The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022

[royal rob]

For the life of me I can't see anything odd with his arm or hand


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[wbenson]

Her arm, not his. There's a gap between her hand and her body, even though she's holding her arm like she has her hand on her hip. It's definitely odd-looking, although I suppose it's possible it was caught in motion.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I don't think the photo is fake. Too much of her hair detail (onto his shirt) is present. It is just a hand/arm caught in motion. Common.

Whether he is guilty or innocent, of sex with the girl, what was he doing with that mob? There are degrees of guilt I guess. No way this is ever going to look good. And then there is that saying; "you live by the sword, you die by the sword". He is paying the price of being friends or doing business, or whatever with those people... And so is his family.

 

[royal rob]

The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy

Don't know if anyone has posted this. Think there are lots of questions to be answered
http://www.theguardian.com/media/gr...et-the-agenda-on-globe-trotting-prince-andrew


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lumutqueen]

It's not even confirmed he's going to speak, hilarious!

 

[royal rob]

It's not even confirmed he's going to speak, hilarious!

I was more interested in the places he's been and amount of travel he has done.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lumutqueen]

Is his travel to the Falklands war on the list?

 

[royal rob]

Is his travel to the Falklands war on the list?

And you mean what ? ?? He gets a pass for anything he does for the rest of his life because he went to the Falklands , he wasn't the only one on the boat


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lumutqueen]

And you mean what ? ?? He gets a pass for anything he does for the rest of his life because he went to the Falklands , he wasn't the only one on the boat


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Did I say that?! I don't think so.

Andrew is a member of the royal family and therefore travels for royal duties as does every other member of the royal family. His role means he travels more than other royals, I don't see the problem.

The man has had accusations levelled against him. He is not named in a court case, he has not been charged with a crime, he is not in the dock answering questions about a criminal act. So why should everything he's done for this country be called in to question?

Two sides to every story but it appears only one is being portrayed.

January is a slow news month and Andrew is being pushed further and further inside the "rags" people call papers and further and further down the internet versions. Currently the top story for the DailyMail is how a five year old boy was invoiced £16 for not showing up to a skiing party. How times change.

 

[Rudolph]

What I find interesting is he's hired a criminal defence barrister. Not someone who specialises in libel or defamation but criminal defence.

Andrew seems like a man with a lot on his mind at the moment

 

[royal rob]

Did I say that?! I don't think so.

Andrew is a member of the royal family and therefore travels for royal duties as does every other member of the royal family. His role means he travels more than other royals, I don't see the problem.

The man has had accusations levelled against him. He is not named in a court case, he has not been charged with a crime, he is not in the dock answering questions about a criminal act. So why should everything he's done for this country be called in to question?

Two sides to every story but it appears only one is being portrayed.

January is a slow news month and Andrew is being pushed further and further inside the "rags" people call papers and further and further down the internet versions. Currently the top story for the DailyMail is how a five year old boy was invoiced £16 for not showing up to a skiing party. How times change.

I simply asked what you meant ? So can I ask again why you mention Falklands war just didn't get what that had to do with the article


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lumutqueen]

The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy

What I find interesting is he's hired a criminal defence barrister. Not someone who specialises in libel or defamation but criminal defence.

Andrew seems like a man with a lot on his mind at the moment

This according to the MailOnline, same paper that was positively adamant Andrew was going to make a speech in Davos next week which is now a "maybe/possible" at best.

The article from said paper says the MailOnline has learned that Clegg was handed papers apparently from DOYs team 11 days ago, however the mail did not manage to learn why the papers were handed to him, what he is doing with said papers or what the outcome has been. I can't imagine it takes the grandfather of the Barr 11 days to come up with an answer.

I simply asked what you meant ? So can I ask again why you mention Falklands war just didn't get what that had to do with the article


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

And I responded to your question in my post. I mentioned the Falklands war because the constant drivel from papers about Andrew seem to be forgetting that he serves his country and The Queen and has done so on thousands of occasions like during the Falklands war.

 

[Meadow]

There have been questions for years over Andrews travel he didn't get the nickname Airmiles Andy for nothing. Hiring out private planes when he could off gone commercial, hanging out with the rich and infamous and of course doing Royal duties around his golfing holidays. Sarah was even outed in one of the many books that she would make sure she had a royal duty somewhere she wanted to holiday Andrew has done the same thing for years. No one here has said Andrew is guilty of the claims just that he is very, very stupid for hanging around a convicted sex offender. He may off done it he may not off we may never really know he will never admit to it even if he did. The girl in question has already refused a great deal of money from Epstein so that does make people wonder if she was just doing it for the cash then why not take the millions offered then? There has always been questions on what Andrew really brings to the table at these things he is not a smart business man in fact I seem to remember people calling him a baffoon and very arrogant at a lot of these events. People are just impressed with meeting a Prince. The "interview" with Andrew hasn't been confirmed it could be someone trying to gauge if it would be well received if he did it in that forum and I don't think it would be. Business is business sex claims by an underage girl shouldn't be bought up in such a forum. I would be very uncomfortable if I was there and the speaker starts refuting underage sex claims it is unprofessional and needs to be done in a more casual setting not in front of a business conference.

 

[royal rob]

This according to the MailOnline, same paper that was positively adamant Andrew was going to make a speech in Davos next week which is now a "maybe/possible" at best.

The article from said paper says the MailOnline has learned that Clegg was handed papers apparently from DOYs team 11 days ago, however the mail did not manage to learn why the papers were handed to him, what he is doing with said papers or what the outcome has been. I can't imagine it takes the grandfather of the Barr 11 days to come up with an answer.





And I responded to your question in my post. I mentioned the Falklands war because the constant drivel from papers about Andrew seem to be forgetting that he serves his country and The Queen and has done so on thousands of occasions like during the Falklands war.

And that doesn't give him a free pass for bad behavior and doesn't mean he is more entitled than anyone else


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Rudolph]

Most of the 'drivel' Andrew has brought on himself. He consorted with some shady characters and continued his friendship with a convicted paedophile. So whether its fair or not, his name is now being brought up again in relation to having sex with minors.

Can't blame this one on the tabloids

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Even the innocent lawyer up.

I'm dying to see what's in the U.S. attorney's files.

 

[MARG]

Don't know if anyone has posted this. Think there are lots of questions to be answered
http://www.theguardian.com/media/gr...et-the-agenda-on-globe-trotting-prince-andrew

Never let it be said that the private sector was as short sighted as the government. Having resigned his position as a UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment due to;

"His suitability for the role was challenged in the House of Commons by Shadow Justice Minister Chris Bryant in February 2011, at the time of the 2011 Libyan civil war, on the grounds that he was "not only a very close friend of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, but also ... a close friend of the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni".

It surprised the hell out of me considering that posters on this thread have been banging on about him having to resign because of the Jeffrey Epstein affair in 2011.

That these people move around with the international movers and shakers is hardly a surprise. That Andrew should have met them and even struck up some sort of friendship with them is hardly surprising given the nature of the job he was doing. But, with the government wanting the "appearance" of clean hands, Andrew resigned.

But it seems that there are those who don't care about "air miles and golf clubs" if the returns are worth it. And the UK is still benefitting, as;

Mr Johnson told listeners to LBC Radio: "Prince Andrew, let's be very clear, is a guy who does a huge amount of unsung, unheralded work for this country.
"People, they go on and and about the air miles and so on, actually I have seen that guy get out there and sell this country, try and help British firms to get business around the world.
"He does a huge amount of good and a huge amount of hard work. So if you are asking me whether I have sympathy for him, of course I do."

Mr Johnson added: "We may think it's bizarre, but somebody who is the second son of the Queen is felt in many parts of the world to be an interesting and significant figure and they will receive him cordially and people who come with him they want to hear what business suggestions they have.
"So I think that people should respect that side of his work."

As to Andrew retaining William Clegg, QC, I see a very logical progression here, because unlike Alan Dershowitz, he is not a top legal mind because, let's be honest here, both men's reputations have been shredded and Mr Dershowitz has responded with a civil suit and encouraged Andrew to do the same.

What I find interesting is he's hired a criminal defence barrister. Not someone who specialises in libel or defamation but criminal defence.

Andrew seems like a man with a lot on his mind at the moment

Any court action over this affair is a lot more legally convoluted than Mike's libel case and the engaging of a leading QC seems only prudent.

 

[Camsterlaird]

I read somewhere that the alleged "under-age" sex happened in a London house in 2001. The girl was 17 at the time. At the time the age of consent in England was (and is) 16 - so it was not "under-age" if it happened at all.

 

[Roslyn]

I read somewhere that the alleged "under-age" sex happened in a London house in 2001. The girl was 17 at the time. At the time the age of consent in England was (and is) 16 - so it was not "under-age" if it happened at all.

Some terms have been used a bit loosely in discussions about this Epstein stuff.

A person can be "under age" in the sense of being under the age of majority and thus not of full legal responsibility for all purposes (except, curiously, purchasing/publicly possessing alcohol for which you have to be 21 in the USA). But a person who is 17 years old and under the age of majority and thus a "minor", is still over the age of consent and therefore not "under age" for the purposes of consenting to sex in all the places where Roberts alleges she had sex with Prince Andrew at the relevant times. However a person under 18 is not deemed capable of consenting to prostitution and that's why Epstein faced Federal charges relating to sex trafficking. In that context a 17 year old girl is "under age".

 

[Curryong]

So (in 2001) Andrew was 41 years of age and this girl was 17. No, it wasn't illegal, just completely disgusting.

 

[Camsterlaird]

So (in 2001) Andrew was 41 years of age and this girl was 17. No, it wasn't illegal, just completely disgusting.

Of course there is no proof that the allegations are real. In British law one is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[cepe]

What I find interesting is he's hired a criminal defence barrister. Not someone who specialises in libel or defamation but criminal defence.

Andrew seems like a man with a lot on his mind at the moment

I'm catching up, so apologies.

Has he actually hired this lawyer or is it alleged by a certain newspaper? Is there actually any proof?

UK media is not to be trusted as a stand alone source.

 

[HRHHermione]

I really wish some journalist would do their job and behave like a journalist and track Andrew's travel and engagements and see if this woman's story is plausible logistically. That would be a good start...


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Mbruno]

I'm catching up, so apologies.

Has he actually hired this lawyer or is it alleged by a certain newspaper? Is there actually any proof?

UK media is not to be trusted as a stand alone source.

The fact that he has hired a barrister should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt. As I see it, the prince is concerned he might be charged with a criminal offense (US spelling), as many innocent people often are, and is taking precautionary steps to make sure he can defend himself should that happen.

 

[Curryong]

Why would Andrew be charged with a criminal offence though, if the girl was above the age of consent (in Britain?) She hasn't alleged rape has she, at least not yet? !! A British barrister who is a well-known defence counsel in the UK wouldn't be much help with advice on matters wending their way through US courts.

 

[sndral]

The retention of the British barrister, if true, is interesting to me for two reasons:
1) Timing - the Judge rules suggesting he was leaning towards unsealing the 1500 pages of sealed documents and right after Prince Andrew hires a criminal defense lawyer.
2) Why a British barrister, rather than one from the U.S. - the issue being whether Andrew was a co-conspirator in Epstein's violations of the Mann Act, or maybe there's something in those papers about him using his position to minimize Epstein's consequences which could violate U.S. Law. Perhap's the British barrister is in contact with a discrete U.S. Law firm.
I will say that if someone retains a lawyer in, say, a murder case before they are charged (or even a strong suspect) it's like waving a red flag at the investigators - if they weren't a suspect before they become one.
Having said all that, I suspect Andrew and the Queen are under some stress about all of this and even though the normal lawyers have probably opined that there wouldn't be any criminal consequences from all of this, it certainly doesn't hurt to get confirmation from a criminal law specialist, although one who is an expert in U.S. Federal criminal practice makes more sense.

 

[Roslyn]

The retention of the British barrister, if true, is interesting to me for two reasons:
1) Timing - the Judge rules suggesting he was leaning towards unsealing the 1500 pages of sealed documents and right after Prince Andrew hires a criminal defense lawyer.
2) Why a British barrister, rather than one from the U.S. - the issue being whether Andrew was a co-conspirator in Epstein's violations of the Mann Act, or maybe there's something in those papers about him using his position to minimize Epstein's consequences which could violate U.S. Law. Perhap's the British barrister is in contact with a discrete U.S. Law firm.
I will say that if someone retains a lawyer in, say, a murder case before they are charged (or even a strong suspect) it's like waving a red flag at the investigators - if they weren't a suspect before they become one.
Having said all that, I suspect Andrew and the Queen are under some stress about all of this and even though the normal lawyers have probably opined that there wouldn't be any criminal consequences from all of this, it certainly doesn't hurt to get confirmation from a criminal law specialist, although one who is an expert in U.S. Federal criminal practice makes more sense.

I agree with you about the timing. Andrew could well have written something in support of Epstein that he does not want published, and he might also be aware of other damaging documentation that is with the papers. Further, the Jane Doe plaintiffs' applications seek to have the terms of the plea bargain set aside and I am assuming this also includes the agreement to not prosecute Epstein's "co-conspirators" as well as Epstein under the Federal Law relating to sex trafficking. It is possible that Andrew was seeking advice about the prospects of success of the plaintiffs' applications and his position if the agreements are set aside.

The barrister he has apparently engaged is a prominent defence QC and it is likely he is acquainted with eminent US criminal lawyers and is consulting with one or more of them on Andrew's behalf.

 

[Tiggersk8]

The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy

Most of the 'drivel' Andrew has brought on himself. He consorted with some shady characters and continued his friendship with a convicted paedophile. So whether its fair or not, his name is now being brought up again in relation to having sex with minors.

Can't blame this one on the tabloids

Thank you!!

Just adding...These allegations, while *at the moment* are only that, are of the type that in this day and age it doesn't matter if it is true or not. Anyone who is accused of anything to do w/any kind of sexual abuse towards Women/Minors, who is well known for whatever reason to the Public and who is someone where there have "rumours and/whispers" about for years? The Public will wonder and tend to believe said Allegations. Just look at the entire Bill Cosby scandal and mess for an example.

Now let's go back to the Duke of York's situation...When you add on Andrew's "baggage" such as the "Air Miles Andy" years, then there's the Money for Access mess w/Sarah from a few years ago and now this? Of course the Public is going to lean more in the direction he's done what he's been accused of doing. It's taking into account his past behaviour over the years and thinking this might not be out of the Realm of Possibility when it comes to Andrew.

Is it fair? No, because as has been said, he hasn't been charged w/anything as of yet. Is it perfectly understandable for most of the Public to think Andrew might have done what's been said due to past behaviour? Yes, because it's Andrew we're talking about here. His reputation of being nothing but "Air Miles Andy" has stuck. A certain amount of that is due to the Tabloids, but Andrew hasn't exactly helped himself out either in that department. Just who ended up w/Sunninghill Park and the price they got it for comes to mind for example.

I really, really wish when this all started a few weeks ago that the BP Press Office's Statement had been along the lines of "We are aware of the Allegations being levelled at HRH the Duke of York. At the present time we have no comment, but will if events warrant it." Instead, they outright denied it, which has tied their hands completely if or when something else comes out. Now we hear not only is Andrew still going to Davos, representing the UK at a Major World Forum on Economics, but is also considering making a statement during a reception hosted by UK Trade?

Who is running the BP Press Office right now? Daffy Duck and Wylie Coyote? Because they're the only ones I can think of who would think this would be a great idea. This has disaster written all over it.

Then we hear Andrew has hired a Criminal Lawyer today. Why would anyone do that for what is a Civil Case? Or at least has been to this point?

I think a quote from Star Wars sums up my thoughts...."I have a bad feeling about this..."


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[rmay286]

My reaction in this case is to feel sad for Andrew, at least somewhat. The events under investigation happened almost 15 years ago! Even his trade ambassador role was given up several years ago. Now he is under fire for things that happened long ago, even though he has worked very hard to turn his image around and is well-regarded by some people in the British business/trade school/entrepreneurship community.

Also, I think it's rather ridiculous how the media runs away with this story, tallying up Andrew's travel history, the Air Miles nickname, the word pedophile...when really these girls were nearly-adult women, not children.

On the other hand, I can see how Andrew got himself into trouble. He is not inexcusable; he deserves to bear a large portion of the blame. Andrew has terrible judgment sometimes...either he really is not bright, or he deliberately turns a blind eye to many things around him at times. He was rumoured to be one of the last people to realize Sarah was having an affair, even while everyone else knew...he also supposedly knew nothing about the cash-for-access scandal...now he supposedly didn't know Epstein's girls were underage. It might be true that he knew none of these things were happening under his nose, but at some point, that makes him look very gullible and easily taken-advantage of...certainly not someone you'd choose to steer British business in the right direction.

However, I wish this would be a wake-up call for Andrew and that he and his staff would take it as a sign to drop international trade work...not the clamour for him to disappear from public life, leave the country, change his role completely. The media reaction is not constructive, is over-the-top and ultimately pretty unhelpful.

 

[Roslyn]

Then we hear Andrew has hired a Criminal Lawyer today. Why would anyone do that for what is a Civil Case? Or at least has been to this point?

In our legal system, which is based on and still very similar to the UK one, a QC will practise in more than one jurisdiction and will appear in criminal matters and civil matters, especially matters with overlapping elements. Here is William Clegg's web site. I think a quick read of it will make it clear why Andrew has engaged him. William Clegg QC, 2 Bedford Row, London. QC Barrister UK