The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy (2010-2021)

[texankitcat]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Nevertheless, after more than two weeks, the internet has been unable to debunk the pizza party alibi, hasn't it ? And Mrs Giuffre has not been able to provide any factual evidence that she ever had sex with Prince Andrew. I wonder why everybody assumes that she is more credible than the Duke of York.


I sense that Andrew is the victim of a preconceived idea that he is a straight male and a womanizer (not true either BTW) and, therefore, he must be lying about not having sex with the Epstein girls. If I recall it, he did admit though to having massages, which is not equal to having sex.



The burden is not on Andrew to prove that he is innocent, but rather on those who accuse him of wrongdoings to prove that he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

The only way to prove that Andrew was at this pizza place is for someone that worked there or a customer who was there would forward stating they saw him and the Princesses there on that date. If this silly alibi was so notable to him because he has never visited this pizza place before, then I can assure you it would be very noticed if the Duke of York and his family stopped there for a pizza party. It's a public restaurant after all, and yet not one person has come forward stating they recall his party being there? Highly unlikely. And yet there IS a picture of him with the accuser. So who is more believable?

There are certainly victims in this mess, but Andrew isn't one of them. His excuses and ridiculous statements in the attempt to discredit the accusations are truly laughable and insulting to anyone with common sense. If any of this was believable he wouldn't be facing the backlash his interview created. These were HIS words, not the media.

Andrew's burden is that he made statements on national TV which put everything he says into question. He has been tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion due to his own words. Had he not said anything and cooperated with authorities offering to help in any way he can, he may have avoided where things stand now. For me, I am glad he did that interview.

[Denville]

he's said multiple things that are easily proved wrong. Even if he did take Bea to a Pizza Party, he said himself it was around 4 or 5 pm..so it probably did not last all night. They would have been there a few hours and then he could quite easily have travelled to London, later that night for a party at Tramps...and as has been said, he and Sarah were both away at times from the kids so that does not hold up either..

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Denville

All true, but as far as I know one of his friends said that he did indeed have an active sex life...and even if he is "not guilty" of knowingly having sex with an underage girl.. he clearly turned a blind eye to the fact that his good friend was a sex trafficker and there were girls around whom he must have seen..and known what Epstein was up to.

I disagree with this. While watching the interview I was struck by how clueless and oblivious Andrew came across, perhaps a product of his upbringing.

Yes, the average person would be able to connect all the dots regarding Epstein but I can easily picture Andrew thinking "OMG what a life Jeffrey has" without once stopping to think it all through. If the women were clearly underage (say 14 or 15) that would be one thing but it's easy to mistake a 17 year old for 19 or 20, especially if you're somewhat oblivious to begin with. IMO marriage to the equally feckless Sarah did nothing to help steer Andrew's judgment in the right direction.

And not every man surrounded by willing young women is a sex trafficker, as any rock musician will tell you. I know someone who ran away from home at 16 and became a "groupie," following rock stars around and freely engaging in sex with them. Her ambition in life was to become a rock star's wife. Needless to say that never happened. Now, twenty years later, she's back home, a single mother trying to support herself and her daughter as a waitress.

But of course this doesn't explain the inconsistencies in Andrew's other statements.

[Denville]

He knew that Epstein was hanging around with a lot of girls.. many of whom were quite young.. and most people in today's world would start to worry "are these girls of legal age" if only for reasons of self preservation. Did he really think it was appropriate for a man in his positon, a member of a royal family.... the son of the queen of Englad... to hang out with someone who was "surrounded by young "willing" girls" whom he "Introduced?" to famous older men?
And he knew that Epstein was involved in a crime because the man had bee in prison.. so what does he do? He flies to America and stays with him for 4 days to "break up with him"...

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Denville

He knew that Epstein was hanging around with a lot of girls.. many of whom were quite young.. and most people in today's world would start to worry "are these girls of legal age" if only for reasons of self preservation. Did he really think it was appropriate for a man in his positon, a member of a royal family.... the son of the queen of Englad... to hang out with someone who was "surrounded by young "willing" girls" whom he "Introduced?" to famous older men?
And he knew that Epstein was involved in a crime because the man had bee in prison.. so what does he do? He flies to America and stays with him for 4 days to "break up with him"...

Yes, Andrew's actions and friendships are highly questionable and he showed extremely poor judgment, to put it mildly. But that doesn't mean he knew Epstein was a sex trafficker.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Yes, Andrew's actions and friendships are highly questionable and he showed extremely poor judgment, to put it mildly. But that doesn't mean he knew Epstein was a sex trafficker.

He knew he was a registered and convicted sex offender and still maintained his friendship. Even states he doesn't regret it. Heck was even seen coming in and out his home where young women were also seen. So honestly I can very easily see Andrew turning a blind eye because he weighed the other benefits.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Yes, Andrew's actions and friendships are highly questionable and he showed extremely poor judgment, to put it mildly. But that doesn't mean he knew Epstein was a sex trafficker.

Epstein was convicted of procuring an under age girl for prostitution.. what did Andrew think he was doing with the young girls who were all about his mansion? Did he really think that hanging out with a man who had a bevy of young girls hanging around, was appropriate for someone in his positon?

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Yes, Andrew's actions and friendships are highly questionable and he showed extremely poor judgment, to put it mildly. But that doesn't mean he knew Epstein was a sex trafficker.

I agree.
Epstein would have been very, very careful about just exactly who he would have admitted to his very inner circle, in fact I bet he had some good stories if there were questions. I'm sure a number of people figured the young women were "groupies" of a wealthy man with wealthy, powerful friends.

Before Epstein's arrest this year and the "Me too" movement, the minor charges, conviction and sentence 10 years ago didn't really paint the whole picture.

Yes, the true facts were much worse than most people realized but lots of people really didn't follow the story that closely until this year.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

Surely he doesn't need to become a recluse?
Why not devote himself to more charity work, perhaps more with injured military personnel?
(Something like that would gradually reestablish his reputation with the public).

I agree. There is always a place for someone to help their fellow citizens no matter what their past was.

[Denville]

I don't think so. He has left it too late now to re establish his reputation. Charities are not going to want him to work with them...esp as its pretty obvius that any "charity work" he did now would be to try and make himself look good…

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Denville

Epstein was convicted of procuring an under age girl for prostitution.. what did Andrew think he was doing with the young girls who were all about his mansion? Did he really think that hanging out with a man who had a bevy of young girls hanging around, was appropriate for someone in his positon?

I am responding to your claim that Andrew "turned a blind eye to the fact that his good friend was a sex trafficker." [bold facing mine]

Originally Posted by Denville

he clearly turned a blind eye to the fact that his good friend was a sex trafficker and there were girls around whom he must have seen..and known what Epstein was up to.

Nothing you have stated proves Andrew knew Epstein was a sex trafficker. As I pointed out in a previous post the presence of young willing women does not necessarily mean they are victims of sex trafficking. There are, believe it or not, young women who welcome the chance to meet prominent older men. Please note I'm not placing Virginia Giuffre in this category.

Yes, Andrew showed extremely bad judgment and I question his continued association with Epstein following Epstein's conviction. That alone should have ended the friendship then and there, without a visit once Epstein was released. But that doesn't mean Andrew knew Epstein was a sex trafficker. A convicted sex offender, a person to run from as fast you can, someone who was mad, bad, and dangerous to know, but not necessarily a sex trafficker.

[Denville]

He knew that Epstein had been convicted of procuring under age girl as a prostitute..

[texankitcat]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Yes, Andrew's actions and friendships are highly questionable and he showed extremely poor judgment, to put it mildly. But that doesn't mean he knew Epstein was a sex trafficker.

Of course he knew.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by texankitcat

Of course he knew.

Proof please....

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

I agree.
Epstein would have been very, very careful about just exactly who he would have admitted to his very inner circle, in fact I bet he had some good stories if there were questions. I'm sure a number of people figured the young women were "groupies" of a wealthy man with wealthy, powerful friends.

Before Epstein's arrest this year and the "Me too" movement, the minor charges, conviction and sentence 10 years ago didn't really paint the whole picture.

Yes, the true facts were much worse than most people realized but lots of people really didn't follow the story that closely until this year.

And Andrew isn't the only person to say he wasn't aware of Epstein's sex trafficking.

Royals constantly meet all sorts of dodgy people. The Queen has even entertained dictators at state dinners. Because of that I suspect some learn to look the away even when they shouldn't, as Andrew has done. And, as I stated in another post, Andrew lacked the wisdom of a supportive spouse who could connect the dots. Instead Sarah used Andrew's friendship with Epstein to help pay some of her debts. If Edward had been in Andrew's shoes I have no doubt sensible Sophie would have read him the riot act.

Originally Posted by Denville

He knew that Epstein had been convicted of procuring under age girl as a prostitute..

Which is not the same as sex trafficking.

Originally Posted by texankitcat

Of course he knew.

Please provide proof.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Which is not the same as sex trafficking.

so what is sex trafficking? the girl was under age.. and he procured her... he went to jail for it... how could ANdrew not know about this?? When he says he went all the way to America to tell Epstein that after this behaviour he had to stop seeing him?

Originally Posted by Gawin

And Andrew isn't the only person to say he wasn't aware of Epstein's sex trafficking.

Royals constantly meet all sorts of dodgy people. The Queen has even entertained dictators at state dinners. Because of that I suspect some learn to look the away even when they shouldn't, as Andrew has done. And, as I stated in another post, Andrew lacked the wisdom of a supportive spouse who could connect the dots. Instead Sarah used Andrew's friendship with Epstein to help pay some of her debts. If Edward had been in Andrew's shoes I have no doubt sensible Sophie would have read him the riot act.

Tthere is a difference between meetng people of dubious morality for political reasons, which the queen and other royals and politicans have had to do at times.. and meeting someone of dubious morality and making friends with him and spending time hanging out with him, meeting his friends, inviting him to shooting weekends and parties.. and using him to provide your ex wife with money....
Andre did not pal around with Epstein because he had been asked to do so by the Govt.. he did so because Epstein was rich and could help him connect with other rich people..and because there were attractive girls hanging around his house..

[JR76]

I've tried to find out the legal difference between procuring and trafficking I still don't get it. If anyone knows an easy explanation that they are willing to share I'd be very grateful.

[hel]

Again, proof is not required to form an opinion, which is what people are offering here. No-one is jailing Andrew.

With that said, details from the 2005 investigation included allegations that 12-year-old triplets were flown in from France for Epstein's birthday, and flown back the following day after being sexually abused by the financier. It was alleged that young girls were recruited from Brazil and other South American countries, former Soviet countries, and Europe.

If there are multiple young women from different countries around, this is not a "but sometimes groupies like to follow rock bands around" situation, and if you are around a man who has multiple young women from different countries at his beck and call and are not cluing in at that point that something is off, you're either as dumb as a rock or being deliberately blind to what's happening.

There is a well known statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There's also a corollary: "ordinary claims require ordinary evidence". The idea that a powerful, privileged man would turn a blind eye to the activities of another powerful man, a man who was doing him favours, is such a depressingly common scenario that it is absolutely an ordinary claim and thus requires no extraordinary evidence to believe.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by JR76

I've tried to find out the legal difference between procuring and trafficking I still don't get it. If anyone knows an easy explanation that they are willing to share I'd be very grateful.

I don't think there is a difference. It is a crime and the girl was under age.. so - Andrew knew that Ep committed a crime involving an under age girl...

[texankitcat]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Proof please....

Epstein was convicted and served time for Sex Trafficking in 2008. In 2010 Prince Andrew stayed at Epstein's home for several days in New York.

Of course he knew.