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.
Dont really know what Andrew got up to with Epstein. He mihgt have had a lot of girls that Ep introduced to him. He might have simply enjoyed partying and had a few girls - He might have used Ep's contacts to make money

Logic tells me too that Andrew wasn't really in the position to spend gobs of time with Epstein on a regular basis. There was always something that Andrew was doing and places he was going in relations to being part of the "Firm" and a working royal with his trade envoy job and his own interests.

It's not like he'd go and park in NYC for an extended amount of time or fly to Epstein's island and just lounge around the pool. Best guess is that his visits with Epstein/Maxwell was sporadic and very limited in time. Just think on people being in and around Cosby for years and not really aware of the underside of the man's character.

If I had to make an educated guess, I'd guess that Andrew contacted Epstein mostly when he needed something to benefit himself. He's arrogant that way. at least in my eyes.
 
True but I think he enjoyed partying when he got the chance. I think the primary thing was to make money but it was a pleasant bonus that someone would arrange parties and golf games and swimming and a few pretty girls as well.....
 
True but I think he enjoyed partying when he got the chance. I think the primary thing was to make money but it was a pleasant bonus that someone would arrange parties and golf games and swimming and a few pretty girls as well.....

Bet there were a lot of "perks" for Andrew too when he visited Middle Eastern countries too. Andrew does seem like the kind of guy that would welcome any perk thrown his way. For ego stroking at least. ;)
 
Yes, Money! That is what I believe was Andrew's reason for hanging out with Epstein. Shady business and money laundering. The girls and parties were just a perk, not the reason. I think Andrew loves money more than young girls, a lot more. He can't say that of course, because an investigation into his dealings will land him in a far more dire situation.

This is something that interest me more about Epstein, where the heck did all his money come from?

I agree about the money and it being one of the initial draws for Andrew. In the financial world Epstein was referred to as a cipher. The Netflix documentary Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich - Episode 2 "Follow the Money" gives insight. His financial history is briefly chronicled here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein under Career, Banking. Unfortunately for Andrew all the red flags that would steer most people away from Epstein drew him in further, into a world of corruption!
 
Logic tells me too that Andrew wasn't really in the position to spend gobs of time with Epstein on a regular basis. There was always something that Andrew was doing and places he was going in relations to being part of the "Firm" and a working royal with his trade envoy job and his own interests.

It's not like he'd go and park in NYC for an extended amount of time or fly to Epstein's island and just lounge around the pool. Best guess is that his visits with Epstein/Maxwell was sporadic and very limited in time. Just think on people being in and around Cosby for years and not really aware of the underside of the man's character.

If I had to make an educated guess, I'd guess that Andrew contacted Epstein mostly when he needed something to benefit himself. He's arrogant that way. at least in my eyes.

Any time Andrew spent with Epstein was too much time!!
 
well obviously but its possible to mingle with people who are doing a lot of wrong or illegal things without necessarily participating. Lots of people hung around with Jimmy Saville and some had uneasy feelings that there was soemthing creepy about him.. but that does not mean that they knew of all his activities or that they covered them up or that they participated in them
 
March, 10th, 2022, Andrew to give evidence under OATH!

Well, it was evident until now, that he is either unable to remember or unwilling...

So, what if he can't remember anything under oath? As long as there are no Jedis here, nobody can look into his mind...
 
So its about 5 weeks away. I'm still betting Andrew's Legal Team is trying to settle. Behind the scenes, in spite of all the bravado.
Problem is....both sides are locked in with past Statements.....

Andrew, states that he has "no recollection of meeting Virginia". And Virginia, has said She will only "accept a settlement if it HOLDS Andrew to account". I suspect, *something* will come in the middle to wrap this up. Satisfactory to both ? No but prudent.

Of course, The Royal Family and Courtiers must be very wary and anxious about what "shady" business dealings with Andrew as the "UK Trade Ambassador" might come to light. As well as his personal and financial information, that could be leaked from from Depositions. That the arrogant, but not to astute or smart Andrew, might inadvertently divulge.
Not to mention a withering exam that the extremely talented and it seems determined lawyer, David Boies will bring against Andrew.
I would love to know what Ghislaine Maxwell thinks of all this.
She KNOWS everything.
 
Last edited:
So its about 5 weeks away. I'm still betting Andrew's Legal Team is trying to settle. Behind the scenes, in spite of all the bravado.
Problem is....both sides are locked in with past Statements.....

Andrew, states that he has "no recollection of meeting Virginia". And Virginia, has said She will only "accept a settlement if it HOLDS Andrew to account". I suspect, *something* will come in the middle to wrap this up. Satisfactory to both ? No but prudent.

Of course, The Royal Family and Courtiers must be very wary and anxious about what "shady" business dealings with Andrew as the "UK Trade Ambassador" might come to light. As well as his personal and financial information, that could be leaked from from Depositions. That the arrogant, but not to astute or smart Andrew, might inadvertently divulge.
Not to mention a withering exam that the extremely talented and it seems determined lawyer, David Blues will bring against Andrew.
I would love to know what Ghislaine Maxwell thinks of all this.
She KNOWS everything.


Perhaps it will be something along the lines of he was single, spent time with many women, and unfortunately cannot recall each one. While he cannot meeting Ms. Guiffre specifically, he cannot be sure he did not. Assuming it happened as she recollects, she was of consenting age. Further, he was completely unaware of any trafficking, as he would have abandoned Epstein and Maxwell even earlier and reported them, had he known (i.e. Epstein and Maxwell would not have jeopardized losing Andrew, whose title they relied on in ‘recruiting’, by letting him know). While we can never be certain what happened to Ms. Guiffre, the Prince of York greatly regrets any role he may have played in it, though completely unknowing.
 
Btw, I feel it prudent to add that I do not believe he should get away with his actions. But if I were his attorney, that is the approach I would recommend.
 
If I were his lawyers I would ask her to name every other man she slept with per the instructions of Maxwell and Epstein.
 
If I were his lawyers I would ask her to name every other man she slept with per the instructions of Maxwell and Epstein.

Totally agree! Wonder how many SHE remembers?
 
If I were his lawyers I would ask her to name every other man she slept with per the instructions of Maxwell and Epstein.

what does that matter? Of course she slept with other men. It does not mean that she did not have sex wiht Andrew.
 
what does that matter? Of course she slept with other men. It does not mean that she did not have sex wiht Andrew.

I just pray and hope that Andrew has it drilled into his head not to offer any information that pops into his head and sticks to the *facts* and not go rogue and elaborate on things overly much. If Andrew is given enough rope, he's the kind of guy that'll hang himself with it if given the chance. His interview is a prime example of this.

Asking Giuffre about how many men she has slept with and remembers their name and details about each one though can go towards proving that it is possible that she's had so many men that she was made to "service" that she can't remember them all or the details. This will play into Andrew's denial that he doesn't remember meeting Ms. Giuffre at all and believes he never had any kind of sexual involvement with her. Both Andrew and Ms. Giuffre were in a position to meet many people over time but it's possible to not remember them all. ?
 
I just pray and hope that Andrew has it drilled into his head not to offer any information that pops into his head and sticks to the *facts* and not go rogue and elaborate on things overly much. If Andrew is given enough rope, he's the kind of guy that'll hang himself with it if given the chance. His interview is a prime example of this.

Asking Giuffre about how many men she has slept with and remembers their name and details about each one though can go towards proving that it is possible that she's had so many men that she was made to "service" that she can't remember them all or the details. This will play into Andrew's denial that he doesn't remember meeting Ms. Giuffre at all and believes he never had any kind of sexual involvement with her. Both Andrew and Ms. Giuffre were in a position to meet many people over time but it's possible to not remember them all. ?


In US, there are "rape shield" laws. This law does not permit lawyers from asking the victim of rape about their past sexual behaviour.

There are many well written articles you can find from reputable sources that will discuss the reason why these laws were put in place. In short, the law recognizes that the attack on a rape victim's "reputation", "character", "chastity" perpetuate victim-blaming and victim shaming attitudes that used to discourage women from coming forward.
 
In US, there are "rape shield" laws. This law does not permit lawyers from asking the victim of rape about their past sexual behaviour.

There are many well written articles you can find from reputable sources that will discuss the reason why these laws were put in place. In short, the law recognizes that the attack on a rape victim's "reputation", "character", "chastity" perpetuate victim-blaming and victim shaming attitudes that used to discourage women from coming forward.

What is different here though with Ms. Giuffre is that she acknowledges the fact that she was trafficked for sex while in the inner circle of Epstein and Maxwell. Yes... she was a victim of being used and abused by these two perverted souls but it's not your ordinary case of a woman being sexually active yet finds herself a victim of being raped against her will.

That's my thoughts on it. I'm by no means anywhere near being an lawyer and this is just my opinion.
 
Your honor! I move to strike opposing counsel Osipi’s remarks on the grounds she is not an attorney!
 
Your honor! I move to strike opposing counsel Osipi’s remarks on the grounds she is not an attorney!

That's it, my friend! Throw the book at me. I'll read it! I *am* a self admitted bookaholic. :lol:
 
What is different here though with Ms. Giuffre is that she acknowledges the fact that she was trafficked for sex while in the inner circle of Epstein and Maxwell. Yes... she was a victim of being used and abused by these two perverted souls but it's not your ordinary case of a woman being sexually active yet finds herself a victim of being raped against her will.

That's my thoughts on it. I'm by no means anywhere near being an lawyer and this is just my opinion.

It is perfectly reasonable defence for Andrew to say "I meet so many people I can't remember them all". After all, he was a working royal and must have met with thousands of people over the years.

You don't have to ask Giuffre to recount terrible experiences of her past to prove that point.

Proving that he had sex with her beyond a doubt is obviously impossible. However, consider the situation with the Catholic church. The general public believes that priests have abused children, even though there are often no physical evidence b/c the abuse happened many years ago. There are just so much circumstantial evidence that we can no longer ignore the situation.

Everyone is entitled to a rigorous defence. Unfortunately, Andrew's defence is weak.
 
:previous: I wasn't insinuating that Giuffre should be asked to recount her other experiences with men at all. Just to answer "yes" or "no" to the question if she remembers the name and the details of every man she slept with when under Epstein's roof. Who these men were and what their names were is totally irrelevant to Andrew's case.
 
Well, I might forget the name of an inamorato or two…but not if one of them was a PRINCE!
 
Well, I might forget the name of an inamorato or two…but not if one of them was a PRINCE!

This is exactly what would work in Andrew's favor. Andrew was memorable for the specific reason he is a prince. The other 427 men all lined up in a row over time would probably have had the same effect on her than the last guy that handled Andrew's bags at the airport for Andrew. The memory deems these people not priority to remember and files it all away somewhere in the deep, dark recesses of the mind.

Both sides of the lawsuit dealt with a whole lot of people for different reasons. ?
 
I just pray and hope that Andrew has it drilled into his head not to offer any information that pops into his head and sticks to the *facts* and not go rogue and elaborate on things overly much. If Andrew is given enough rope, he's the kind of guy that'll hang himself with it if given the chance. His interview is a prime example of this.

Asking Giuffre about how many men she has slept with and remembers their name and details about each one though can go towards proving that it is possible that she's had so many men that she was made to "service" that she can't remember them all or the details. This will play into Andrew's denial that he doesn't remember meeting Ms. Giuffre at all and believes he never had any kind of sexual involvement with her. Both Andrew and Ms. Giuffre were in a position to meet many people over time but it's possible to not remember them all. ?



My point is that — Although Andrew is certainly not innocent —- everyone of these men knew that she was underage and should also be prosecuted. By not attempting to contact them and being them to justice — just makes it look like she’s just in it for the $$$.
 
This thread reminds me of one of those gruesome car wrecks, you know it's going to be ugly but you look anyway!:ohmy:
 
In US, there are "rape shield" laws. This law does not permit lawyers from asking the victim of rape about their past sexual behaviour.

There are many well written articles you can find from reputable sources that will discuss the reason why these laws were put in place. In short, the law recognizes that the attack on a rape victim's "reputation", "character", "chastity" perpetuate victim-blaming and victim shaming attitudes that used to discourage women from coming forward.

The "rape shield" laws cover criminal cases. This is a civil case where the rules are different.
 
My point is that — Although Andrew is certainly not innocent —- everyone of these men knew that she was underage and should also be prosecuted. By not attempting to contact them and being them to justice — just makes it look like she’s just in it for the $$$.

but she wasnt under age
 
I


However, consider the situation with the Catholic church. The general public believes that priests have abused children, even though there are often no physical evidence b/c the abuse happened many years ago. There are just so much circumstantial evidence that we can no longer ignore the situation.


Already when I was a young girl in the 70ties, there were psychologists who said that the chance is very high that young men who exchanged their sexuality for power, as young priests do, would use that power one day to enforce sex. Today we know that that thought was right in general, enough cases are known by now.But even a high chance does not mean all priests are abusers.



But when it comes to one single man, we can say nothing without very hard evidence. And it is "known" that Andrew preferred experienced, even a little older than he is, ladies to young innocents. Hm...
 
I dont quite see what priest and sexual abuse have to do with Andrew's situation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom