Duke of York himself categorically denying the allegations. Look everyone into our eyes and tell us they aren't true, show us your character and how you are against any type of sexual abuse or slavery. Use it as an opportunity to bring up the issue of sex slavery, which I dont believe too political for a member of the royal family. And lastly, a sincere apology for the lack of judgment in befriending man. He should admit wrong, apologize, learn from the situation and move on. If he gives us that much, were good. If just a word from the palace, I'm honestly not sure you take the matter of sexual abuse and slavery seriously enough.

Just as a point of interest, why is all this a civil and not a criminal case. Why are the police not interested in laying fresh charges on Epstien and Prince Andrew for that matter. Could it possibly be because this is all about money and how to screw it out of politically "vulnerable" wealthy VIP's. the Duke of York's purported social media savvy and online presence, I don't think a video message or interview should be unthinkable. Who's running the palace PR machine these days anyway.
Click to expand...
I guess Prince Charles is going to make a public apology for he and his then wife, Diana, socialising and calling Jimmy Saville 'friend' because we all now know he was a paedophile . . . they should have known.

And, of course, HM and Prince Philip should apologise for having a 'friendly' acquaintence called Rolf, who got invited to the palace and was even allowed to do one of his unique paintings of her . . . they should have known.

When there is any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Prince Andrew then, and only then, am I interested in his doing a mea culpa.

This whole situations stinks like 5 day old fish. People demanding he go on TV baring his soul, on this forum demanding that the BRF cut him loose, that he and the girls should become outcast in their own family to appease people who know very little, have proof of nothing and couldn't give a damn about the possiblility of his innocence.

The BRF have been in this situation a couple of times before. It did not end well in either case.
 
Here is what I have gleaned from reading the articles about the case.
In 2006, the FBI began investigating allegations that Epstein was engaging in sex and or molesting underage girls - total number of victims perhaps 40. Ages of victims 13 and up. I don't know but would guess that the federal prosecutors were considering proceeding criminally against Epstein pursuant to the Mann Act which makes it a crime to transport a minor interstate or in foreign commerce for purpose of prostitution or sexual activity. For purposes of the Mann Act a minor is defined as anyone under age 18 (42 U.S.C 2423.)
Epstein's high powered lawyers negotiated a deal with federal prosecutors where Epstein pled in state court to violating a Florida State crime and served time for it and was required to register as a sex offender in Florida and the Feds agreed not to prosecute Epstein or any co-conspirators under federal law.
During the investigation of the case an Epstein employee stated that Prince Andrew had been present at an Epstein pool party with naked underage girls.
24 victims filed civil suits against Epstein, most if not all have been settled by him for undisclosed amounts.
Two of his victims aged 13 & 14 at the time of the offenses have filed suit against the federal prosecutors under the Crime Victims Rights Act to have the plea negated because they were not informed that the Feds were negotiating a plea bargain. Their goal is for the Feds to prosecute Epstein once the plea deal is thrown out. Two additional victims aged 15 and 16 at the time of the offenses are trying to join that lawsuit against the Feds seeking to negate the sweetheart deal Epstein got. It's one of the potential joining victims who made the allegations about sex with Andrew.
Part of the allegations are that Epstein used his wealth and influence to achieve the deal. The former Federal Attorney who's office negotiated the deal now says if they'd known the testimonial and physical evidence which emerged in the civil suits against Epstein the office might not have cut the deal.
It is the first suit of it's kind and I wouldn't be surprised if it reached the U.S. Supreme Court - they've issued some astounding decisions in the last couple of years about plea bargaining in criminal cases, but not anything relating to victim's and their rights in plea bargaining. Even if the victims win this case they can't force the federal prosecutors to prosecute Epstein.
Against that background what does that say about Andrew? We know Andrew was good friends with this man and that even after the conviction Andrew solicited money from him to help pay off Sarah's debts. We have the photo of Andrew posing with the 17 year old with his hand on her bare waist. We have Epsteins employee's statement about Andrew and the naked pool parties, we have 3 girls who took the 5th when asked about Andrew, and now we have Jane Doe #3 claiming she had sex with Andrew @ age 16 (or maybe 15 - I haven't read which of the new victims is making these allegations.)
My grandmother's saying was where there's smoke there's fire, it's sordid and tawdry and at a minimum Andrew's continued friendship with and soliciting money from a man who pled to molesting/sexually assaulting very young girls after the facts were public knowledge is frankly disgusting, inexcusable, and inexplicable.
 
Last edited:
Its quite a conundrum for Andrew I think. If he doesn't speak out for himself, his silence will paint him guilty in a lot people's opinions adding to an already tarnished reputation with the public. If he does speak out, it'll not totally be believed and rank up there with Clinton's "I didn't sleep with that woman" kind of thing.

Unfortunately, now I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop with the ever conniving DM to start making connections between these allegations against Andrew, his closeness to his ex wife and Sarah's involvement in the global Not For Sale cause which speaks out against human slavery. Add that in with the supposition that Epstein helped out paying off Sarah's debts and we have a big, fat ol' stinky kettle of fish. :eek:
 
Andrew had a really unsavoury reputation even before this. For the sake of the monarchy and his two daughters I really think it's time for him (and Fergie who has been prepared to accept cash for favours in the past) to slither away into private life.

An interview etc would be too little too late. Andrew should never represent his mother the Queen at any public engagement again. As a private citizen he can choose to live his life the way he obviously wants, just not as a senior royal.
 
Legally he can't just become a private citizen. He is one of the most senior royals as a Counsellor of State and he will be in that position for at least the next 20 years (until George is 21 in the present reign and the new baby in Charles' reign). So unless The Queen lives for another 21 years he will remain a very senior royal until at least then - one who can sign legislation for instance.


To deprive him of those rights can only happen in one of three ways:


1. change the legislation in the UK on who is eligible to be a CoS


2. remove him from the line of succession, which could take years due to the necessity to do so in the other realms as well, and they haven't all yet past the Succession to the Crown Act


3. he converts to Roman Catholicism taking himself out of the Line of Succession.


It isn't as easy as some people seem to think.


I suspect he will continue working for The Queen and it will basically be forgotten when the next scandal hits - don't forget William and Harry also have some unsavoury friends and relations (Uncle Gary anyone???).
 
I always thought the Queen made a big mistake in 2012 with the Equal Primogeniture legislation. She should have made it for all her descendants retroactively. It wouldn't have changed the main line but it would have helped with her younger children. By then she was well aware of all Andrew's skeletons and his PR ticking time bomb. She could have easily buried him under Anne and Anne's progeny. Instead of all these headlines about the 5th in line being a pervert by proxy, it would say the 11th in line, much further away! I think the public would prefer Anne as Counsellor of the State too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -
6 7 8
Replies
223
Views
14K
Curryong
C
L
  • Locked
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003
3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
28K
Alexandria
A
J
  • Locked
Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik, Current Events 1: May 2003 - November 2006
17 18 19
Replies
564
Views
101K
norwegianne
norwegianne

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom