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.
Here's a description of Mr. Dershowitz' suit.

Dershowitz files court challenge to what he calls outrageous sex allegation - CNN.com

There is a PDF which strikes down all of Jane Doe #3's claims quite explicitly, and rather plainly points out her lies. This can only help Andrew, although this suit is only about AD.

Although few of Dershowitz' clients are good guys, Dershowitz himself has a reputation of being an upright and moral guy.
 
It's unfortunate that sometimes legitimate victims are not believed but we know that there are many times in which women make false allegations. Ask any Duke Lacrosse player. Being falsely accused of a crime like this can be devastating for the men and their families. It's a balancing act but I would not blindly believe the girl in this case anymore than I would blindly believe any of the men she accuses. I need to know more facts and then will decide whose story is more credible.

In this case, this girl did suffer sexual abuse by Epstein. I also think his sentence was too light. He should still be rotting in jail.

That doesn't mean that every word that comes out of the victim's mouth is true. If Andrew had consensual sex with her, he's a scumbag. But the issue is whether there is reason to believe that Andrew knew she was only 17 and/or that she was coerced into sexual slavery. I've seen no proof one way or another but I am waiting for more information.

I don't know the stat off hand, but I do know it's very rare for someone to make a false claim. Obviously false claims happen, but not as often as people want to pretend. Accusing someone of rape/assault is not something 99% of women in this world want to go through, regardless of whatever monetary payment they may receive. Some of the blatant victim blaming I've seen in this thread is too much.

If Andrew had sex with her, consensual or not, he's a pedophile. If he let a 17-year-old or younger give him a massage, he's a scumbag and a perv.

I've seen a lot of people who don't question anything regardless of if a girl/boy looks young or not and then they'll cry foul when it comes out that the person is a minor. If you're getting into a relationship with someone, you better be damn sure of their age or else sorry, I don't feel any sympathy.

Regardless of what Andrew's part is in this, he's a scumbag for not asking questions and for remaining friends with this guy.
 
The DM's Ephraim Hardcastle has an item that the reason Prince Andrew has no real friends is because he went to Gordonstoun instead of Eton. He said the same is true of Charles and Edward.


Interesting...Andrew doesn't seem to have detested Gordonstoun the way that Charles did, yet I wonder if there might be some truth to this?


I recall reading that Charles finally decided to opt for Eton when an acquaintance mentioned to him that the friends he'd made there became friends for life. That was what convinced him that Diana's choice of schools (Eton) was indeed the best one.
 
I don't know the stat off hand, but I do know it's very rare for someone to make a false claim. Obviously false claims happen, but not as often as people want to pretend. Accusing someone of rape/assault is not something 99% of women in this world want to go through, regardless of whatever monetary payment they may receive. Some of the blatant victim blaming I've seen in this thread is too much.

If Andrew had sex with her, consensual or not, he's a pedophile. If he let a 17-year-old or younger give him a massage, he's a scumbag and a perv.

I've seen a lot of people who don't question anything regardless of if a girl/boy looks young or not and then they'll cry foul when it comes out that the person is a minor. If you're getting into a relationship with someone, you better be damn sure of their age or else sorry, I don't feel any sympathy.

Regardless of what Andrew's part is in this, he's a scumbag for not asking questions and for remaining friends with this guy.
I would be interested in seeing those stats if you can find them. Dershowitz is claiming that he can prove his innocence. It is also very possible that the reason for the plea bargain prosecutor felt that the veracity of the girls was so compromised that he couldn't make the case. We don't have enough information right now.

Regarding Andrew, I agree that he never should have remained friends with Epstein. He is a scum bag if he did sleep with a 17 year old girl. I wouldn't say he is a pedophile though because the age of consent in many places in 16 and the girl was 17. The issue is whether he "lobbied" for Epstein's sweetheart deal. If true, it may not be criminal but it was certainly immoral.
 
Dershowitz is absolutely trying to get the Jane Does to back off, which is perfectly acceptable if the Jane Does are lying. He doesn't really have any choice. If they are telling the truth, then it's another reprehensible act.

I have an uneasy feeling about this defamation action. Defamation is a civil action so I am assuming he can discontinue if he wants, i.e. if he manages to bully the women into backing off. If he's innocent and they are lying, he is entitled to seek to clear his name and I'll be pleased to see him succeed, but it's possible they are right and he is just using his power and influence and money to frighten them into submission, and if that's the case, it is indeed reprehensible.
 
...
Although few of Dershowitz' clients are good guys, Dershowitz himself has a reputation of being an upright and moral guy.

Well, other than that whole plagerism thing and a few other matters.
 
Here's a description of Mr. Dershowitz' suit.

Dershowitz files court challenge to what he calls outrageous sex allegation - CNN.com

There is a PDF which strikes down all of Jane Doe #3's claims quite explicitly, and rather plainly points out her lies. This can only help Andrew, although this suit is only about AD.

Although few of Dershowitz' clients are good guys, Dershowitz himself has a reputation of being an upright and moral guy.

Well Dershowitz IS a criminal attorney is he not. From what I know of him he is VERY upright .... but hey, even crooks need lawyers. :) He is just very very good at what he does but he is not a crook himself. This will be interesting.
 
I don't know the stat off hand, but I do know it's very rare for someone to make a false claim. Obviously false claims happen, but not as often as people want to pretend. Accusing someone of rape/assault is not something 99% of women in this world want to go through, regardless of whatever monetary payment they may receive. Some of the blatant victim blaming I've seen in this thread is too much.



If Andrew had sex with her, consensual or not, he's a pedophile. If he let a 17-year-old or younger give him a massage, he's a scumbag and a perv.



I've seen a lot of people who don't question anything regardless of if a girl/boy looks young or not and then they'll cry foul when it comes out that the person is a minor. If you're getting into a relationship with someone, you better be damn sure of their age or else sorry, I don't feel any sympathy.



Regardless of what Andrew's part is in this, he's a scumbag for not asking questions and for remaining friends with this guy.


I agree with you victim bashing going on here is disgusting and that is why rape often doesn't get reported.
Most people have thought Andrew was a scumbag for some time there has always been stories about him. Can't all be others fault etc


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I don't know the stat off hand, but I do know it's very rare for someone to make a false claim. Obviously false claims happen, but not as often as people want to pretend. Accusing someone of rape/assault is not something 99% of women in this world want to go through, regardless of whatever monetary payment they may receive. Some of the blatant victim blaming I've seen in this thread is too much.

If Andrew had sex with her, consensual or not, he's a pedophile. If he let a 17-year-old or younger give him a massage, he's a scumbag and a perv.

I've seen a lot of people who don't question anything regardless of if a girl/boy looks young or not and then they'll cry foul when it comes out that the person is a minor. If you're getting into a relationship with someone, you better be damn sure of their age or else sorry, I don't feel any sympathy.

Regardless of what Andrew's part is in this, he's a scumbag for not asking questions and for remaining friends with this guy.

According to a study that I've heard mentioned many times recently, approximately 3% of rape/sexual assault accusations are false (though I've also heard a figure saying that it's between 2% and 8% - those two numbers apparently come from the United States Department of Justice and the FBI). Unfortunately, I don't recall which specific study the 3% number came from, but it's one I've heard most frequently cited in light of a lot of recent rape discussions (Bill Cosby, UVA, etc.). I tried to do a bit of googling on the subject just now, and it seems that many take most of these studies with a grain of salt. However, yes, in the grand scheme of things, false claims seem quite rare. In fact, the vast majority of incidents of sexual assault that do occur aren't reported to law enforcement. So claiming to be a victim of rape isn't exactly something that most women are particularly eager to do. And most women know that they're opening themselves up to a lot of scrutiny and victim-blaming by doing so.

That said, I have no idea what's happened in this case. Of course, I hope the allegations against Andrew aren't true. It does seem he's exercised some bad judgment in terms of his choice of friends - which isn't a crime, of course, just extremely unfortunate.
 
Dershowitz's affidavit is interesting, to say the least.
 
:previous: Yes!!!!!!!:flowers: Epstein and his ilk are despicable, but that doesn't give his victims the right to make all kinds of allegations. After what those girls went through, and what it must have done to their young, vulnerable minds and bodies...shudder...I don't think that their psyches couldn't have come out damaged in some way. They have suffered trauma, and they shouldn't have to suffer more. However, if they're implicating people who weren't involved with them, they need to be held accountable for that. :ermm:
That is a very valid statement. It is a confirmed fact that those girls were Epstein's victims and I do not think anyone is silly enough to deny a court verdict. However, if they have defamed innocent men to flesh out and validate their civil suit claiming damages against Epstein then those men are their "victims"

Basically, two wrongs don't make a right. Nor is looking at the evidence "victim" bashing.

I have an uneasy feeling about this defamation action. Defamation is a civil action so I am assuming he can discontinue if he wants, i.e. if he manages to bully the women into backing off. If he's innocent and they are lying, he is entitled to seek to clear his name and I'll be pleased to see him succeed, but it's possible they are right and he is just using his power and influence and money to frighten them into submission, and if that's the case, it is indeed reprehensible.
Both the Jane Doe's suit and the defamation suit are Civil. This man is fighting for his reputation and if he has proof that he was not where the "victims" claimed he was, it stands to reason that he cannot be guilty of anything. If his case is proven then it stands to reason that the other men mentioned may also be innocent as well.

If Dershowitz wins his suit, it is not victim bashing. But it would raise questions as to the veracity of the "victims" suit.
I agree with you victim bashing going on here is disgusting and that is why rape often doesn't get reported.
Most people have thought Andrew was a scumbag for some time there has always been stories about him. Can't all be others fault etc.
Count me as someone who has thought all sorts of things about Andrew. Being a scumbag is not one of them.
 
Last edited:
I don't know the stat off hand, but I do know it's very rare for someone to make a false claim. Obviously false claims happen, but not as often as people want to pretend. Accusing someone of rape/assault is not something 99% of women in this world want to go through, regardless of whatever monetary payment they may receive. Some of the blatant victim blaming I've seen in this thread is too much.

If Andrew had sex with her, consensual or not, he's a pedophile. If he let a 17-year-old or younger give him a massage, he's a scumbag and a perv.

I've seen a lot of people who don't question anything regardless of if a girl/boy looks young or not and then they'll cry foul when it comes out that the person is a minor. If you're getting into a relationship with someone, you better be damn sure of their age or else sorry, I don't feel any sympathy.

Regardless of what Andrew's part is in this, he's a scumbag for not asking questions and for remaining friends with this guy.

A quick google search said 2%.

MAAN » Myths about false accusation

However, I don't agree with your claim that someone who has sex with a 17 year old is a pedophile. There isn't much of a difference between a 17 yr old and an 18 yr old. A 17 yr old can make (stupid) dicisions (just like an 18 yr old) but it's not the same as raping a 5 yr old or even a 12 yr old like Polanski.
 
Yes, it is. If he's telling the truth, it would seem Jane Doe #3 is lying, or very mistaken as to the identity of the person with whom she had sex on those occasions.

Here's a link for anyone who hasn't seen it yet: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/01/06/dershowitz.declaration.pdf.

I'm really hoping that this defamation declaration filed by Mr. Dershowitz takes all the wind out of the sails of Jane Doe #3 and her lawyers. Not only does he give specifics of who he was with, where he was and for how long, he also cites measures to determine just what really happened.

Another factor in Mr. Dershowitz's favor, I think, is the allegations that Jane Doe #3 and her legal representatives made it a point to make sure it got wide spread coverage in the media to the point of even advising the BBC on which questions to ask Dershowitz in interviews.
 
I wonder why Vicki Ward didn't call the police long ago?
Some girls might have been spared their suffering.
Her account shows Epstein to be a very dangerous, deviant and manipulative man. She was clearly afraid of him herself.
It seems that Vicki saw her only options as publishing the dreadful details that she had been told or not publishing them.
 
I guess Andrew will just bury his head in the sand on these allegations?
 
I wonder why Vicki Ward didn't call the police long ago?
Some girls might have been spared their suffering.
Her account shows Epstein to be a very dangerous, deviant and manipulative man. She was clearly afraid of him herself.
It seems that Vicki saw her only options as publishing the dreadful details that she had been told or not publishing them.

I wondered the same thing. Regardless of what Vicki Ward did, I would have contacted the authorities if my daughter were involved. Perhaps it was frightening but I would rather trust the police to protect me and my family rather than allow someone to sexually abuse my child.

Isabella said:
According to a study that I've heard mentioned many times recently, approximately 3% of rape/sexual assault accusations are false (though I've also heard a figure saying that it's between 2% and 8% - those two numbers apparently come from the United States Department of Justice and the FBI). Unfortunately, I don't recall which specific study the 3% number came from, but it's one I've heard most frequently cited in light of a lot of recent rape discussions (Bill Cosby, UVA, etc.). I tried to do a bit of googling on the subject just now, and it seems that many take most of these studies with a grain of salt. However, yes, in the grand scheme of things, false claims seem quite rare. In fact, the vast majority of incidents of sexual assault that do occur aren't reported to law enforcement. So claiming to be a victim of rape isn't exactly something that most women are particularly eager to do. And most women know that they're opening themselves up to a lot of scrutiny and victim-blaming by doing so.

That said, I have no idea what's happened in this case. Of course, I hope the allegations against Andrew aren't true. It does seem he's exercised some bad judgment in terms of his choice of friends - which isn't a crime, of course, just extremely unfortunate.
Thanks. I did some googling last night and found this report, which discusses the difficulties in determining exactly how to determine whether a report is false. It concluded that 5.9% of sexual assault reports are false but acknowledges several other studies show a smaller percentage of false reporting. www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf

I think that the allegations against Prince Andrew and Dershowitz are not same type of sexual assault. There is no doubt that Epstein sexually abused the girls, but I don't think that means that every man who had sex with them is a rapist.

Assuming that if Jane Doe #3 was 17 years old (over the age of consent in most jurisdictions) and had sex with Andrew, does the fact that Epstein forced her into prostitution mean that Andrew is a rapist? Jane Doe's scumbag father said she was excited about meeting Andrew, does it follow that he would have had to force himself on her? Most prostitutes are being coerced but is every man who uses a prostitute guilty of sexual assault? The men are scum bags, but I wouldn't call them rapists.

Regarding Dershowitz suit, the affidavit is interesting. The private plane would have passenger manifests. It will cast doubt on Jane Doe's credibility if Dershowitz can use those manifests to prove that he was only on the private island once with his wife and daughter. But what if several eyewitnesses come forward to allege he was at the New Mexico house more than once?

The problem with these types of allegations is that it boils down to he said/she said. I can decide who I want to believe but I could be wrong. That is what makes these types of cases very difficult to prosecute.
 
Last edited:
I guess Andrew will just bury his head in the sand on these allegations?
The palace has issued several forceful denials. Are you suggesting that he should file a lawsuit?

Even if the allegations are false, it may be very hard for Andrew to disprove them. I doubt if he was on the private island with his daughters sleeping in the same room. There is at least one witness to Andrew being present during some of the unsavory pool parties. Filing a lawsuit would just keep the headlines going and what if he loses?
 
The palace has issued several forceful denials. Are you suggesting that he should file a lawsuit?

Even if the allegations are false, it may be very hard for Andrew to disprove them. I doubt if he was on the private island with his daughters sleeping in the same room. There is at least one witness to Andrew being present during some of the unsavory pool parties. Filing a lawsuit would just keep the headlines going and what if he loses?

Being accused of stuff like this is pretty serious. I'd do just about anything to clear my name from these accusations. Lack of action on Andrew's part will just be another attempt to sweep the dirty dishes under the palace carpet. His reputation is on the line once again, although it's been damaged enough.
 
Being accused of stuff like this is pretty serious. I'd do just about anything to clear my name from these accusations. Lack of action on Andrew's part will just be another attempt to sweep the dirty dishes under the palace carpet. His reputation is on the line once again, although it's been damaged enough.

Let's try thinking this through. In order to win a lawsuit against the allegations, Prince Andrew has to prove they aren't true. Ask yourself, how can he do that.

We know that Prince Andrew met the young woman in question. It is undeniable. There is a picture of them together. Unlike Dershowitz, Prince Andrew apparently didn't have his family with him when he went to the private island. Do you honestly think that he has witnesses who can PROVE that he was never alone with her by accounting for every minute he was on the island? I don't.

So what will happen in court. Prince Andrew will testify that he wasn't alone with her and she will say he was. Even if he's telling the truth, he could still lose. If he loses, many people will think that it is a confirmation that he is guilty and his reputation will suffer more.
 
Duke of York's accuser Virginia Roberts sues Harvard law professor - Telegraph
A woman who claims to have had underage sex with prominent US criminal defence lawyer Alan Dershowitz has filed a counter defamation lawsuit against him.

Former federal judge Paul Cassell and Florida plaintiffs attorney Bradley Edwards filed the lawsuit in a Florida circuit court, accusing Mr Dershowitz of initiating a public media assault on Virginia Roberts's reputation and character, according to court documents.

In a filing in Florida federal court last week, Mr Cassell and Mr Edwards said their client Ms Roberts, who is identified as Jane Doe #3, was forced as a minor by financier Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with several people, including Dershowitz and Britain's Prince Andrew.
 

If Dershowitz wins the suit, it will help Prince Andrew's reputation but if he loses, it will be worse.

I don't know if Dershowitz felt he had any choice though. He's a smart lawyer so I find it hard to believe he was on the private island without his family, since that can be easily shown by the private jet manifest (I assume there wasn't another way to get to the island). If the manifests proves that he was there for one night with his wife and daughter, then I think it will be a major blow to Jane Doe's credibility.
 
Let's try thinking this through. In order to win a lawsuit against the allegations, Prince Andrew has to prove they aren't true. Ask yourself, how can he do that.

We know that Prince Andrew met the young woman in question. It is undeniable. There is a picture of them together. Unlike Dershowitz, Prince Andrew apparently didn't have his family with him when he went to the private island. Do you honestly think that he has witnesses who can PROVE that he was never alone with her by accounting for every minute he was on the island? I don't.

So what will happen in court. Prince Andrew will testify that he wasn't alone with her and she will say he was. Even if he's telling the truth, he could still lose. If he loses, many people will think that it is a confirmation that he is guilty and his reputation will suffer more.

Not only that but during a deposition the attorneys can ask Andrew a wide array of questions - including a lot of particulars about the exact nature of his relationship with Epstein, questions on how many visits, where, who else was there, massages, etc.

Even if he has nothing to hide with regards to Roberts and any other minor, I doubt he wants to divulge these ancillary matters - in other words, he'll win the battle but lose the war.
 
I hope if Roberts is not yet again being led astray, but by her lawyers this time. I do believe her motive is money and that can be very tempting to keep going. I'm just wondering if this is a case of lawyers comparing who has the bigger d*ck and trying to take down someone like Dershowitz, of course they could also be completely taken in by a compulsive liar. OR, of course, she could be telling the truth, however at the very least I suspect there is a great deal of "embellishment" to her story.
 
Why would someone be stupid enough to try to question ZARA??:bang:
Not just stupid. Mean. What is Zara supposed to say? The reporters are trying to put the royal family on the defensive. Regardless of what happened, Andrew is an adult and there is no evidence any other member of the royal family was involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom