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.
Could I ask fellow posters if other people are being named in any of these actions and if not why do you think that is?

To be honest, I don't think Giuffre actually ever expects to really win a settlement off of Andrew but as he's a very well known name, son of the most iconic Queen in the world and just happens to have a character that everyone seems to believe is an arrogant, entitled and egocentric one, he's the perfect mark to assure that as the case against Maxwell gets ready to hit the courts, Giuffre's story doesn't get forgotten along the way.

At this point it doesn't matter what Andrew did or didn't do. These allegations have stuck to him like glue and have changed forevermore the path of his life. Nothing ever is going to change that.

Besides, as someone else has mentioned, anyone else would really lawyer up and fight back. If they were powerful and influential enough to be part of Epstein's inner circle of friends, they are powerful and influential enough still to really take on Giuffre's allegations and win. Y'know the type. Those that knew exactly how to get Epstein that "sweetheart deal" in the first place. ;)
 
Virginia Giuffre herself has been slammed with a lawsuit searching for 20 million US Dollar in damages...

In a series of tweets of October 2020 Virginia asserted that a certain Ms Rina Oh was Epstein’s girlfriend and recruited girls for him to abuse.

The filed lawsuit says that Virginia Giuffre “has maliciously reiterated and republished these defamations and slanders in prior and subsequent tweets and interviews on podcasts, TV and for magazines, as well as in her memoirs entitled ‘Billionaire’s Playboy Club.’”

The “defamations and slanders” are causing Ms Rina Oh “great harm,” including humiliation, shame, disgrace, mental anguish, loss of life enjoyment and anxiety and emotion distress,” the lawsuit says.

https://newsbinding.com/uk-news/pri...-sex-assault-lawsuit-by-virginia-giuffre/amp/
 
This is no surprise to me at all. It happens too many times for me to not believe that it is the way of things. What you put out in this world comes right back at you.
 
Oh gosh. This saga has more twists and turns than an amusement park rollercoaster.

Who the heck could "Rina Oh" be??

Poor QE II.
 
For so far he is not guilty to anything at all and this process is about Ms Maxwell. The accuser of the Duke, Ms Giuffre, is no part because of an earlier agreement she reached with Ms Maxwell.

The current trial of Ghislaine Maxwell relates to criminal charges brought against her by United States prosecutors, which are not impacted by previous agreements in civil cases. Ms. Giuffre is not participating in Ms. Maxwell's criminal trial because neither the prosecution nor the defense has chosen to put her on the witness stand.


It has been known for about a decade that Andrew travelled on that plane ... the pilot even gave dates but at least two of the dates the pilot gave were proven to be impossible as he was undertaking official duties in the UK according to the CC.

Can you recall where you have that information from? Entries from Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs obtained and published by the Daily Mail in August 2019 confirmed that Virginia Giuffre was in London, New York, and Mr. Epstein's private island at the times when she says she met the Duke of York in those locations. The Court Circular did not reveal the Duke of York's whereabouts at those times, and when contacted for comment, Buckingham Palace refused to disclose his whereabouts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ve-Duke-Yorks-Epstein-girl-key-locations.html


The flight logs for Epstein's luxury black Gulfstream jet are not publicly available 'at the request of the owner', but the Mail has obtained entries for March and April 2001, showing Miss Roberts being flown on a six-day whirlwind tour from Palm Beach to Canada, Paris, Grenada in Spain, Tangier in Morocco, and finally touching down at London's Luton airport on March 9.

There is nothing in the Court Circular about the duke's whereabouts, but Miss Roberts claims this was when the now-notorious photo was taken of herself with him at Miss Maxwell's London apartment. A month later, on Monday April 9, the duke began an official visit to the US in his capacity as chairman of the trustees of the Outward Bound Trust.

That day's Court Circular states he departed 'this morning' from London's Heathrow Airport, arriving in New York later that day. As it was an official trip, the flight was funded by British taxpayers.

The same day, Miss Roberts also flew to New York. She and Epstein left his £8million mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, and the flight log shows they flew aboard his 22-seat Gulfstream –with its personalised licence code ending 'JE' – to New York via Atlantic City.

Although Miss Roberts and the duke were both in New York, there is no information to suggest whether they met, and the Palace has declined to comment, beyond denying they had any 'relationship'.

The next morning, a Tuesday, the Duke flew to Boston for a series of royal engagements. According to Miss Roberts' claims in newspaper interviews, it was around this time – Easter – that she was ordered to Epstein's mansion in New York and met Andrew again.

Yesterday the Palace was specifically asked if he met Miss Roberts at this time, and it declined to answer, other than to say he denies any sexual encounters with her.

The next meeting she recounts was in the Caribbean. The flight logs show that Miss Roberts and Epstein left New York on April 11 aboard the jet for St Thomas, in the US Virgin Islands, for a boat transfer to Epstein's private island next door.

The Court Circular does not state the duke's whereabouts for the next few days, but it appears he too flew south – because by Easter Sunday, April 15, he was reportedly 'in the Bahamas'. He had been absent from the Queen's Easter service at Windsor Castle, and a royal courtier explained to the Daily Telegraph, which published the titbit, that he was on holiday in the Bahamas with ex-wife Sarah Ferguson and their daughters.

It is unknown when the duke arrived in the Bahamas – about a two-hour flight from Epstein's island – or when he left. Yesterday the Mail asked Buckingham Palace whether Andrew stopped at Epstein's island en-route to the Bahamas. A spokesman again declined to confirm or deny the suggestion.

According to Miss Roberts' claims, the duke was there for one night. She claimed she flew to the island with Epstein and Miss Maxwell – which is confirmed by the flight logs. The Mail asked the palace a series of questions about Prince Andrew's movements that week but none of them were answered.
 
Last edited:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...emories-fade-false-memories-created-accusing/

In legal documents lodged with a New York court, Prince Andrew's lawyers argue that, as Virginia Roberts Giuffre was 17 - the age of consent in New York - at the time of the alleged offences, she must prove that she was forced to have sex with him.

Her attempts to implicate him by "implied threat" 20 years on could simply not be verified, they suggest. The court papers also reiterate that the "plain language" of a 2009 financial agreement Ms Giuffre made with Jeffrey Epstein prevents her from suing the 61-year-old Duke.

[...]

Lawyers for the Duke responded in a memorandum filed yesterday: "These highly subjective determinations are the kind most likely to be hampered by the passage of time, as memories fade, false memories are created, and witnesses die or otherwise become unavailable. Here, the only witnesses to the purported implied threats under which Giuffre allegedly engaged in unconsented sex acts with Prince Andrew are Epstein (deceased), Maxwell (incarcerated), Prince Andrew (the accused) and Giuffre herself."

[...]

Judge Lewis Kaplan will hear arguments on the motion to dismiss the case at a hearing scheduled for Jan 4.

He has indicated he intends to unseal the 2009 agreement Ms Giuffre made with Epstein that has proved central to the Duke's efforts to get the case thrown out.

Prince Andrew has argued that the document invalidates Ms Giuffre's claim because she agreed not to pursue legal action against Epstein's associates. It is understood to include a reference to royalty.
 
During the Ghislane Maxwell trial a victim described how she was 'introduced' to Trump when she was only 14, similar stories on Clinton.
Why it that only Prince Andrew is getting called a pedophile? I'm not saying he is innocent but the third son of the Queen is not important as much as the president of United States of America.
Potentially two of US presidents had 'sexual' encounters with minors and American tabloids only talk about Andrew. Seems like Andrew is the man they decided to sacrifice publicly because the other names were so much more relevant.
 
During the Ghislane Maxwell trial a victim described how she was 'introduced' to Trump when she was only 14, similar stories on Clinton.
Why it that only Prince Andrew is getting called a pedophile? I'm not saying he is innocent but the third son of the Queen is not important as much as the president of United States of America.
Potentially two of US presidents had 'sexual' encounters with minors and American tabloids only talk about Andrew. Seems like Andrew is the man they decided to sacrifice publicly because the other names were so much more relevant.
Andrew generates more clicks and sells more newspapers. Going after a president could also give the media a backlash from his supporters in a way going after a foreign royal can't.
 
If Virginia Giuffre or another known victim of Jeffrey Epstein filed a similar civil complaint against a former US President I believe it would be covered in the American media.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...s-bid-judge-consider-money-hungry-sex-kitten/

The Duke’s lawyers are seeking to have the complaint dismissed, branding the civil action “baseless” and arguing that “sensationalism and innuendo have prevailed over the truth”.

They submitted a rebuttal of the “threadbare” complaint in October and attached as evidence several media reports and Ms Giuffre’s manuscript.

One American newspaper report described Ms Giuffre as a “money-hungry sex kitten” and quoted former friends who say she enjoyed living the high life and bragging about the money she made.

Another contained an interview with her ex-boyfriend, Philip Guderyon, who said he would drive her to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion.

“She was like the head b----,” he claimed. “She'd have like nine or 10 girls she used to bring to him. She never looked like she was being held captive.”

Also submitted as evidence was the 2011 interview Ms Giuffre gave the the Mail on Sunday, which was sold, along with the now infamous photograph of her with the Duke, for an alleged $160,000.

[...]

[Ms Giuffre's lawyers] said the Duke had failed to explain how the newspaper articles he had asked the court to consider had any relevance to his motion to dismiss the claim but had simply used them to “smear” Ms Giuffre’s “credibility and motives”.

District Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected the Duke’s request for him to consider the press reports, as well as a 139-page manuscript written by Virginia Roberts Giuffre about her time with Jeffrey Epstein, as he decides whether or not to throw out her sexual abuse complaint.

The judge said: “There is no proper basis at all for taking judicial notice of the newspaper articles or the alleged manuscript, which appear to have been submitted for whatever public relations purposes [the] defendant’s advisers may have had in mind.”

However, he agreed to take into account a settlement deal made between Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein in 2009, which the Duke has argued contains a release that invalidates her claim against him.


[...] Ms Giuffre’s lawyers had argued against the 2009 agreement being considered as evidence, claiming it was “irrelevant” to the case at this stage. They said the Duke was not a party to those legal proceedings and was therefore not covered by the release.

[...] Judge Kaplan will hear arguments on the Duke’s motion to dismiss the case on January 4.
 
Last edited:
On itself it is remarkable that an individal (Giuffre) can make an agreement with another individual (Epstein) which includes a condition also not to make complaints against other individuals (York and others).

I can not imagine any such arrangement to be legal in countries on the European continent. "I settle with by neighbour A that I will never complain again about his leaves falling on my lawn. In return neighbour A pays me $ 10,000. All this on the strict condition I will also not lay complaints against neighbour B and neighbour C."

On the European Continent such an agreement would be void as one can never settle with neighbour A under conditions about neighbours B and C. It would require three individual settlements, is my idea.

The Anglosaxon system of justice has so many twists, turns and loopholes, pfffff.
 
If Virginia Giuffre or another known victim of Jeffrey Epstein filed a similar civil complaint against a former US President I believe it would be covered in the American media. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...s-bid-judge-consider-money-hungry-sex-kitten/

Thank you for citing Prince Andrew's lawyers which try to smear the Virginia Giuffre girl in question. So, from "I don't know her" (Prince Andrew) now to character asassination...

It is in vain, I think. Because the girl was an immature teenager back then, a hormone driven, loco minor! That is the whole point: She was not able to judge her deeds! And that is, why teenagers in general are not allowed to be abused by prostitution.
 
Thank you for citing Prince Andrew's lawyers which try to smear the Virginia Giuffre girl in question. So, from "I don't know her" (Prince Andrew) now to character asassination...

It is in vain, I think. Because the girl was an immature teenager back then, a hormone driven, loco minor! That is the whole point: She was not able to judge her deeds! And that is, why teenagers in general are not allowed to be abused by prostitution.

Well, from the current court case against Ghislaine Maxwell it became clear that Virginia Giuffre had a remarkable role. Her name was repeatedly dropped concerning encouraging girls to join her and see that fab world of the rich and the famous.

I do not know what to think about the then Miss Giuffre but at least she immensely enjoyed to be flown in Gulfstreams to posh places all over the world. It is -at best- a quite confusing and diffuse image.
 
I do not know what to think about the then Miss Giuffre but at least she immensely enjoyed to be flown in Gulfstreams to posh places all over the world. It is -at best- a quite confusing and diffuse image.

Well, I think, your doubt makes clear, that the Virginia girl did it for "something": trips around the world in private jets and, yes, money.

That is a point to prove by her lawyers: that she did not do it with bonny Prince Andrew because he was such a dapper gentleman and she was in love, but she did it for material advantages - because then it is prostitution!

BTW The teenage girls in Rotherham did it for taxi rides and thought, that was a brilliant idea - teens... :ermm: The perps were jailed, of course! Rides in taxis and with private jets - I see no difference!
 
Well, I think, your doubt makes clear, that the Virginia girl did it for "something": trips around the world in private jets and, yes, money.

That is a point to prove by her lawyers: that she did not do it with bonny Prince Andrew because he was such a dapper gentleman and she was in love, but she did it for material advantages - because then it is prostitution!

BTW The teenage girls in Rotherham did it for taxi rides and thought, that was a brilliant idea - teens... :ermm: The perps were jailed, of course! Rides in taxis and with private jets - I see no difference!

But wait.... wasn't the accusation by Giuffre was that she was *forced* by Andrew to have sex against her will and he abused her?
 
But wait.... wasn't the accusation by Giuffre was that she was *forced* by Andrew to have sex against her will and he abused her?

Yes, she has been in the Epstein circle for years and suddenly she was "forced" to have sex against her will. Anyway, we will see where it ends.
 
During the Ghislane Maxwell trial a victim described how she was 'introduced' to Trump when she was only 14, similar stories on Clinton.
Why it that only Prince Andrew is getting called a pedophile? I'm not saying he is innocent but the third son of the Queen is not important as much as the president of United States of America.
Potentially two of US presidents had 'sexual' encounters with minors and American tabloids only talk about Andrew. Seems like Andrew is the man they decided to sacrifice publicly because the other names were so much more relevant.

Probably because two of the most well read ( American) tabloids are The National Inquirer and the New York Post.

Both are owned by anti Royalist republican Rupert Murdoch.

And both tabloids are very supportive of one of the former president in question...one of them going as far as paying hush money to a prostitute in the weeks before the November 2016 election buy her silence.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Well, I think, your doubt makes clear, that the Virginia girl did it for "something": trips around the world in private jets and, yes, money.

That is a point to prove by her lawyers: that she did not do it with bonny Prince Andrew because he was such a dapper gentleman and she was in love, but she did it for material advantages - because then it is prostitution!

BTW The teenage girls in Rotherham did it for taxi rides and thought, that was a brilliant idea - teens... :ermm: The perps were jailed, of course! Rides in taxis and with private jets - I see no difference!

what teenage girls?
 
Probably because two of the most well read ( American) tabloids are The National Inquirer and the New York Post.

Both are owned by anti Royalist republican Rupert Murdoch.

And both tabloids are very supportive of the former president in question...one of them going as far as paying hush money to a prostitute in the weeks before the November 2016 election buy her silence.:cool:

Let's not forget also that Rupert Murdoch owns the now seemingly a tabloid mainstream media called Fox News.

I have to believe that there's a reason why big wig men that were associated with Trump aren't having the focus put on them. As you said, Moonmaiden, they're "protected". You mentioned paying the hush money in the weeks before the November 2016 election. Actually, I believe it was one of Epstein's girls that filed a lawsuit against both Trump and Epstein and for some mysterious (insert Twilight Zone music) reason, it was dropped. The court documents are still available though for the public. I'm not going to post the link to the documents because they actually made me feel physically sick after reading them.

It's a background like this that makes Andrew the perfect patsy and fall guy. He's royalty. He's not exactly a household name but everyone has some inkling who Andrew is and who his mother is. It's a double whammy with Andrew being friends with Ghislaine Maxwell. The way reporting is going though, it is being made to seem that Andrew is the chief and prime predator. This puts Andrew between a rock and a hard place. He's small potatoes compared to quite a few others out there though. He doesn't have a Murdoch to fight for him but actually becomes a sticking point to harm to monarchy.

Of course, these are my thoughts and my way of seeing something. ?
 
well its largely Andrews's own fault. He should not have BEEN friends with Ghislaine Maxwell... or let her and Epstein find girls for him. But in another sense yes he's no worse than a lot of sleazy powerful men who have used these girls
 
well its largely Andrews's own fault. He should not have BEEN friends with Ghislaine Maxwell... or let her and Epstein find girls for him. But in another sense yes he's no worse than a lot of sleazy powerful men who have used these girls

So very true. After sitting through and gawping in astonishment at the words coming out of Andrew's mouth during his interview which hit home the man's sense of entitlement and arrogance, it led me to believe that this is a man that probably saw himself above Epstein and Maxwell and with Andrew, it was more "what they could do for him" rather than Andrew actually having the instincts to know what people to trust and what people to avoid like the plague. Kind of like having an attitude that what comes to him is deserved as he's a Prince. He carried a sense of nothing will go wrong for him and if it did, there'd be his "people" to clean up the mess for him. Surprise, Andy, surprise!! :D
 
Let's not forget also that Rupert Murdoch owns the now seemingly a tabloid mainstream media called Fox News.

I have to believe that there's a reason why big wig men that were associated with Trump aren't having the focus put on them. As you said, Moonmaiden, they're "protected". You mentioned paying the hush money in the weeks before the November 2016 election. Actually, I believe it was one of Epstein's girls that filed a lawsuit against both Trump and Epstein and for some mysterious (insert Twilight Zone music) reason, it was dropped. The court documents are still available though for the public. I'm not going to post the link to the documents because they actually made me feel physically sick after reading them.

It's a background like this that makes Andrew the perfect patsy and fall guy. He's royalty. He's not exactly a household name but everyone has some inkling who Andrew is and who his mother is. It's a double whammy with Andrew being friends with Ghislaine Maxwell. The way reporting is going though, it is being made to seem that Andrew is the chief and prime predator. This puts Andrew between a rock and a hard place. He's small potatoes compared to quite a few others out there though. He doesn't have a Murdoch to fight for him but actually becomes a sticking point to harm to monarchy.

Of course, these are my thoughts and my way of seeing something. ?

Oh wow...yikes.:eek:

I was thinking of the then editor of the Enquirer...David somebody...and a buddy of then candidate Trump, who wrote a check to porn star Stormy Daniels to buy her story and keep her quiet about her.. "friendship" with Trump before the 2016 election.

The Enquirer editor confessed all when he heard the not too distant rumbling of prison bars during the Mueller investigation I believe.
 
It's a background like this that makes Andrew the perfect patsy and fall guy. He's royalty. He's not exactly a household name but everyone has some inkling who Andrew is and who his mother is. It's a double whammy with Andrew being friends with Ghislaine Maxwell. The way reporting is going though, it is being made to seem that Andrew is the chief and prime predator. This puts Andrew between a rock and a hard place. He's small potatoes compared to quite a few others out there though. He doesn't have a Murdoch to fight for him but actually becomes a sticking point to harm to monarchy.

Of course, these are my thoughts and my way of seeing something. ?

Yep, but it can be seen and framed totally different too: That this Andrew story is making headlines can be understood as an attempt to make this whole nasty story looking like "Some well off older gentlemen having fun with slutty and especially consenting young women"...

Prince Andrew is in the eyes of the English police innocent and this court case in America might lead to nothing - So, would this not mean, there is nothing really to see here?

That the Princes of Gotham City were involved into it - and one can be sure Epstein and his accomplices had interests far beyond giving "parties" - is then forgotten too...
 
Virginia Roberts Giuffre's attorney David Boise has released a statement that he might consider calling the Duchess of Sussex to testify against the Dukeof York. :ermm: He cites three reasons as to why he's considering this action. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ghan-markle-prince-andrew-trial-b1980527.html


I find this to be absolutely bizarre and simply attention seeking/pot stirring. As far as I know Meghan had not met her future husband yet when the alleged encounters between Virginia and Andrew took place. If Boise is looking for one of Andrew's family members who resides in the U.S., why isn't he calling Harry? And why would Andrew have ever spoken to Harry about anything related to this case?



He also cited three reasons for Ms Markle to be a potential deposition subject.
“One; she is in the US so we have jurisdiction over her. Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on, to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes,” the lawyer added.
 
Last edited:
Since when does Meghan tell the 'truth'. I don't believe she will be called, this is just to keep the case in the headlines.
 
Maybe it's the happy meds but I have to admit that the first thought that ran through my brain was "I wonder how long it took Sunshine Sachs to cook this one up". That's how bizarre this is. If I'm not mistaken, any interaction between Andrew and Virginia happened *long* before Meghan's *first* marriage even (2011).

Anyone besides me see this being laughed right out of court? :D
 
Indeed bizarre for many reasons as said above, likewise with Mr. Boies's statement (cited in the article) that he will not seek to depose the Queen "out of respect and deference, and her age". I would have thought that her status as a foreign head of state would be more pertinent. (I wonder how Mr. Boies would respond if a British lawyer discussed seeking to depose the US President for a British civil court case.)

And both tabloids are very supportive of one of the former president in question...[...]

Magnolia471 asked about two US presidents; I assume they were referencing Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, who were confirmed to have flown on Jeffrey Epstein's plane multiple times. Neither former president has been accused of criminal acts related to Jeffrey Epstein, however.

what teenage girls?

victor1319 was referring to another sex trafficking case in the UK (no relation to Jeffrey Epstein) which occurred some years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom