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

[Roslyn]

I thought that places and times and some details had been alleged

Though it's possible they are out there, I have not seen any accounts of specific dates or places or times. Radar Online apparently has copies of 24 "jaw-dropping pages" of Roberts' hand-written "sex-slave diary", but I haven't found all 24 pages available anywhere. I would love to see them if anyone else has a link. I mean the whole thing, not just parts of a few pages.

 

[MARG]

It's only the tabloids who are saying he will address the scandal. When he doesn't, then they can criticize him for ducking the issue and NOT addressing it

Andrew should address the scandal. He should do it at home and be truthful.

How many times do we have to reiterate that he and Alan Dershowitz were "mentioned" in the documents of a Civil Suit against Mr Epstein.
They are not the subjects!

This is not, repeat not a Criminal Case, it is a Civil Suit for financial gain!!!​

 

[soapstar]

I thought the suit was against the federal prosecutors (not Epstein)? From what I understand, some of the victims were suing because prosecutors failed to consult them before Epstein's plea deal and they were seeking to overturn it.

 

[USAPolitics]

I am amazed at the responses on this thread. Some have him guilty of debaunching an innocent and think banishing him from public life, or is it the UK, is the answer.



Others say, hang on a minute, has he broken the law? Has he been charged with a criminal offense? No? Then what the hell is with the flog him and bury him brigade. Due process? Guilty by association more like because the niceties of the law don't apply to Andrew because of who he is.



Question for our US members: Is Alan Dershowitz getting this sort of publicity and heat?

He is not. Alan Dershowitz.

 

[royal rob]

I'm pretty sure it's not Civil Suit for ...financial gain!!!



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[royal rob]

So palace have confirmed Andrew will give speech tomorrow Don't expect him to say much just allude to scandal briefly I think. Anything else would be crazy


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lumutqueen]

So palace have confirmed Andrew will give speech tomorrow Don't expect him to say much just allude to scandal briefly I think. Anything else would be crazy


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Where have BP confirmed this? And is it confirmed he will speak about this issue or that he's going to speak?

 

[royal rob]

And this isn't good news either
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ex-abuse-claims-after-flight-logs-emerge.html


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[hernameispekka]

And this isn't good news either
Prince Andrew under renewed pressure to speak about 'sex abuse' claims after flight logs emerge - Telegraph


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

ohh...aahh.... nooo... This will not be good.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I doubt that he has done what he is accused of, but should it prove to be some truth to it, which also means that he has lied to the palace, then we have one of the biggest royal scandals ever.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

And this isn't good news either
Prince Andrew under renewed pressure to speak about 'sex abuse' claims after flight logs emerge - Telegraph


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I can't click - I've reached my 10 a month quota (which I never reach with The Telegraph, thanks Andy, haha). But I saw the headlines about the flight logs being made public.

Fasten you seatbelts, royal peeps, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

 

[hernameispekka]

I can't click - I've reached my 10 a month quota (which I never reach with The Telegraph, thanks Andy, haha). But I saw the headlines about the flight logs being made public.

Fasten you seatbelts, royal peeps, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

It says that flight manifests tell that he was at the places the girl is saying he was at the times.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

It says that flight manifests tell that he was at the places the girl is saying he was at the times.

Oh. Oh, dear.

 

[Rudolph]

Flight logs from the private jet of the Duke’s friend Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender, show Virginia Roberts and the Duke were both in the locations where she claims to have had sex with him, at the relevant times.

It is understood that any reference he makes to the scandal will be brief and will simply underline his previous denials, but it would nevertheless set a new precedent for a member of the Royal family to make a public statement about allegations of a sexual nature.

At some point, guilty or not, fair or not Andrew needs to slip quietly into the background and 'retire'

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Guilty or not, there was always a percentage of the population who were inclined to believe Virginia Roberts. Now there's a larger percentage. Where this will go, nobody knows.

IF he did hire a lawyer, we were all wondering about the timing- might it have been because he knew the flight records had been obtained and knew we were going a bit past the "he said she said stage?"

 

[hernameispekka]

I have no doubt it is possible that he slept with the girl. I have always found that very possible, so these manifests doesn't surprise me. While that alone can be seen as morally wrong it's not illegal in any way. At best it is PR-stupid. This alone is bad enough in the press. But the "real" problem now is the extent of his knowledge. Did he just think he got lucky with a young woman or did he know more?

 

[Rudolph]

The thing is, as Richard Palmer stated, if Andrew worked for the government he would have been sacked ages ago. He is still representing Britain because he is only accountable to the Queen. No one elected Andrew to do anything on their behalf.

If he were just joe blow, no one would care but the fact he gets second, third and fourth chances solely because he's the Queen's second son will begin to hurt the image of the BRF in the eyes of the public

 

[hernameispekka]

The thing is, as Richard Palmer stated, if Andrew worked for the government he would have been sacked ages ago. He is still representing Britain because he is only accountable to the Queen. No one elected Andrew to do anything on their behalf.

If he were just joe blow, no one would care but the fact he gets second, third and fourth chances solely because he's the Queen's second son will begin to hurt the image of the BRF in the eyes of the public

This I agree with. The BRF must be very careful.. One time to many can hurt them really bad.

 

[Rudolph]

Meanwhile fresh legal papers submitted to a Florida court on Tuesday evening allege that Epstein asked Miss Roberts to have his baby in return for cash and a mansion.

She describes the “disgustingly sick” proposition in an interview with her lawyer, saying he wanted her to hand the baby over to him and his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the late newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell.

She said: “He offered me a mansion and some of his money every month, I forget what he called it, a monthly income of what he made to bear one of his children.

“The proposition was that if anything ever happened between Jeffrey and I, that I would have to sign my child over to him basically and that the child would be his and Ghislaine’s, and I would be looking after it as long as nothing happened between Jeffrey and I.

“So, I was kind of freaked out by all of that.”

She said it was the final straw that convinced her to flee from Epstein and build a new life in Australia.

Ms Roberts is certainly not backing down in regards to Epstein.

I reckon Andrew has about one life left, if he gets 'implicated' any further I think his goose is cooked at least as far as being a senior member of the royal family

 

[Roslyn]

I have no doubt it is possible that he slept with the girl. I have always found that very possible, so these manifests doesn't surprise me. While that alone can be seen as morally wrong it's not illegal in any way. At best it is PR-stupid. This alone is bad enough in the press. But the "real" problem now is the extent of his knowledge. Did he just think he got lucky with a young woman or did he know more?

I agree. Because if he did know more, and if the plaintiffs are successful in having the plea bargain set aside and the co-conspirators are fair game again, he could be in real trouble. Still all speculation, of course, but, especially now we know they were in the same place at the same time, I think it's likely he did have sex with her, and I also think it's unlikely that he would be so arrogant and/or stupid as to believe he just got lucky so many times, and if he did know more he'd be foolish to NOT be engaging a darn good lawyer.

How Andrew must wish he lived in the days of his great-uncle, Prince George, Duke of Kent! In George's day you could get away with all manner of scandalous activity and it could be kept from the public.

 

[rmay286]

I agree. Because if he did know more, and if the plaintiffs are successful in having the plea bargain set aside and the co-conspirators are fair game again, he could be in real trouble. Still all speculation, of course, but, especially now we know they were in the same place at the same time, I think it's likely he did have sex with her, and I also think it's unlikely that he would be so arrogant and/or stupid as to believe he just got lucky so many times, and if he did know more he'd be foolish to NOT be engaging a darn good lawyer.

I think the same thing as you, that it's likely Andrew did have sex with her. (I didn't think so before, or at least I was less sure.) The real danger in this, IMO, is not that he had sex with her (there's probably no way to prove that he knew she was underage), but that the Palace issued a very specific denial saying that there was no sexual contact between them.

I *think* that Andrew told the Palace the truth and they decided to express the denial this way anyway, believing that no one could ever prove what happened. Not a good idea. This happened in 2001, before cell phone cameras, but still, you never know...

 

[hernameispekka]

I think the same thing as you, that it's likely Andrew did have sex with her. (I didn't think so before, or at least I was less sure.) The real danger in this, IMO, is not that he had sex with her (there's probably no way to prove that he knew she was underage), but that the Palace issued a very specific denial saying that there was no sexual contact between them.

I *think* that Andrew told the Palace the truth and they decided to express the denial this way anyway, believing that no one could ever prove what happened. Not a good idea. This happened in 2001, before cell phone cameras, but still, you never know...

Oh, I forgot about that part. In that case I am more inclined to think he might have just gotten massages. Either that or he lied to BP. As stupid as their PR department is I doubt their council is that stupid to put out a knowingly false statement on an issue like this

 

[Rudolph]

Prince Andrew 'will open Davos speech by addressing sex abuse allegations' - Telegraph

The Duke of York is expected to begin a keynote speech at the World Economic Forum on Thursday by publicly denying allegations he sexually abused a teenager as American lawyers demand he is interviewed under oath.

The Duke is hosting an event for entrepreneurs at the conference in Davos, Switzerland, and is understood to have decided that the ongoing controversy will be an “elephant in the room” if he does not tackle it head-on.

Although he will not make a final decision about his speech until late in the day, Buckingham Palace has invited a TV cameraman, a photographer and a reporter to record what would be his first public comments about the saga since it began at the start of the month.

His appearance comes as Virginia Roberts, who claims the Duke had sex with her when she was 17, filed documents with a Florida court calling for him to be interviewed under oath about their “interactions” in 2001. A letter has been sent to Buckingham Palace making the formal request.

Carolyn Durand ‏@CarolynDurand 25 mins25 minutes ago
Virginia Roberts lawyer sent letter asking Prince Andrew respond under oath to her sex claims. Her lawyers say BP refused letter from FedEx

 

[hernameispekka]

This is excruciating... Feels like we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop....

 

[Lumutqueen]

Nobody has confirmed he will actually speak about this in Davos. They claim it in the headline and backtrack in the article!


Unless Andrew is the defendant in a case where Virginia Roberts accuses him directly, there is no way he's going to say anything under oath in an interview. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

 

[Rudolph]

Swear on oath you're innocent, lawyers for 'sex slave' tell Prince: Andrew under growing pressure to testify after rejecting letter asking for his 'voluntary co-operation' | Daily Mail Online

Prince Andrew was under growing pressure last night to testify on oath about his contacts with alleged underage ‘sex slave’ Virginia Roberts.

She lodged fresh documents at a Florida court saying her lawyers had served an extraordinary letter on the Duke last week requesting he answer questions – but he ‘refused’ to accept it.

Miss Roberts also issued a stinging attack on ‘false and hurtful’ denials of her claims made by Andrew in the tumultuous past three weeks.

She also claimed his police bodyguards left her alone with the Prince the first time he abused her. Buckingham Palace has strenuously rejected claims the Duke had any ‘sexual contact or relationship’ with Miss Roberts.

Last week, Miss Roberts’ lawyers sent by FedEx couriers an unprecedented letter addressed to ‘His Royal Highness The Duke of York’ at Buckingham Palace requesting his ‘voluntary cooperation in answering question about his sexual interactions’ with her.

The letter offered to interview the prince under oath ‘at a time and place of your choosing’. But her lawyers stated: ‘Federal Express has informed us that the letter has been refused by the recipient.’

The latest documents filed at Palm Beach court house in Florida make plain Miss Roberts’s determination to pursue the Prince – who she said ‘I just called “Andy”.’

 

[GracieGiraffe]

The most interesting part of that letter from counsel is that they plan on new court filings with some more details.

Andrew is in some serious trouble. It is naive to think he is not. Even if he is immune from suit, the damage to his reputation is all but sealed now, and his refusal to speak up voluntarily will cause a lot of people to believe it is Ms.Roberts who is telling the truth.

Not good, not good at all.

 

[Dman]

I think the same thing as you, that it's likely Andrew did have sex with her. (I didn't think so before, or at least I was less sure.) The real danger in this, IMO, is not that he had sex with her (there's probably no way to prove that he knew she was underage), but that the Palace issued a very specific denial saying that there was no sexual contact between them.

I *think* that Andrew told the Palace the truth and they decided to express the denial this way anyway, believing that no one could ever prove what happened. Not a good idea. This happened in 2001, before cell phone cameras, but still, you never know...

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

 

[hernameispekka]

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

That is a personal moral debate, and I get your point. But in this case it is bad beyond peoples morals. BP denied any sexual contact. THAT is what will be the worst if it comes out they did....

 

[GracieGiraffe]

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

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.