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.
However, as has been pointed out, Ms. Giuffre was 17 at the time, which was the age of consent in New York, the Virgin Islands, and London. That is not to say she wasn't victimized but there is reasonable question about whether even if what she says is true, she was sexually assaulted by Andrew.

The more this is being discussed and with some more background on Virginia's childhood and her father thinking it "was a good idea" for his daughter to "learn massaging" (what father would actually fall for that?), the more my opinion of this whole dog and pony show is that I'd not be surprised if, from the get go, Daddy saw Virginia as a "money maker" and encouraged her (there *are* fathers like this. I know of people that had fathers that saw their kids as money makers). From the get go too, Virginia was in opportunist mode and enjoyed all the perks and benefits of being an "Epstein girl" until the crap hit the fan. Opportunity knocks again and oh yah.... lawsuits are the way to go now. As been said many, many times before, Virginia was never "held hostage" and if Epstein said to "go please X", that's what she did. Willingly.

One thing that will *never* be proven as it's almost impossible to prove is whether or not Andrew ever had sex with her at any time. Andrew sweating at Tramps proves nothing. Andrew posing for a picture with Virginia just means they were in the same room together once upon a time. Unless Epstein actually *did* film the two of them doing the horizontal hokey pokey by CC TV,, it *is* he said/she said.

I seriously think this case is going to be dismissed.
 
Duc_et_Pair, but this wasn't a "Buckingham Palace Garden Party". It was a private home. This was a " casual " event. As evidenced by their clothing, at Ghislaine Maxwell's own house. Photographic evidence. Irrefutable.
Not some nameless "meet and greet" function that the Royals go thru. Oblivious to who they "shake hands with".

I will come out and say it. I find everything about this disgusting. And that arrogant, entitled and dim Andrew " thought" he could explain away, even justify, his friendship or dealings with Epstein is to say the least inexcusable and baffling. He actually said he had no regrets being 'friends' with Epstein.

Who signed off on the Interview debacle that put everything in motion. With a known sharp and tough interviewer, Emily Maitles, no less.
Did the Queen ? If She did why ? Were the 'Grey Men' kept unaware? Where was Charles?
Or did Andrew covertly pull this off ? Sorry, not buying that.

That Queen Elizabeth, in her last years is dealing with this ongoing public relations disaster for "The Firm " is shameful. And damaging.
Hopefully lessons will be learned.
 
Last edited:
Considering that Andrew enjoyed the company of one of the most prolific peodophiles of the modern age ( a friendship he's happy to say he still doesn't regret) I'm amazed you find it so hard to believe that he enjoyed the sexual company of one of the youngsters being procured by that said friend.

What our opinions or what we believe do not equate to proof. I MO Andrew is arrogant, vain and full of his own importance but I cannot know with any certainty what if any relationships he has had and that is the bottom line. We all have opinions but we do not have proof. As another poster said it is he said she said. Regardless of the outcome his reputation is gone.

He is not the only public figure to be photographed with Epstein and young women.
 
Last edited:
Who signed off on the Interview debacle that put everything in motion. With a known sharp and tough interviewer, Emily Maitles, no less. Did the Queen ? If She did why ? Were the 'Grey Men' kept unaware? Where was Charles? Or did Andrew covertly pull this off ? Sorry, not buying th

I'm sure I'll be corrected if my memory isn't serving me too well right now but.... I seem to recall reading that Andrew was very much advised to keep his trap shut but he felt he knew best and went ahead with the interview anyways. I don't think it ever occurred to him how badly it would make him look and totally shred his reputation. I honestly think arrogance got the better of him and he believed that the masses would believe and take to heart anything that came out of his mouth.

This is what happens to a man that has had decades of minions "under him" that'd buy anything he says "because he's the prince". Welcome to reality, Andrew. :D
 
Considering that Andrew enjoyed the company of one of the most prolific peodophiles of the modern age ( a friendship he's happy to say he still doesn't regret) I'm amazed you find it so hard to believe that he enjoyed the sexual company of one of the youngsters being procured by that said friend.

Epstein was scum but he, sadly, was not one of the most prolific pedophiles of the modern age. I work for an international relief agency and have seen tragedies that dwarfs this one. Unfortunately, sex trafficking is a very, very common crime all over the world. There are cases involving pedophiles who buy and sell children as young as 2 years old.

Epstein has received so much attention because he was extremely wealthy and well-connected. He was not only friends with Andrew but he hobnobbed with TV personalities like Katie Couric and George Stephanopoulos. I am not sure if they have ever figured out how he made his money but he was apparently involved in gun smuggling.

He's a horrible person and the world is better off now that he is gone, but he is by no means even close to the worst sex offender today. Societies all over the world need to devote more resources into protecting children.
 
Duc_et_Pair, but this wasn't a "Buckingham Palace Garden Party". It was a private home. This was a " casual " event. As evidenced by their clothing, at Ghislaine Maxwell's own house. Photographic evidence. Irrefutable.
Not some nameless "meet and greet" function that the Royals go thru. Oblivious to who they "shake hands with".

I understand what you are saying but Andrew has probably attended thousands of get togethers in private homes over the years. Royal family members are very sought after guests and I am sure that when they attend, there are a lot of requests to be photographed. This picture surfaced years after it was taken. If he didn't have sex with her, I could believe that he doesn't remember. Even if he did, who knows? Andrew is pretty arrogant.
 
I'm sorry, but the tenor of this discussion feels very "victim blame-y".

Why sue Prince Andrew and not Clinton or Trump? She hasn't claimed those men assulted her. I find it weird people are assuming she chose to persue him over US political figures rather then the simpler explination that she is sueing the man she claims assulted her, and the other two men did not.

This whole age of consent debate is also, I think, missing the forrest for the trees. Virginia was a sex traffic victim. She claims she was coerced to have sex with Andrew by Epstein and Maxwell (who apparently had a history of threatening the girls). She can not consent if she has a metephorical gun to her head. The key assertion here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Virginia claims Andrew knew what was going on. If Andrew knows his friends are trafficing girls and brought one to have sex with him, then it doesn't matter if Virginia was 17 or 70 as Andrew would be knowingly having sex with someone he knew could not consent.

As to why she didn't leave, this all feels like asking a battered woman why they did not leave their abusive partner. This girl came from a rough home life and was mainpulated by people who seemed to offer things a vulnerable teenage runaway would crave: money and feeling she mattered to someone. Other victims describing Ghislaine acting at times like a sisterly figure to help groom the girls. Even vulnerable women in their twenties were victims of Maxwell and Epstein. I can understand how a young woman with no job skills, no money, and no stable family support network would feel trapped into that system.

Did something happen between Giuffre and Prince Andrew? I don't know. However I think there's a way to debate the accusations while being respectful to Giuffre.
 
I'm sorry, but the tenor of this discussion feels very "victim blame-y".

...

This whole age of consent debate is also, I think, missing the forrest for the trees. Virginia was a sex traffic victim. She claims she was coerced to have sex with Andrew by Epstein and Maxwell (who apparently had a history of threatening the girls). She can not consent if she has a metephorical gun to her head. The key assertion here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Virginia claims Andrew knew what was going on. If Andrew knows his friends are trafficing girls and brought one to have sex with him, then it doesn't matter if Virginia was 17 or 70 as Andrew would be knowingly having sex with someone he knew could not consent.

...

Did something happen between Giuffre and Prince Andrew? I don't know. However I think there's a way to debate the accusations while being respectful to Giuffre.

You make some good points but the age of consent is a big issue. If she had been underaged, it wouldn't matter if Andrew knew that Epstein had trafficked her. Since she was over the age of consent, the issue is very much centered on whether he knew she was being trafficked. Ms. Giuffre has never alleged that she told Andrew about her situation so I don't understand why she is so sure Andrew knew about it.

People can be respectful of Ms. Giuffre and still question the truth of her account or the merits of this suit. She was definitely a victim of Epstein and Maxwell. It is a far more open question whether she was Andrew's victim. I haven't seen very much evidence in support of her argument.
 
The more this is being discussed and with some more background on Virginia's childhood and her father thinking it "was a good idea" for his daughter to "learn massaging" (what father would actually fall for that?), the more my opinion of this whole dog and pony show is that I'd not be surprised if, from the get go, Daddy saw Virginia as a "money maker" and encouraged her (there *are* fathers like this. I know of people that had fathers that saw their kids as money makers). From the get go too, Virginia was in opportunist mode and enjoyed all the perks and benefits of being an "Epstein girl" until the crap hit the fan. Opportunity knocks again and oh yah.... lawsuits are the way to go now. As been said many, many times before, Virginia was never "held hostage" and if Epstein said to "go please X", that's what she did. Willingly.

One thing that will *never* be proven as it's almost impossible to prove is whether or not Andrew ever had sex with her at any time. Andrew sweating at Tramps proves nothing. Andrew posing for a picture with Virginia just means they were in the same room together once upon a time. Unless Epstein actually *did* film the two of them doing the horizontal hokey pokey by CC TV,, it *is* he said/she said.

I seriously think this case is going to be dismissed.

Given the way the judges (U.S)have ruled so far toward motions put forth by Andrew's lawyers I don't think the case will be dismissed. In fact I predict there will be a judgment brought against him.

The American justice system seems hostile to royalty in general right now and might decide to make an example out of QEII's unpleasant and unpopular son.

The wind is not blowing in Andrew's direction.

BUT...no matter how long and how hard I have tried to view Virginia sympathetically...I cannot. My admittedly unpopular opinion is that at some point she ceased being a victim and became an opportunist. I think she was a young woman who very much enjoyed the high living perks provided by Epstein and Maxwell even if she didn't necessarily enjoy her...."work".

And once the party was over per se....yes sure. She decided to go after money in high profile civil court cases because well, why not?:ermm:
 
Last edited:
The American justice system seems hostile to royalty in general right now and might decide to make an example out of QEII's unpleasant and unpopular son.

The wind is not blowing in Andrew's direction.
:



In what way has the American judicial system been generally hostile to royalty lately? Seriously asking.

While I do think there are times when courts use a particular case to make a point….not entirely sure why the court would care to make an example out of Andrew just for being royal.
 
:previous: The judges in this case have ruled against every single motion presented by Andrew's lawyers.

Maybe I am mistaken about it being anti-Royalty sentiment as much as it is anti accused powerful male in the #MeToo era.

I think there is an overall "guilty even before proven guilty" feeling in the air in all these cases....and that is unfortunate.
 
This thread began in 12/06/2010. It's easy to lose track of the details.

The "controversy" had it's start back in 2000 when 17 y/o Virginia Giuffre(Roberts) was working as a spa attendant at Donald Trump's private Mar-a-Lago club. Maxwell approached Giuffre, noting she was reading a book about massage and offered her a job working for Epstein as a traveling masseuse with the assurance that no experience was necessary. Giuffre has stated that after Maxwell introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, the two quickly began grooming her to provide sexual services under the guise that she was to be trained as a professional massage therapist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre

60 Minutes of Australia produced this insightful piece last year before Maxwell's trial. "Inside the wicked saga of Jeffrey Epstein". 60 Minutes Australia "Who is Ghislaine Maxwell"

How bad was Jeffrey Epstein?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

More:
Netflix did a series "Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich".

NBC Peacock "Epstein's Shadow: Ghislaine Maxwell" Official Trailer

Prince Andrew got caught up with Maxwell and Epstein and now may pay the price, literally. Epstein is dead. Maxwell's guilty and not talking in prison. Virginia Giuffre, while tragic, seems to have landed on somewhat solid ground married with children in Australia. It seems that she would move on with her life. Yet after all she witnessed she may want a piece out of anyone involved. I don't think we are ever going to know the truth about what actually happened between she and Andrew.
 
Browsing through my pictures I see people standing next to me and I honestly can not remember who they ever were. But I can not deny I have met them as the picture shows they very me standing there indeed, in Málaga, in Budapest, in Porto, in Wroclaw, in London, during my 5 or 6 weekend trips per year pre-corona.

The number of people I meet and am pictured with is dwarfed by the number of people the Duke sees and is pictured with. But he can not say he has never met them: "Look at this picture Sir, here we shook hands at a Garden Party at Buckingham!" The Duke: "Uh oh, eh... How nice to see you, eh... again."

Yes im not sure wat your point is. He says he doesn't remember meeting her but he clearly did.
 
Yes im not sure wat your point is. He says he doesn't remember meeting her but he clearly did.

By saying he doesn't recall meeting her, he isn't actually denying it , he is covering his back. He cannot be accused of lying he is just saying he cannot remember the meeting.
 
By saying he doesn't recall meeting her, he isn't actually denying it , he is covering his back. He cannot be accused of lying he is just saying he cannot remember the meeting.

I think it is possibly true. She was of no importance to him, he met her, perhaps he slept with her but he has no real recollection of it.
 
:previous: The judges in this case have ruled against every single motion presented by Andrew's lawyers.



Maybe I am mistaken about it being anti-Royalty sentiment as much as it is anti accused powerful male in the #MeToo era.



I think there is an overall "guilty even before proven guilty" feeling in the air in all these cases....and that is unfortunate.



Not being a lawyer, I really can’t assess how “fair” - or not- the court’s rulings have been. Maybe that’s what he deserved based on the arguments. Or maybe it’s a sign of the times, as you said, regarding cases like this. Which IA isn’t a good thing.

But I haven’t seen anything so far that suggests American courts are just anti royal.
 
I think it is possibly true. She was of no importance to him, he met her, perhaps he slept with her but he has no real recollection of it.


No, Prince Andrew denies he slept with her and has no recollection of ever meeting her even. The picture shows that the Duke posed with Ms Roberts so must have "met" her.

But like we all experience: we meet lots of people and when we are asked to describe this or that person we possibly are not even able to recall how someone looks, or that there really was an encounter at all.
 
Yes I know that he said this... but it does not mean that it is true. He may be lying. he may have sletp with her.. and remembers it clearly enough. Or he may have slept with her and does not remember it.
 
Someone came up to me in a restaurant recently, and started talking to me about how we did some work together once. It was years ago. When she told me the name of the company she worked for, I remembered, but I didn't recognise her and have no idea how come she recognised me. As for being photographed together, if I met a member of the Royal Family then I would certainly want my photo taken with them. It wouldn't mean that we had any more than a brief conversation.
 
Epstein was scum but he, sadly, was not one of the most prolific pedophiles of the modern age. I work for an international relief agency and have seen tragedies that dwarfs this one. Unfortunately, sex trafficking is a very, very common crime all over the world. There are cases involving pedophiles who buy and sell children as young as 2 years old.

Epstein has received so much attention because he was extremely wealthy and well-connected. He was not only friends with Andrew but he hobnobbed with TV personalities like Katie Couric and George Stephanopoulos. I am not sure if they have ever figured out how he made his money but he was apparently involved in gun smuggling.

He's a horrible person and the world is better off now that he is gone, but he is by no means even close to the worst sex offender today. Societies all over the world need to devote more resources into protecting children.

I'll rephrase that then, he was a notorious and prolific sex abuser of underage girls. Not sure it makes much difference to my point that it's beyond belief that Andrew still dosn't regret choosing him as a close friend.
 
It's been stated that Andrew's motions have been tossed out. I can only think of the motion made that the case against Andrew should be thrown out because the law or act that brought the case to court was unconstitutional as it was not in force when the event happened (or something to that effect... low on caffeine here).

Personally, when I read that, I thought it was grasping at straws. If the motion to dismiss was thrown out, it wasn't because of Andrew or who Andrew is or who his momma is, it's because the judge ruled that the law (act) stands valid.

Just like proving Andrew can sweat or not. Another wild grab out in left field that, to me, if proven only shows that Andrew's statement that he couldn't sweat was a total fabrication. To quote Hugh Laurie in "House", "Everybody lies."

I don't think the American judicial system is going to base any judgements or dismissals in this case on anything other than the *legal* reasons for doing so. To my eyes, it still looks too much like a "he said/she said" case where there's no real credible evidence that points to wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
This is a civil suit so she doesn't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, just that it is more likely than not. Civil courts make decisions without absolute proof all the time, but there is usually something more than one person's word against another's.

I tend to think that something happened between Andrew and Ms. Giuffre because that would be consistent with Epstein's modus operandi. Andrew is an important guy who has a lot of contacts and opened a lot of doors for Epstein and Maxwell. Epstein would want to do favors for Andrew and keep him as happy as possible.

That could explain why he arranged for Ms. Giuffre to travel to London, New York and the Virgin Islands. It's possible that Epstein really liked her himself but I tend to think that it is more likely that he was putting her in Andrew's path. At the same time, I fully admit it is possible that Andrew didn't take the bait. Ms. Giuffre at one point said that Andrew was very nice to her, she may even have said he was a gentleman - and perhaps he was.

Despite my personal opinion that Ms. Giuffre is likely telling something close to the truth, I would have a hard time voting to award money to Ms. Giuffre due to the passage of time and the uncertainity of determining what happened between two people 20 years ago.

I think I would be in the minority though because I think Andrew will lose. The allegations are too explosive. There are a lot people who believe that it is inappropriate to even question Ms. Giuffre's version of events. I am afraid that there will be members of the jury who will worry how they will be perceived even if they believe Andrew. Even if he were to win, these allegations will never go away. He is in a no win situation.
 
Last edited:
Question for the US Lawyers on the forum - Are civil matters in New York State heard by juries? I ask because here in Queensland, while Defendants can request a jury almost all civil matters (if not all) are heard by a Judge sitting alone (different for criminal matters where we still have jury trials).

If I were in the position of Andrew’s Lawyers and had a choice, a Judge sitting alone would be my very strong recommendation.
 
Question for the US Lawyers on the forum - Are civil matters in New York State heard by juries? I ask because here in Queensland, while Defendants can request a jury almost all civil matters (if not all) are heard by a Judge sitting alone (different for criminal matters where we still have jury trials).

If I were in the position of Andrew’s Lawyers and had a choice, a Judge sitting alone would be my very strong recommendation.

Both parties have to agree to waive a jury trial and I doubt Ms. Giuffre's lawyers would agree.
 
Adding to Lady Daly's links, here is the original 2019 Miami Herald report that brought the sexual abuses and abuses of power committed by Jeffrey Epstein into the public eye.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article238237729.html



The judges in this case have ruled against every single motion presented by Andrew's lawyers.

It's been stated that Andrew's motions have been tossed out. I can only think of the motion made that the case against Andrew should be thrown out because the law or act that brought the case to court was unconstitutional as it was not in force when the event happened (or something to that effect... low on caffeine here).


A federal district judge, Lewis Kaplan, is presiding over the case. I cannot remember the earlier procedural history, but the judge recently acceded to the request of Andrew's lawyers to unseal and hear arguments regarding Virginia Giuffre's settlement agreement, which her lawyers initially contended was not a necessity at that stage. He also refused Prince Andrew's motions to question Virginia Giuffre on domicile and to temporarily halt the collection of evidence while determining whether the lawsuit should proceed.


Considering that Andrew enjoyed the company of one of the most prolific peodophiles of the modern age ( a friendship he's happy to say he still doesn't regret) I'm amazed you find it so hard to believe that he enjoyed the sexual company of one of the youngsters being procured by that said friend.

The post you replied to was unrelated to the topic of sexual activities/abuse.
 
"Royals await anxiously the fallout from Prince Andrew’s disgrace"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...usly-the-fallout-from-prince-andrews-disgrace

Excellent, well written article in The Guardian today. "The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client..." court summons not properly served, case thrown out as Giuffre doesn't live in the US.

"Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence."

"Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."

"And that’s the best-case scenario for the prince. If, instead, Kaplan gives the go-ahead for the case to be heard, then the prince would be obliged to make a deposition and then, in the autumn, appear in court. He could in theory refuse to do either, but again the optics would be disastrous. However, if he did go to court, the world’s media would be offered a daily diet of sordid details. And if he were to lose the case, courtiers suggest he may no longer be able to travel internationally, for fear of criminal extradition."

This article is lengthy and covers a lot of historical detail. Another powerful excerpt: "among a catalogue of evasions and failing memories, his one line of consistent defence is that he was not aware of anything untoward going on in any of the Epstein or Maxwell households at which he stayed."

“He consorted for 10 years with a couple whose lifestyle revolved around the sexual exploitation by Epstein of vulnerable women and underage girls, a number of them trafficked by Maxwell. The overtness of this predatory way of life was apparently inescapable. What do you imagine when you travel in a private plane nicknamed the ‘Lolita Express’? And then you invite these degenerates to stay at Balmoral?”

And finally, "“I am looking forward to vindicating my rights as an innocent victim and pursuing all available recourse,” Giuffre said seven years ago. “I’m not going to be bullied back into silence.”
 
Has the Queen enough?

"With legal bills mounting over his legal battle with Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew is in a race against time to raise funds to pay them."

"And the Duke is now trying to force through the sale of his £17million Swiss chalet, as it emerged the Queen will not pay his spiralling costs."

"The Mirror can reveal the Queen “would not assist” in any further financial settlement to Ms Giuffre over the sex allegations."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-sell-17m-swiss-25876715
 
:previous: I wonder what source was relied on for the Mirror's report. There seems to be a trend recently of royal household members talking on anonymity to the press about the Duke of York.

Another such report quotes an anonymous courtier who claims that Queen Elizabeth has never questioned her son's innocence with regards to Virginia Giuffre's charges.



Carolyn Andriano, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein who testified under her first name as a witness for the prosecution at Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking trial, has given an interview to the Daily Mail. She did not receive a fee for the interview.

Part of the interview discusses Virginia Giuffre, who recruited Ms. Andriano for Jeffrey Epstein (the article quotes extensively from her courtroom testimony about those events), something for which Ms. Andriano thinks Ms. Giuffre should be prosecuted. Ms. Andriano says that in 2001, when they were teenagers, her then-friend Virginia told her she had had dinner and sex with Prince Andrew in London and showed her (Carolyn) the now-infamous photograph of Virginia, Andrew, and Ghislaine Maxwell.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...inia-Giuffre-told-slept-Duke-York-London.html
 
Last edited:
The "I am going to dinner with Prince Andrew...I got to have sex with him"! gloat jibes perfectly with the grinning young woman I saw in the photo of Virginia Giuffre with Andrew.

She seems to have seen it as a quite glamorous assignment .

IHMO and nothing more, her recent decision to decline a settlement in favor of a full trial in order to "send a message" in her fight for justice could be her reaction to statements like that of her former friend and could be her way of refuting speculation that she is pursuing these lawsuits for money...keeping herself firmly in victim camp from a PR standpoint.

But the fact that I have trouble summoning sympathy for VRG doesn't mean I have any whatsoever for Andrew.

If he knew he was part of a sex trafficking ring being run Epstein he should have headed for the hills no matter how eager and willing she appeared to be. That is where I see him as 100% liable , not that he forced VRG or she felt pressure to sleep with him because I don't believe that was ever the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom