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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
soapstar said:
I don't see anything unusual about the way his hand is positioned. If you read the comments from that post, people are saying that the photo isn't photoshopped and differences could be attributed to a number of things. But more importantly, Andrew hasn't denied that he took a photo wth her.
Click to expand...

I agree there is nothing unusual about the placement of his hand. I have some pictures with my husband that look pretty similar.

This picture would have been taken more than 10 years ago so in all probability, Andrew wouldn't remember either way. I don't think it matters. Both Andrew and Jane Doe #3 were involved with Epstein at the same time and it not unreasonable to assume that they met each other. That would not be a problem as long as Andrew didn't know she was under duress or underaged.
 
Last edited:
US Royal Watcher said:
I have no doubt that Epstein threw Andrew's name around but, if I understand it correctly, the issue is whether Andrew and others contacted the prosecutor on behalf of Epstein. So the if there is disclosure, it will be of the prosecutor's records.

I think a lot of people will have difficulty with the precedent of releasing that type of information to the prosecutor. Coming to the defense of a scum bag like Epstein is very distasteful, but I can think of a lot of reasons that the prosecutor would not want to make that sort of information public.

What if drug dealers started to use these types of law suits to find out what their friends and relatives really told prosecutors? I can see a lot of people just deciding not to get involved.

The reality is that even if some big names lobbied the prosecutor to reduce Epstein's sentence, the final decision was made by the prosecutor.
Click to expand...

Although I don't know much about prosecutor's records, your reasoning might be why such a thing is done on a case-by-case basis, but courts lean towards disclosure. Once a prosecutor's investigation is complete, my understanding is that they files are subject to Open Records Act requests, but certain information is stautorily subject to exclusion or the prosecutor can move for a protective order, but I'm not that familiar with this area, as I said.
 
If Andrew didn't lobby on Epsteins behalf he has nothing to worry about. I think if something is being requested in the support of a case and it's vital then they need to release it or it looks like even more of a cover up. If it comes out Andrew did lobby for a sex offender I think it will harm him way more then this girls claims. You can excuse Andrew if he didn't know how old the girl was and didn't know she was under duress. You can't excuse him for supporting a convicted sex offender charged with over 40 counts of sex abuse and slavery. The royal reporter said that one of the problems for Andrew is the detail coming out in these claims and that next week more claims could be coming out and Andrew has his official duty in Switzerland and he thinks Andrew is actually going to harm himself more by doing this it will make people focus more on the claims. Also Jane Doe might be doing some television interviews in the States soon. This isn't going to go away her claim hasn't been accepted yet which is why Andrew can't do much according to this mornings report.
 
True, it could be that Charles has reached out to Andrew on occasion, only to be met with stubbornness. But apart from any feelings of jealousy that Andrew might harbour towards Charles, I suspect that Andrew CRAVES his brother's respect and probably longs for a closer relationship. Sibling relations being what they are, it's also possible that Charles has felt some resentment towards Andrew for being their mother's reported favourite.

As for Sarah, she's been making the rounds of American talk shows promoting her weight-loss product. Can we agree that the woman is well-meaning, but utterly delusional? She and Andrew seem trapped in a disastrous, enabling, self-defeating living arrangement. It floors me that even after her awful betrayal of a few years ago, he's that gullible. The whole set-up is odd in the extreme.

I see that Andrew is going ahead with his trip to Davos. That's the other point: if there were ever an opportunity for him to show that he's capable of serious reflection and, good God, a little humility, it would be now. No sign of that yet...
 
hernameispekka said:
There were someone showing that in the same 700% zoom of their eyes his (or if it was hers, I can't recall) had a much higher pixel-count than the other. That can not happen in pictures where everything was in the picture at the moment of taking it.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what all that zooming and pixel stuff was about, but now that I look at it again his arm would have to be long to get in that position. I think a person would have to be closer to wrap a hand around a waist.
 
The thing that gets me about the photo (whether photoshopped or not) is that it is completely innocuous. I can see Andrew posing the same way with either one of his daughters.
 
:previous: Yes, I agree, but I have noticed that as time passes, whenever the photo is printed there are only two people in it. There were three to start with which, of course, gives further weight to the innocence of the photo.

It's just like any other "selfie" shot.
 
The third person in the photo is Ghislaine Maxwell. She's as bad as Epstein. According to Ms Roberts, Ghislaine Maxwell acted as a Epstein’s pimp, luring underage girls to properties in London, the US and the Virgin Islands
 
Last edited:
I agree and the Judge in the case believes the papers to do with the plea deal Epstein got should be made public the only way it won't happen is if Epstein can show an extrodinary reason why they shouldn't be made public. Andrew had better be very careful if it comes out he lied about one thing nothing he says will be believed. So it will be interesting to what he actually says and if he talks about the rumour he tried to support a lesser sentence for his "friend". Body language experts will have a field day.
 
I'm not sure that a televised appearance at a foreign gathering of corporate executives and politicians is exactly what his image needs right now, regardless of what he says.
 
Roslyn said:
Ooh! Now this will be interesting. I look forward to seeing precisely what words he uses.

If he is telling the truth, it will have been a good decision, but if later events prove he has been lying in any way, it will have been a bad decision.

:popcorn::tea:
Click to expand...

Perhaps I haven't seen the whole statement but didn't Buckingham Palace just deny that Andrew had sexual relations with Jane Doe #3? I don't think the Palace has denied the allegation that Andrew tried to influence the prosecutor.

There won't be anything in the court papers that will prove or disprove the allegation that Andrew took advantage of a 17-year old girl. We'll have to believe either Andrew or Jane Doe #3. Even if Andrew did try and help Epstein avoid jail time, it would not necessarily mean that Andrew was lying about Jane Doe #3, but it won't look good.

It isn't unusual for family and friends to argue for clemency for someone involved in a crime. But it usually happens during the sentencing when they testify in open court that the accused isn't a complete scum bag.
 
I don't believe that Andrew should appear at Davos, and I certainly don't think this is the venue to discuss the Epstein affair or his possible sexual involvement with any underage girls. If Buckingham Palace denials haven't made the story go away then Andrew speaking about it certainly won't. It screams of desperation to me.
 
I agree with you this is not the place to do an interview I will be very surprised if he does go ahead with it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
My reading of the article was that he would give a speech and in that speech he would deny the allegations and that TV cameras would be allowed in for the first time to film the speech. An interview format would be more enlightening, but I think we'll see a well rehearsed PR drafted denial and nothing more. I question the choice of venue.
 
IF Andrew does his denial via a speech it is highly inappropriate. It is a business forum and it is unprofessional and will in fact highlight the situation even more. It's a silly thing to do. Imagine you are a successful businessman and Andrew brings up the things he is being accussed of in this manner. Would you have respect for him, just staying friends with Epstein shows bad judgement. If he wants to do this then have a proper sit down interview and talk about it. As too the supporting a friend when asking for clemancy the fact is Epstein had already gotten a huge break with this deal 12 or 18 months for over 40 charges of sexual abuse of minors, statutory rape and slavery is barely a slap on the wrist. It would show even more bad judgement on Andrews part by then Epstein had admitted what he was so Andrew was well aware of the charges and the great deal his friend got. There is no excuse for what Epstein done and if Andrew did support him I would love to see the reason he gives for letting Epstein off such horrible offences. I fully understand why these Jane Does aren't happy about it all. Guess we will find out next week let's hope that Andrew listens if someone is giving him good advice. I just don't get a good feeling with this he could make things worse for himself if people don't believe what he is saying.
 
Robert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 2h 2 hours ago
#PrinceAndrew will address sex slave allegations in speech at Belvedere Hotel in Davos to draw a line under Epstein affair @MailOnline says

Robert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 2h 2 hours ago
#PrinceAndrew will invite TV camera into the drinks party in Davos as he issues a further denial of the "sex slave" claims says @MailOnline

Robert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 2h 2 hours ago
A Palace spokesman said #PrinceAndrew would be at Davos to ‘remind the audience of the strength & dynamism of UK entrepreneurship’.
 
Ahh.... this does not sound good. A live speech... At a working conference? This seems like it can lead to no good.
 
hernameispekka said:
Ahh.... this does not sound good. A live speech... At a working conference? This seems like it can lead to no good.
Click to expand...


Exactly what I was thinking.
Andrew is not very articulate, imo.
They're apt to dice and slice afterwards.
 
Prince Andrew may make first public statement on sex allegations - Telegraph
The Duke of York is understood to be considering making his first public statement on claims that he “sexually abused” a teenager.

The Duke was named in legal papers by Virginia Roberts, who claims to have been a 17-year-old “sex slave” to the Duke’s former friend Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted child sex offender.

Miss Roberts has alleged she was forced to have sex with the Duke three times – a claim which has been forcefully denied by Buckingham Palace.

The Duke is believed to be contemplating inviting the media to a public statement when he attends the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday.

He is understood to be unlikely to refer to the scandal directly, or make any nature to the sexual nature of the allegations.
Click to expand...
 
Curiouser and curiouser. He's engaged a QC to fight allegations? Unless I'm missing something huge, no specific allegations as to dates and circumstances have been made against him yet and he hasn't been charged with any crime. What's in that bundle of papers he's provided to this top defence lawyer? Perhaps the submissions he made when asking for his mate Jeffrey to get a lenient sentence?
 
Digging an ever deeper hole to fall in.
His image and reputation is already shattered and best would be to resign all his posts, honorary or not, to safeguard the family from further damage.
For goodness sake, just go away. Go and live quietly somewhere and stop hurting your elderly mother.
 
Dman said:
#PrinceAndrew will invite TV camera into the drinks party in Davos as he issues a further denial of the "sex slave" claims says @MailOnline
Click to expand...

It's rare to see a sentence that has so many different signs warning that it's describing a bad idea.
 
My thoughts too. It could be he is consulting with the QC to find out what to say? I'm expecting something very carefully worded there is no reason for him to hire a QC the case is a civil one in another country that hasnt even been accepted yet. I still think that doing this over drinks at a business forum is very inapropriate and is going to cause some to be very uncomfortable.
 
Ridderzaal said:
Digging an ever deeper hole to fall in.
His image and reputation is already shattered and best would be to resign all his posts, honorary or not, to safeguard the family from further damage.
For goodness sake, just go away. Go and live quietly somewhere and stop hurting your elderly mother.
Click to expand...


Doing that would be an admission of guilt.

He hasn't been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.

Innuendo and assumptions have destroyed a lot of reputations, unfairly and this could be the case with Andrew.

There have been a couple of high profile cases in the UK where, as a result of the Saville cover ups, actors were charged. They were condemned all over the internet and low and behold, the juries found them not guilty in criminal cases. Their reputations, however, have taken a severe hit.

Andrew hasn't even been asked to answer any criminal charges so why should he give up his life because there are people who choose to ignore the fact that he has the same rights as anyone else -- the presumption of INNOCENCE until PROVEN guilty.

If he is proven guilty, in a criminal case, then yes he should resign everything but until then he should simply carry on as normal rather than have his life destroyed because of the assumption of guilt taken by many people who simply dislike the man.
 
Ceallach said:
He has a lawyer.

Andrew hires top lawyer to fight under-age sex claims: Prince hires 'grandfather of the bar' to help fight allegations as he prepares to make first public appearance | Daily Mail Online

Ridderzaal said:
Digging an ever deeper hole to fall in.
His image and reputation is already shattered and best would be to resign all his posts, honorary or not, to safeguard the family from further damage.
For goodness sake, just go away. Go and live quietly somewhere and stop hurting your elderly mother.

Iluvbertie said:
Doing that would be an admission of guilt.

He hasn't been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.

Innuendo and assumptions have destroyed a lot of reputations, unfairly and this could be the case with Andrew.

There have been a couple of high profile cases in the UK where, as a result of the Saville cover ups, actors were charged. They were condemned all over the internet and low and behold, the juries found them not guilty in criminal cases. Their reputations, however, have taken a severe hit.

Andrew hasn't even been asked to answer any criminal charges so why should he give up his life because there are people who choose to ignore the fact that he has the same rights as anyone else -- the presumption of INNOCENCE until PROVEN guilty.

If he is proven guilty, in a criminal case, then yes he should resign everything but until then he should simply carry on as normal rather than have his life destroyed because of the assumption of guilt taken by many people who simply dislike the man.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well said Bertie!

Perhaps the TPTB at BP have finally realised that innocence is no protection "In the Court of Public Opinion" and that the false argument that "Silence betokens consent" is away and running while they've been busy insisting Andrew to take the moral high ground and "never complain, never explain'. That may have worked in the early 20th Century but is not helping the this, the 21st Century.

Perhaps Andrew is taking a leaf out of Mike Tindall's book and preparing to go on the offensive and has retained William Clegg, QC to assist. As to the mysterious bundles, perhaps he is in contact with Alan Dershowitz in the US.

This case is not a criminal case, but a civil one. It does, however, allow unsupported allegations to be made known to the media and that is where Alan Dershowitz and hopefully Prince Andrew can fight back for their reputations.

The damage done to the reputations of both men is, in all probability, irreparable as the lynch mobs whipped up by papers like the DM continue to stir with impunity. But, are they on shaky legal ground?

Odd Question: Something about that photo of Andrew and Virginia Roberts bugs the hell out of me. When you pose for a photo such as that, why would you hold your left arm in such an odd way? Not saying the photo's fake, just curious.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/18/2461334900000578-0-image-m-14_1421620861268.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -
6 7 8
Replies
223
Views
14K
Curryong
C
L
  • Locked
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003
3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
28K
Alexandria
A
J
  • Locked
Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik, Current Events 1: May 2003 - November 2006
17 18 19
Replies
564
Views
100K
norwegianne
norwegianne

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom