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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's be honest, responsible parents DO NOT allow their teen age daughters to go off unattended with older males on international trips. My bet is, IF they thought at all, either, 1: they didn't really care or 2: thought there was a possibility of a long term "lucrative" relationship with said older male, for which they would accrue some advantage, most likely financial. This still does not excuse slime bag Epstein, however, to attempt to trawl and bring in any number of other high profile people in attempt to gain $$$ is equally nasty IMO. There are so many slimey people involved in this story that it is incredible and the slime has splashed in every direction to include other people who admittedly may have been very naïve and foolish and in some cases possibly totally innocent.
 
Yikes - yet again, no good guys in this situation.
 
Reading through this, a few thoughts come to mind:

Yes, there is a definite dodginess to Ms. Roberts and her dad; but this is the nature of the beast. There are two different worlds; the world in which most of us operate, where it is unfathomable that a parent was acquiescent in his daughter's exploitation, where parents and children live in nuclear families and where there is love, firm boundaries and limits. And then there is an underworld of sometimes broken homes, sometimes mental illness, sometimes drug addiction, sometimes sexual perversion. This underworld is where the sex trafficked and child porn victims come from - generally not from our world. As a result of their families and/or their victimization, you might see mental illness, addictions and compulsive lies and delusions come from them. It's difficult to cut through what is fantasy and what is reality with them. But that does not mean that they are not victims, and don't deserve justice.

Virginia Roberts is clearly a victim - of both such bizarre parenting (or non-parenting) and of Jeffrey Epstein. Who else victimized her (or did not) is unclear. Cutting through this mess and figuring out the truth is the job of the trier of fact here (not an easy job). Why do you think the victims come from this underworld (aside from the fact that this is where the willing parents are) - in part because who will believe them when they will speak out? Oftentimes there is no justice for these poor girls.

I don't know what the outcome will be here, but I hope it's a just one.

And for the record, we can speculate all we want over who did what and what everyone's motivations are in this litigation - but we don't know who is telling the truth and who is not. I hope it's fully investigated.
 
EXACTLY! IMO this is all about $$$ and to h*ll with the damage done to anyone else in the process. I think they have made a grave mistake by taking on Mr. Dershowitz. They are just throwing out accusations and waiting to see who will cave in first and hand over a bankroll.:ermm:

But why randomly pick on Alan Dershowitz? They know he's a very serious, prominent and accomplished lawyer, who will fight back with everything he's got and not cave into pressure and give up some mulla just to settle things.

I don't know if any of these allegations are true, but if it is, I'm not sure these "Jane Doe's" will get any justice.

Epstein was able to plea bargain without their involvement and they are upset that they did not get justice. So she is naming names and threatening to write a tell-all book while selling her story to the tabloids.

Epstein also had politicians (Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, John Kerry, etc), CEOs, bankers, media tycoons, the president of Harvard, etc as his friends and guests. Shelling the story implies she did not get a really good payday yet. Andrew and Dershowitz make headlines but aren't the best to blackmail. So it could be part of her extortion of others; a threat to out them too in exchange for money. Or else the media tycoons decided to focus on them from all the documents to scapegoat them as a diversion to protect themselves and others.
 
Epstein was able to plea bargain without their involvement and they are upset that they did not get justice. So she is naming names and threatening to write a tell-all book while selling her story to the tabloids.
Epstein is a major scumbag but it is very unusual in the U.S. to sue a prosecutor because of a plea bargain. I am not an expert but I have never heard of a requirement that the victims sign off on a plea deal. Some plea bargains are made for very good reasons, including concerns about whether a jury will convict.

The girl was 17 years old, which is over the age of consent in many states and most of Europe. She also traveled internationally. It's hard to see how she was forced to do so. I understand that there may have been psychological coercion but the prosecutor may have been concerned about whether a jury would understand that.

Epstein also had politicians (Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, John Kerry, etc), CEOs, bankers, media tycoons, the president of Harvard, etc as his friends and guests. Shelling the story implies she did not get a really good payday yet. Andrew and Dershowitz make headlines but aren't the best to blackmail. So it could be part of her extortion of others; a threat to out them too in exchange for money. Or else the media tycoons decided to focus on them from all the documents to scapegoat them as a diversion to protect themselves and others.
I've been wondering why there hasn't been more focus on some of the politicians in this case.
 
According to the Telegraph, Ms Roberts is writing her memoir.
 
There are also five women who under oath refused to answer questions about Prince Andrew. That isn't good for Andrew if he hadn't done anything surely they wouldn't have any problems with saying so. Many here are saying Andrew must not be guilty and the girl is only after money without any evidence and are happy to call her a liar making Andrew the victim. It takes a lot for a woman to bring these allegations she is already being pulled apart by the press she hasn't changed her story since the beginning. She and the other victim are suing because they feel a great injustice was done with the lenient plea deal Epstein got. And there are about 40 girls who he has paid off. The girl named Andrew to support her case she hasn't gone after Andrew I am wondering if like the others Epstein tried to pay her off but she wouldn't take it. We may never know the full truth but the fact is that Andrew went to these parties and had admitted to getting massages (and they would have been underage girls it seems that is what Epstein mostly employed) and let's not forget Andrew remained friends with this man after he was convicted and he did admit guilt or he wouldn't have got the plea deal. Andrew only stopped seeing him when told off by the press but he made a very fuzzy statement which could read as a I will see him but somewhere no one will tell. Andrew has such bad judgement and the Queen needs to do something not give him an award like she did last time around. The Queens favourite has been around since I was young and is Phillips favourite being Anne no one will ever know if it's true. It's kind of sad I don't remember Prince Charles being anyone's favourite. As for Sarah well she lives at Andrews house and he pretty much supports her no matter what so she isn't going to bite the hand that feeds her. If a letter get's found of Andrew trying to get Epstein a lighter sentence or deal then that will really set the press off. If more girls come out of the woodwork which is what tends to happen then we can expect more headlines. The press did a whole page on who Andrew has dated over they years and some of them aren't exactly what you would expect. Beatrice and Eugenie can't help who their parents are but I doubt they are thrilled by this but they will stick by their father just like they stuck by Sarah.
 
Last edited:
What I want to know is why hasn't Andrew been charged with a crime? There are parts of this story that just sound fishy.
 
What I want to know is why hasn't Andrew been charged with a crime? There are parts of this story that just sound fishy.
The statute of limitations has run out so the answer to your question depends on when the girl named him as one of the men. Also, because she was 17, it depends on where the encounter took place. If it took place in Florida, then there would be a crime. If it took place in a state where the age of consent is 16, there would not be a case.

In addition, the prosecutor would want some corroborating evidence. Was there any proof that Andrew was in Florida when the girl said he was, etc...
Meadow said:
Many here are saying Andrew must not be guilty and the girl is only after money without any evidence and are happy to call her a liar making Andrew the victim.
Agreed. Andrew's continued relationship with Epstein is unforgiveable in my book. To be clear, I am not condemning the girl, but her parents, who should have taken steps to protect her.

On the other hand, if the girl is telling the truth, I have some concerns pressing criminal charges merely based on where the encounter occurred. It was a crime in Florida but not New York, which can be very confusing for a nonresident. Personally, I believe the age of consent should be 16 or at the very least, uniform around the country.

The next question is whether he knew or should have known that she was forced into sexual slavery. Again, given the circumstances, it is hard to believe that, if true, it would have been obvious. We need more facts.

Regardless, if he did have sex with her, he would have been in his late 40s and she was less than half his age. I find it disgusting.
 
What I want to know is why hasn't Andrew been charged with a crime? There are parts of this story that just sound fishy.

As I understand it, even if he did the deeds of which are alleged against him, he did not commit a crime since the young woman in question was above the age of consent in the relevant jurisdictions at the time. If he did it, all he is guilty of is extraordinarily poor judgment and an enjoyment of sex with very young women, neither of which is a criminal offence.
 
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy

Funny.... :) reading the discussions about a 17 year old and how impetuous they are, where the parents were, who's fault and responsibility it is and is not...... I thought this WHOLE drama was regarding the abuse/sexual exploitation of underage girls? Are these girls considered minors by the courts/legal system but deemed capable by everyone else?
This is the reason why rape victims suffer the humiliation of proving they didn't ask for it!
You can argue til the cows come home. What on earth were adult men (over 40 year old men) doing with 17 year old girls? Unaccompanied 17 year old girls, who were providing massages, unaccompanied, to adult men.
Can't really see the confusion. And it has been suggested that money is a factor. Well my thinking is simple, if Epstein managed to silence any chance of a trial and further incarceration for him or his friends, how else can the truth be heard? What other avenues are there for the victims to speak out?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
The devil's advocate, sort of

I have made a few posts to this thread that have been rather open minded and supportive of PA, but I have read today's offerings where there has been a lot of "just how was she forced" sort of thing.

Well, here is a possibility (hope she doesn't read this board, don't want to give ideas:))
Rape through coercion i.e. If you don't, I will make sure something bad happens to you or someone you love. A 17 year old could be very susceptible to this sort of threat. "You better make sure my friend has a good time and never suspects, or else" fill in the blanks. Daddy losses his job, maybe Mom too. I'm rich and powerful, no one would believe you and you would be in terrible trouble, you could go to jail. Bad people always seem to tell the young people they are abusing that they (the young person) will be the one in trouble, "so you better not tell":eek:

Also, let us not forget that this woman was his employee. She could be setting up a huge sexual harassment suit. In the states, settlement for this can run to the millions and is probably the basis for Epstein's payoffs to some of the others.

If she is writing her memoirs, I wonder if she can quote the legal documents with out facing defamation liability because the court documents are protected??? I don't know. Could be the whole reason for the court filings.

I still think the entire story is a load of horse....Even more so now that the Queen has been dragged into it. PA has always been guilty of bad judgment and this friendship is just another example of his need for a keeper.
 
Funny.... :) reading the discussions about a 17 year old and how impetuous they are, where the parents were, who's fault and responsibility it is and is not...... I thought this WHOLE drama was regarding the abuse/sexual exploitation of underage girls? Are these girls considered minors by the courts/legal system but deemed capable by everyone else?
This is the reason why rape victims suffer the humiliation of proving they didn't ask for it!
You can argue til the cows come home. What on earth were adult men (over 40 year old men) doing with 17 year old girls? Unaccompanied 17 year old girls, who were providing massages, unaccompanied, to adult men.
Can't really see the confusion. And it has been suggested that money is a factor. Well my thinking is simple, if Epstein managed to silence any chance of a trial and further incarceration for him or his friends, how else can the truth be heard? What other avenues are there for the victims to speak out?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

You are mixing the discussion about the parents' culpability with that of the girl's. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask where the parents were when Epstein was spiriting children around all over the world--especially when one of the parents are calling for criminal charges against someone else.

Frankly, I find it reprehensible that some posters are trying to defend or minimize the parents' failure to protect their daughters. There is no way that my husband and I would every consent to our daughter flying all over the world unaccompanied to give massages to rich men. It defies belief.

The blame is on Epstein, the parents, and the men involved. However, whether the men involved are guilty of a crime depends on the age of the girls and the location of the encounter.

Regardless, we agree that if Andrew had sex with a 17 year old, no matter where it took place, he is a scumbag.
 
The fact is in my opinion if he was friends with Epstein all the years they have been reported to have been friends then he should have known for years who Epstein truly was. Secondly given PA's station in life it's a given you can't be hanging out with the people associated with things like this period. Call me crazy but seeing that Andrew is the father of two daughters he should not have wanted to be in this guys company to never to allow his name to be implicated into this type of yet another royal scandal.
 
This is an interesting article. Emphatic about not taking sides when it comes to allegations (cos that is all they are) - but not happy about how the law is being manipulated to allow "libellous" statements that cannot be challenged, when if the allegations were true, then they would be prosecuting directly.

I struggled with some of the american idiom, but it definitely raises questions

Jackleg lawyering, (im)pure and simple
 
I would also like to point out that women are raped and assaulted and men are accused of rape and assault and turn out to be innocent. Too often people do question a girls background and it can be humiliating at the same time, questioning motivations can uncover a false claim against an innocent person. There needs to be a balance to get to the truth, to protect a girl from humiliation and hard questions shouldn't be allowed st the cost of a good man's name. At the same time trying to figure out motivation of accusers shouldn't turn into blaming the victim or slut shaming.
 
Funny.... :) reading the discussions about a 17 year old and how impetuous they are, where the parents were, who's fault and responsibility it is and is not...... I thought this WHOLE drama was regarding the abuse/sexual exploitation of underage girls? Are these girls considered minors by the courts/legal system but deemed capable by everyone else?
This is the reason why rape victims suffer the humiliation of proving they didn't ask for it!
You can argue til the cows come home. What on earth were adult men (over 40 year old men) doing with 17 year old girls? Unaccompanied 17 year old girls, who were providing massages, unaccompanied, to adult men.
Can't really see the confusion. And it has been suggested that money is a factor. Well my thinking is simple, if Epstein managed to silence any chance of a trial and further incarceration for him or his friends, how else can the truth be heard? What other avenues are there for the victims to speak out?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

my thoughts exactly. The few users here going against the girls are gross. Victim blaming is never appropriate, regardless of your intentions.

Parents cannot always be responsible for their children and attempting to lay such a huge blame on them (like a user or two here have seem to have tried to do) is gross. The people who are responsible are the men/women who raped/assaulted these girls.
 
At the present time, these are allegations. PA is not being prosecuted and the civil case in US makes it impossible for him to defend himself in a court of law or, apparently, bring a case for libel (see post#556).

As in every case of he said/she said - both parties motivations and actions will be questioned. That isn't taking sides, that's the process in order to get to the truth.

My view is I dont have a view. I dont have all the facts.
 
This is an interesting article. Emphatic about not taking sides when it comes to allegations (cos that is all they are) - but not happy about how the law is being manipulated to allow "libellous" statements that cannot be challenged, when if the allegations were true, then they would be prosecuting directly.

I struggled with some of the american idiom, but it definitely raises questions

Jackleg lawyering, (im)pure and simple

Interesting, but he gets a lot of things wrong. From what I have read, part of this motion is an offer of proof in order to access government documents shedding light on how Esptein got such a favorable deal. These victims are entitled to do so. Nothing shady about it. Let's assume that Robert's allegations are true - there's nothing wrong with making them no matter how unsavory they are.

There is no direct criminal prosecution because Epstein's plea agreement included immunity for co-conspirators. That's why there's no direct criminal prosecution. Before there can be a civil prosecution, the claimants probably need the documents allegedly in possession of the government. To get those docs, they had to make an offer of proof in the motion. In any event, the statute of limitations is likely already passed for a direct civil prosecution.

He's claiming that none of the allegations of criminal wrongdoing against Andrew could survive a motion to dismiss if brought directly.
It's true that even if Robert's claims are true Andrew is not a "rapist" - she was above the age of consent in every spot where the acts took place. However, I'll bet there are trafficking charges - can you bring someone across state lines just to make them legal so you can have sex with them? I doubt it. That would be the crime here. I suggest this blogger read up on RICO.

He's also suggesting that the lawyers who brought this claim can be subject to sanctions. True, but highly unlikely. You have to have a "good faith basis" for bringing a claim. In almost every situation, you are entitled to believe your client, unless it's patently unbelievable. I don't see any sanctionable or conduct which would subject them to disbarment.

While this author purports to remain neutral on the allegations, he's seems to be saying one thing and writing another.
 
While I'm on the subject, I think it's laughable the notion that Andrew cannot defend himself against these allegations. When Roberts gave her story to the DM two days ago, separate and apart from allegations in court documents, he is now free to see her for libel. She threw down the gauntlet.

Let's see if he does so.
 
I'd like to get back to the poor judgement issue. Epstein was prosecuted in 2007 and went to jail in 2008. I give Prince Andrew the benefit of the doubt that whatever contact he had with this girl, he did not exactly know her age or Epstein's coercion. However, Epstein's shady doings were evident to everyone in 2008. Why did Andrew continue to associate with such a man till 2011? Why did Sarah Ferguson take money from this man in 2010? Especially when this couple has two daughters around the same age of these girls. Andrew is a grown - a**man. He knows better. Was he being blackmailed? Was it a money thing?

My son just joined a fraternity. My husband and I are having constant discussions with him about not participating in excess drinking and sexual abuse of girls at parties. When you see things jumping off wrong -- leave. And also just because the girl is drunk this is no excuse to participate in running a ' train' (gang rape). An adult man presented with a barely adult girl for a massage should have sense enough to say no thanks and leave.

I do agree P. Andrew was set up but he put himself in this position.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community
 
I'd like to get back to the poor judgement issue. Epstein was prosecuted in 2007 and went to jail in 2008. I give Prince Andrew the benefit of the doubt that whatever contact he had with this girl, he did not exactly know her age or Epstein's coercion. However, Epstein's shady doings were evident to everyone in 2008. Why did Andrew continue to associate with such a man till 2011? Why did Sarah Ferguson take money from this man in 2010? Especially when this couple has two daughters around the same age of these girls. Andrew is a grown - a**man. He knows better. Was he being blackmailed? Was it a money thing?

My son just joined a fraternity. My husband and I are having constant discussions with him about not participating in excess drinking and sexual abuse of girls at parties. When you see things jumping off wrong -- leave. And also just because the girl is drunk this is no excuse to participate in running a ' train' (gang rape). An adult man presented with a barely adult girl for a massage should have sense enough to say no thanks and leave.

I do agree P. Andrew was set up but he put himself in this position.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community


Don't think we should equate PA befriending a criminal to PA having sex with a minor. They are miles apart IMO.
 
You are right, it doesn't add up. My understanding is that most trafficking victims are cut off from their families and friends because they are runaways. I'm not saying the girl wasn't victimized--it's possible. But she is alleging she was forced to do it. If that is true, what hold did Epstein have over her? She was at least communicating with her parents. Had she moved out? How close to 18 was she? Was she out of school?




Likely He promised her glamour, easy money, meeting celebrities or wealthy men, enticed her with ideas of being a famous model or singer. People who prey on young or naïve persons know all the right things to say. Her being almost of age they might not have had that much hold on her... she was going to go anyway if Epstein had gotten his hold on her.
 
Last edited:
Don't think we should equate PA befriending a criminal to PA having sex with a minor. They are miles apart IMO.


I said whatever contact he had with this girl - it was poor judgement


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community
 
Don't think we should equate PA befriending a criminal to PA having sex with a minor. They are miles apart IMO.

Given the age of consent in the jurisdictions where she alleged that she slept with Andrew - NY, London and the Caribbean - and that in those places at that time the age of consent was 16 or 17 and she was 17 he didn't actually have 'sex with a minor' as legally for the purpose of having sex she wasn't a minor.

That is why the case had to be heard in Florida as in the other jurisdictions the case would have been thrown out from the get-go as it wasn't illegal.
 
Given the age of consent in the jurisdictions where she alleged that she slept with Andrew - NY, London and the Caribbean - and that in those places at that time the age of consent was 16 or 17 and she was 17 he didn't actually have 'sex with a minor' as legally for the purpose of having sex she wasn't a minor.

That is why the case had to be heard in Florida as in the other jurisdictions the case would have been thrown out from the get-go as it wasn't illegal.

Which case? I believe the incident Epstein pled guilty to was in state court in Florida and involved a 14 year old girl - not Ms. Roberts. Moreover I believe Ms. Roberts stated she was 15 when she was first paid to perform sexual acts w/ Epstein.
In exchange for that plea in Florida state court the Federal prosecutors agreed not to prosecute Epstein or his unnamed co-conspirators for breaking Federal law for incidents involving a potential additional 40 victims. Ms. Roberts was presumably one of that group of victims.
Note it is a bit odd for Federal prosecutors to plea bargain dropping their charges for pleading to a state crime. Usually it works the other way, state prosecutors drop their case if the Feds go after someone for the same conduct because the Feds tend to get harsher sentences.
I suspect Federal prosecutors were considering bringing charges under the Mann act which makes it a Federal crime to transport minors across state or international boundaries for sexual/molest purposes. For Federal prosecution a minor is defined as anyone under the age of 18.
So, for example, if the age of consent in London is 17 then you can legally have sex with a 17 year old in London. But if you take a 17 year old from anywhere in the United States (including even from a state which also has an age of consent of 17) to London intending to have sex with them (or delivering them to someone else so that person can have sex with or molest them) then you have committed a Federal crime. Anyone involved in the scheme could also be guilty as a co-conspirator.
 
When parents can be charged for neglect for leaving their children in a car unattended for 5 minutes I don't see how anyone can think these parents are not neglectful. These incidents happened in multiple countries. She would have needed a passport to access the country. Report her as abducted. Easy way to get her home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom