The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy (2010-2020)

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Time heals everything. In the coming ten years we probably will have King Charles, the Prince of Wales, young Prince George going to his teenage years. The Duke of York will, like the Kents, the Gloucesters, the Princess Royal and the Wessexes more and more fade away to the shadows of "the extended royal family". Then something shady once claimed by an US citizen without any proof, document, witness, will soon be history. Internet is full with bogus stories.

Oh I agree. Right or wrong, truth or false, in ten years time, most of this will be forgotten except for the people insisting there was more to-it! We still have people insisting the Warren Report was fake and that JFK was shot by more than one person. Most Americans could now care less. It was too long ago and if report not true, don't waste money investigating as another theory won't matter. People get away with many things everyday, the richer ones can hide more. Fact of life. Will I always think that Epstein is a slob low-life? Yes. Will I always think he got a sweetheart deal of 18 months in jail for all he did? Yes. Will I always feel that someone stepped in to grant Epstein a favor by getting him silly light sentence? Yes. Was it Andrew? I don't know. Was it a government official? I don't know. Won't loose sleep over it one way or another. But, someone should.

[Dman]

Interesting, so the evidence Epstein has hidden away will never come to light?

[MARG]

I hardly think that Prince Andrew had any pull in the US. Friends and acquaintances yes, but any with the power to "influence" allegedly brought to bear on Epstein's sentence would have been done by very wealthy and influential people whose reasons we will never know.

To even think that Andrew had that amount of leverage in the US is ludicrous. To be honest, who really knows him in the US? Now, someone like Prince Albert, maybe, but I still doubt it.

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

. . . . . Bertie, it is not equal proof, at least not here in the U.S.

By going into court with this, Roberts has subjected herself to the possibility of federal perjury charges - likely felonies, should she be proven a liar, to the possibility of sanctions should this be proven a frivolous litigation, and to the derision of the world, and the possibility of making enemies of some very powerful people. Most of us would think twice about going into Federal court with true information, let alone false, under such circumstances.

Obvious not Miss Roberts!

But, with proof positive that neither Al or Tipper Gore didn't visit the island and let's not forget that she most definitely did meet the Queen, how much more credibility does she have to lose before some people will say the Andrew told the truth and Virginia Roberts did not.

Gracie said that Virginia's "word" was more believable because, when faced with having to give evidence under oath she would have had to commit perjury. Obviously Gracie's belief is founded on an innate decency and honesty, qualities that Miss Roberts would appear to be lacking.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Dman

Interesting, so the evidence Epstein has hidden away will never come to light?

I'm trying to think of circumstances in which Epstein would want to produce those videos and photographs. The power of those items is in preventing the men depicted in them from testifying against him. They are more likely to be produced if they fall into the hands of people who want to help the Jane Does in their continuing fight to have the plea bargain overturned and Epstein, and any possible co-conspirators, be held accountable under Federal law. It is in Epstein's interests for things to stay as they are and for him to retain possession of the tapes etc. - if they exist - since he can continue to call in favours from the people in them.

A judge still has to make a decision about Roberts' application to join the proceedings commenced by Jane Does 1 & 2. Even if her application is refused, the other two still have their case running. If they get their hands on and of those photos and/or tapes, that material could still be used in evidence.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by MARG

But, with proof positive that neither Al or Tipper Gore didn't visit the island and let's not forget that she most definitely did meet the Queen, how much more credibility does she have to lose before some people will say the Andrew told the truth and Virginia Roberts did not.

Marg, and anyone else, can you direct me to the allegations about the Gores? And the source of Roberts' allegations she met the Queen. And also the proof positive that neither of the Gores visited Epstein's island resort. US Citizens don't need passports to go the US Virgin Islands, so what is the proof? Their word alone?

[Mermaid1962]

IIRC it was her father who said that she met the Queen, and he later backed down.

[Rudolph]

Emily Nash @emynash
A US judge has ordered sex abuse allegations made by Virginia Roberts against #PrinceAndrew to be struck from the record.


Emily Nash ‏@emynash 19 secs20 seconds ago
District Judge Kenneth Marra also rejected Virginia Roberts's attempt to join a lawsuit against #PrinceAndrew's former pal Jeffrey Epstein

[amaryllus]

Just one more Royal scandal for the books.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Emily Nash @emynash
A US judge has ordered sex abuse allegations made by Virginia Roberts against #PrinceAndrew to be struck from the record.


Emily Nash ‏@emynash 19 secs20 seconds ago
District Judge Kenneth Marra also rejected Virginia Roberts's attempt to join a lawsuit against #PrinceAndrew's former pal Jeffrey Epstein

Seems fair based on her contradicting statements. I hope that the other girls isn't hurt by this and get retribution if any wrongdoing was done.

[Dman]

Still don't know what's true or not. Another dirty dish swept under the carpet.

[Mermaid1962]

The judge must have concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to include Prince Andrew in the record. And no, I don't think that the Prince has enough sway in the US to have orchestrated some kind of cover-up. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

The judge must have concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to include Prince Andrew in the record. And no, I don't think that the Prince has enough sway in the US to have orchestrated some kind of cover-up. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Was all possible evidence presented? What happened to all the evidence Epstein held back from the courts?

[Mermaid1962]

Prince Andrew wasn't on trial. As for the 'hidden evidence', I don't think there's real proof--such as the videos and photographs--that it actually exists. There are rumors. Rumors aren't proof, and I'm not one who believes that 'where there's smoke, there's fire.'

[Dman]

Judge strikes out claims teenager was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew from lawsuit against convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein-
Prince Andrew judge rules Virginia Roberts can't join lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein | Daily Mail Online

[Mermaid1962]

The judge has completely rejected her claim; she's not allowed to join the lawsuit. "Allegations that a 17-year-old was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew have been sensationally erased after his accuser Virginia Roberts' bid to join a lawsuit was rejected by a U.S. judge."

Read more: Prince Andrew judge rules Virginia Roberts can't join lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

The judge has completely rejected her claim; she's not allowed to join the lawsuit. "Allegations that a 17-year-old was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew have been sensationally erased after his accuser Virginia Roberts' bid to join a lawsuit was rejected by a U.S. judge."

Read more: Prince Andrew judge rules Virginia Roberts can't join lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Stay tuned folks. My crystal ball tells me that next up will be appearances on major talk shows on all channels plugging Robert's soon to be released "memoirs".

Lots of attention and making lots of money should put her right back into the lifestyle she became acclimated to while with Epstein eh?

[AdmirerUS]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

The judge has completely rejected her claim; she's not allowed to join the lawsuit. "Allegations that a 17-year-old was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew have been sensationally erased after his accuser Virginia Roberts' bid to join a lawsuit was rejected by a U.S. judge."

Read more: Prince Andrew judge rules Virginia Roberts can't join lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

How do you sensationally erase something? Just asking.

[Mermaid1962]

Have it reported by the Daily Mail.

[Mermaid1962]

I think you're right. Well, that should make up for the money she won't receive since she's not a party to the lawsuit anymore. I hope that at least one of the interviews is hard-ball.

Originally Posted by Osipi

Stay tuned folks. My crystal ball tells me that next up will be appearances on major talk shows on all channels plugging Robert's soon to be released "memoirs".

Lots of attention and making lots of money should put her right back into the lifestyle she became acclimated to while with Epstein eh?

[soapstar]

So if I'm reading this right, the judge didn't actually state whether her claims were true or false, he just said that the details weren't needed when deciding to reopen this case against Epstein.

So does this mean that she can still testify if the case is reopened?