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

[Dman]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

Even if it was legal, it's positively predatory for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl, unless they have some feelings for each other, and even then it's questionable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "back in the day", but keep in mind this was in 2001.

Well, it may be illegal, but today these 17 year old girls and boys know what they're doing and can do it pretty well. They consider themselves grown and feel like they can do what they want. That's all I'm saying.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Princess of Durham

Ah, there you have it! I think it is more that "might" include money. I think these women are out for big bucks to last them a life time. Let's be honest putting Epstein or god forbid Andrew behind bars will really do nothing for them. It's the $$$$$$$$$ that are the point here, I think.

Lots of litigation is all about money. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in seeking financial compensation for legal wrongs committed against you.

[miss whirley]

Originally Posted by Dman

But is it bad that they may have had sex? I mean, being 17 today is different than being 17 back in the day.

Charlie Chaplin( age 53) and Oona O'Neill (age 17) were considered one of Hollywood's most legendary love stories. Of course, his previous history with teenage girls wasn't so successful, hence the inspiration behind the novel Lolita. lol

I guess it depends on the people and the situation. it's usually a bad idea.

[US Royal Watcher]

Diplomatic immunity covers certain individuals, regardless of the purpose of a particular visit or meeting. It's to protect diplomats from being harassed.


The manifests shed little light on this story. We already knew that she and Andrew met. But they don't prove whether they slept together. If she had "proof," she would have revealed it. The question is her credibility. Some people are going to believe her, others won't. Most of us don't know and never will.


Buckingham Palace denied that Andrew had sex with her, but no one has denied that Andrew tried to intervene on Epstein's behalf. Even if he did, it doesn't mean that he slept with her, just that his moral compass is really, really, really off.

[cepe]

Originally Posted by Princess of Durham

Ah, there you have it! I think it is more that "might" include money. I think these women are out for big bucks to last them a life time. Let's be honest putting Epstein or god forbid Andrew behind bars will really do nothing for them. It's the $$$$$$$$$ that are the point here, I think.

The current case is NOT about putting Epstein behind bars (he's been there) - its about the plea bargain.

Epstein and Andrew, and some Prime Minister and a lawyer are added info to the case that the plea bargain was wrong.

As a UK citizen, what I dont understand is that Jane Doe #3 (virginia whoever) and JD #4 have been allowed to "join" this case, when they weren't part of the original prosecution which put Epstein behind bars.

[Roslyn]

I don't think their application to be joined has been heard yet, but this explains why they could be allowed in: http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/fil...oe-2-v-u-s.pdf

[Skippyboo]

Originally Posted by cepe

IMO she is not a "sex slave" (source: British tabloid media) as she received payment for sex (her admission according to UK media).

Her father has retracted statement re "meeting the Queen".

She is promoting her book.

AS I understand it, she was not part of the original case against Epstein but has been asked to be included in the case against the defendant's lawyers (in the case against Epstein) to pleaded too lenient a sentence. Happy to have this challenged if my understanding is wrong.

She has come out of left field and I ask why wasn't she there re the original charge to start with?

It's a mess but even though it is a mess - Andrew has not been charge, has denied allegations and therefore is innocent till PROVEN guilty.

EDIT: Clarity: Andrew is not claiming immunity (he couldn't anyway) - he is saying the allegations are wrong. She is already writing her book!

I believe she is suing the U.S. Prosecutors that did the deal with Epstein.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Irish Eyes]

Originally Posted by cepe

The current case is NOT about putting Epstein behind bars (he's been there) - its about the plea bargain.

Epstein and Andrew, and some Prime Minister and a lawyer are added info to the case that the plea bargain was wrong.

As a UK citizen, what I dont understand is that Jane Doe #3 (virginia whoever) and JD #4 have been allowed to "join" this case, when they weren't part of the original prosecution which put Epstein behind bars.

Prince Andrew accuser and another denied right to join lawsuit - CBS News

This report suggests that their application has been denied.
Andrew will be firmly in her sights now.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Irish Eyes

Prince Andrew accuser and another denied right to join lawsuit - CBS News

This report suggests that their application has been denied.
Andrew will be firmly in her sights now.

That's just the prosecutors' case filed in answer to the two new Jane Does' claims. I must read it.

The matter still has to be heard by the Court.

[Irish Eyes]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

That's just the prosecutors' case filed in answer to the two new Jane Does' claims. I must read it.

The matter still has to be heard by the Court.

Thanks for clearing that up Roslyn.

[Rudolph]

Nothing illegal needs to have taken place for this to ruin Andrew's reputation. As the sleazy accusations start to pile up it doesn't really matter whether it was legal to have sex with a 17 year old girl. People will believe what they will believe.

Obviously Andrew is not accountable in the way a MP or a Prime Minister is, as long as the Queen wants to fund him, Andrew can travel the globe and not answer to anyone because he strikes me as someone who doesn't give a hoot what anybody thinks of him.

Interesting few days ahead in Davos

[ada]

It seems to me that Jane Doe 1 and 2 are going to cause serious problems for Andrew, and all the others named and mentioned [prime minister?] without 3 and 4's help

I imagine 3 and 4 won't object to being called as witnesses

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Irish Eyes

Prince Andrew accuser and another denied right to join lawsuit - CBS News

This report suggests that their application has been denied.
Andrew will be firmly in her sights now.

What a ridiculous headline - can't these journalists even read anymore?

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

I believe she is suing the U.S. Prosecutors that did the deal with Epstein.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

My question is why didn't the states bring charges against Epstein at the time? My understanding is that the U.S. prosecutor can't force the states to file or not file charges. If the Jane Does didn't like the original plea bargain, why didn't they contact the state prosecutors about the deal?

[Tiggersk8]

Surprised no one has touched on what to me was an even bigger bombshell from today : The Allegations levelled at Andrew's Protection Officers at the time and that they knew what was going on, but left Andrew alone w/a Teenage Girl anyway.

Between how there will be demands in Parliament for an investigation into their conduct and, IMO, the sheer stupidity of Andrew saying anything at all in Davos, Tomorrow could be (and thinking this is a beyond any doubt in the World circumstance) very, very ugly *and* messy in many sad ways.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

My question is why didn't the states bring charges against Epstein at the time? My understanding is that the U.S. prosecutor can't force the states to file or not file charges. If the Jane Does didn't like the original plea bargain, why didn't they contact the state prosecutors about the deal?

These were federal charges, it was the U.S. Attorney's Office that made the original plea deal.

[Skippyboo]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

My question is why didn't the states bring charges against Epstein at the time? My understanding is that the U.S. prosecutor can't force the states to file or not file charges. If the Jane Does didn't like the original plea bargain, why didn't they contact the state prosecutors about the deal?

He did plea to soliciting a prostitute in Florida. Apparently according to this NY post article, he made a deal with the Feds not to prosecute if he plead to the state charge in FL

http://nypost.com/2011/02/25/billion...ot-a-predator/

I believe this fed no prosecution deal is what Jane Does 3&4 are suing about.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[GracieGiraffe]

Here is the act under which these Jane Does are bringing the action against the U.S. attorney. There is no private cause of action for violations of the act:

Crime Victims' Rights Act | USAO | Department of Justice

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

He did plea to soliciting a prostitute in Florida. Apparently according to this NY post article, he made a deal with the Feds not to prosecute if he plead to the state charge in FL

Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein: I’m a sex offender, not a predator | New York Post

I believe this fed no prosecution deal is what Jane Does 3&4 are suing about.

Yep, and what he pleaded guilty to is a bit worse than stealing a bagel! Epstein pleaded guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution and the US Attorney's Office agreed to not prosecute him for Federal offences, but those agreements were kept secret from the Jane Does. Jane Doe 1 wanted Epstein charged with the Federal Offences and shortly after she found out about the non-prosecution agreement she filed the petition to enforce her rights under the CVRA. Jane Doe 2 then joined the action and now the two others are trying to, too.

Here is a re-post of the link to the September 2011 judgment which sets out a nice summary of the background: http://www.ncdsv.org/images/JaneDoes..._9-26-2011.pdf

It just registered for the first time that these Federal proceedings remained inactive for 18 months or so in 2008/2009/2010 while Jane Does 1 & 2 litigated civil proceedings against Epstein, which they then settled. I don't know the basis upon which the matters were settled. I am assuming they were after money but I have no idea what they got out of it, if anything.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

He did plea to soliciting a prostitute in Florida. Apparently according to this NY post article, he made a deal with the Feds not to prosecute if he plead to the state charge in FL

Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein: I’m a sex offender, not a predator | New York Post

I believe this fed no prosecution deal is what Jane Does 3&4 are suing about.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Thanks Skippyboo. I am sorry that I didn't explain my question fully. Why did the states go along with the deal?

I understand that the Jane Does are not suing the state prosecutor because state laws don't allow it. This suit is a result of a federal law regarding federal victims' rights.

It just seems odd to me that so many people went along with this plea bargain. And not just Florida, apparently several states could have brought charges.

I know there is no statute of limitations for the Mann Act but that is so they can prosecute people if crimes are discovered after years and years. Can the prosecutor know about the crime at the time and then file charges 10 years later?