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.
I am not. I knew the State Attorney would advice the Court to reject the case when it became clear that former Vice-President and Mrs Gore have never ever set foot on Epstein’s private island, contrary to Ms Roberts' claim.

Then the strong improbability that the United States Secret Service would ever have allowed Mr Epstein’s girlfriend (then a novice helicopter pilot) to fly the sitting President of the United States to the island like Ms Roberts had claimed...

The legal defences from Mr Epstein, Mr Dershowitz, Mrs Maxwell, they would have used bazookas to blow all claims by Ms Roberts in shatters. So the State Attorney had to be sure, very sure, that he had a strong case with a clear evidence. He had not.
 
Last edited:
I am not. I knew the State Attorney would advice the Court to reject the case when it became clear that former Vice-President and Mrs Gore have never ever set foot on Epstein’s private island, contrary to Ms Roberts' claim.

Then the strong improbability that the United States Secret Service would ever have allowed Mr Epstein’s girlfriend (then a novice helicopter pilot) to fly the sitting President of the United States to the island like Ms Roberts had claimed...

She was claiming all this? :ermm: I have not followed any of it closely. This explains it. They did their due diligence and find her story wanting. She over-reached methinks, so if there is any smidgeon of truth to her essential grievance, she's lost all credibility. Very sad situation for her, but she made her choices.
 
The following phrases sum it up:


[...]

In the new filing at Palm Beach County Court, prosecutors say Roberts was happy to receive an out-of-court settlement from Epstein, knowing the non-prosecution agreement had been signed.


[...]

Legal experts said prosecutors had a strong case and believe it is likely a judge will side with them. US lawyer Charles Hayes said: ‘The government just have to prove Roberts was aware of the [immunity] agreement and a judge will favour them.'

[...]

:flowers:
 
She was claiming all this? :ermm: I have not followed any of it closely. This explains it. They did their due diligence and find her story wanting. She over-reached methinks, so if there is any smidgeon of truth to her essential grievance, she's lost all credibility. Very sad situation for her, but she made her choices.

Yep, she claimed all of this. But to be fair, she did state that Al or Tipper Gore were not involved in any of the shenanigans. She just said that she met them once and they seemed like a beautiful couple.

Bill was not a sitting president at the time of the alleged helicopter ride. He had just left office. Virginia claimed that Maxwell Ghislaine (not Epstein's girlfriend) flew him to the island. She never says from where, but I assume Maxwell picked him up from the local airport and dropped him off at the island - since it looks like the only way to get to the island from the airport is by air. According to Virginia, Maxwell got her license a couple of years before, so it's not inconceivable that she could have flown a short distance with a co-pilot.
 
:previous: Given your first quote, I think that perhaps this latest suit really was 'all about the money.'
 
Yep, she claimed all of this. But to be fair, she did state that Al or Tipper Gore were not involved in any of the shenanigans. She just said that she met them once and they seemed like a beautiful couple.

She never claimed the shenanigans part, but she claimed Vice-President and Mrs Gore were at Mr Epstein's island. When the US State Attorney and/or the lawyers from Epstein/Maxwell/Dershowitz/&tc. can prove this is nonsense, her already not too solid credibility is in shatters...
 
As far as Andrew is concerned however the mud will stick and the name calling 'paedo' etc is all over the internet with many people already believing he is guilty and without a 'day in court' and a clear judgement in his favour his reputation will remain in tatters.
 
:previous: Yes, the mud will stick. However, I think that even if Prince Andrew went to court to deny that anything happened, the mud would still stick. It's so unfortunate that he's had shady friends over the years, because it means that everything he does is now suspect.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Interesting, so the evidence Epstein has hidden away will never come to light?
 
:previous: 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.
. . . . . 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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
IIRC it was her father who said that she met the Queen, and he later backed down.
 
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
 
Last edited:
Just one more Royal scandal for the books.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Still don't know what's true or not. Another dirty dish swept under the carpet.
 
:previous: 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.
 
:previous: 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?
 
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.'
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.:D I hope that at least one of the interviews is hard-ball.

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?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom