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.
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?

Interesting question. Since this claim is all about the plaintiffs being denied rights and seeking to have the agreement to not prosecute set aside because of it, my inclination is that public policy considerations would likely favour the bringing of charges in the event the petition is successful. I am assuming that the hearing would involve evidence of the prosecutors being influenced by improper considerations when making their decision to enter into the agreement. I don't know whether there is a precedent in the jurisdiction though.
 
Well, from that CBS article posted, it seems the prosecutors are arguing there is a statute of limitations for this act and that Jane Does 3 and 4 have not met it. I can't find a statute of limitations on it. I'd love to see the new filings.
 
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?

To initiate a prosecution criminal conduct must occurr in that state and it must be reported to investigative agencies in that state. So for example, there are allegations that Epstein and co-conspirators engaged in criminal acts at his ranch in New Mexico, but unless one of the minors reported this to New Mexican authorities or, as a result of their investigation the FBI alerted New Mexico, New Mexico would have been unaware that Epstein and cronies were having sex with minors in their jurisdiction. So, it's possible that other named states (New York and California are mentioned in the pleadings) didn't even know crimes had been committed in their states. One of the allegations is that a group of 12 year old girls where flown from France to Florida for sex as a birthday present for Epstein, I don't know, but it might be a crime to procure 12 year olds from France for sex with billionaire pedophiles, but unless someone reports this crime to France, no prosecution will happen. And obviously those states & France didn't go along with a deal that they probably didn't know about.
My recollection is that what started the whole investigation was a 14 year old's stepmother telling Florida authorities. They initiated a prosecution and obtained a conviction. Florida may have kept the victims they knew about fully advised and involved in the plea negotiations which resulted in Epstein's prison sentence. As a result of this initial state investigation the FBI initiated it's own investigation - the Florida investigators might have gone to the FBI if one of their victims said Epstein flew them out of Florida for sex (a federal crime) for example. The FBI may have uncovered the 38 + additional victims but not shared their results with Florida investigators and prosecutors. Indeed the only time a local prosecutor tends to see FBI reports is if the U.S. Attorney's office decides not to take it federally and the FBI shows up at the local prosecutor's office asking if they'll file state charges on the case.
It is also likely that Florida prosecutors were not given the reports from the FBI investigation, thus they may not have known of the number of victims - they knew their case and their victims, but the Feds keep things very close to the vest.
The Florida prosecutors may not have even been aware that the U.S. Attorney's office was negotiating a deal to drop charges based on Epstein's plea to the state charges. Even if the Florida prosecutors knew the Feds were agreeing to drop the Fed charges in exchange for the state plea I doubt that the Feds let the local prosecutors know any specifics about the deal they negotiated with Dershowitz & Epstein's other lawyers - remember this was a pre charging deal worked out by the Feds, so there was no public record, only the FBI investigation reports and evidence seized and the U. S Attorney's file, neither of which the Florida prosecutors would normally see, nor would they normally take part in the plea negotiations between the U.S. Attorney and Epstein's team. The Feds don't play that way, and they are pretty much 'need to know' and in their world local prosecutors just don't need to know what the U.S. Attorney has evidence wise or is or is not prosecuting.
On an unrelated note - there's claims that Epstein videotaped his 'friends' with his girls, and that the FBI seized at least some of those tapes - so even though these crimes occurred before every cell phone became a camera, there may be videos and photos. For some reason pedophiles love having stashes of nasty home movies and of course the allegation is that Epstein filmed his friends for blackmail in case he should need to 'influence' them.
 
Last edited:
Interesting question. Since this claim is all about the plaintiffs being denied rights and seeking to have the agreement to not prosecute set aside because of it, my inclination is that public policy considerations would likely favour the bringing of charges in the event the petition is successful. I am assuming that the hearing would involve evidence of the prosecutors being influenced by improper considerations when making their decision to enter into the agreement. I don't know whether there is a precedent in the jurisdiction though.

You make a good point about the public policy considerations but the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the accused has the right to a speedy trial. I think Epstein would have an excellent argument that his constitutional rights would be violated whether there is a formal statute of limitations or not.

As far as I know, there is no credible allegation of serious misconduct by the prosecutor--the Jane Does are not alleging bribery. The allegation is that the prosecutors were influenced by Epstein's powerful friends. It's possible, but it's not illegal. Prosecutors have discretion in all cases and there could be other reasons they agreed to this deal.


Sndral, thanks for the history. Very interesting.
 
Well, how miserable the lady looks on the (real?) picture with the Duke. All smiles from ear to ear. Phew phew, lady, what cruelty and what hardship, gosh... And she was "forced", three times even, to sleep with "Andy". Sure, whatever "forced" means....

What is a girl aged 17 doing in between all these surroundings anyway. It is the same nonsense as a lady claiming that she was underaged when Bill Cosby allegedly misused her while she was in the Playboy Estate... Come on...
 
Prince Andrew says he wants to reiterate statements made by buckingham palace and says ''my focus is on my work''.

Prince Andrew says 'my focus is my work' as he makes first public statement about sex abuse claims - Telegraph

Speaking at an event for entrepreneurs at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he said: "Firstly I think I must for the record refer to the events that have taken place over the last few weeks.
"I wish to reiterate and reaffirm the statements already made on my behalf by Buckingham Palace. My focus is my work."
It is the first time a senior member of the Royal family has appeared before TV cameras to deny allegations of serious sexual impropriety.
 
Last edited:
Some people have very strange morals they are still blaming the female. Poor Andrew ????


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Some people have very strange morals they are still blaming the female. Poor Andrew ????


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
These sentiments is only if the accusations is false. A usual 17 year old isn't coerced more than a 20 year old. It's not like most 17 year old and younger don't have sex...
 
These sentiments is only if the accusations is false. A usual 17 year old isn't coerced more than a 20 year old. It's not like most 17 year old and younger don't have sex...


" most"???


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
@BBCBreaking: Prince Andrew publicly denies claims by a US woman who says she was forced to have sex with him http://t.co/5WlF1PzZ6v


@RoyalCentral: Prince Andrew- "I wish to reiterate and reaffirm the statements already made by Buckingham Palace" (Via @britishroyals)
 
Emily Andrews ‏@byEmilyAndrews 6 mins6 minutes ago
#PrinceAndrew: "I just wish to reiterate & to reaffirm statements which have already been made on my behalf by BP" Not sure that's enough...

Rebecca English @RE_DailyMail · 54 mins 54 minutes ago
Unprecedented public denial over damaging sex claims by Prince Andrew tonight. Will it be enough? I doubt it.

Prince Andrew breaks silence over sex scandal and denies he slept with underage teen | Daily Mail Online
The Duke of York today for the first time publicly denied allegations he had underage sex with a teenager, 'reiterating and reaffirming' Buckingham Palace statements that rebutted the claims.

Prince Andrew was in Davos, Switzerland, to meet the world's most rich and powerful people as he faced growing pressure to testify on oath about his contacts with the alleged ‘sex slave'.

The 54-year-old, who is fifth in line to the throne, said: 'Firstly, I think I must want for the record to refer to the events that have taken place in the last few weeks.

‘And I just wish to reiterate and to reaffirm the statements which have already been made on my behalf by Buckingham Palace. My focus is on my work.'

Virginia Roberts claims she had sex three times with the Duke of York including at an orgy on a Caribbean island involving eight other young girls.
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess that statement clarified everything, lol.
 
Would have been better to say nothing. Don't think it helped at all and the way he walked in head down over the phone looking nervous would have looked better with head held high.
Sorry I still think he was involved


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Would have been better to say nothing. Don't think it helped at all and the way he walked in head down over the phone looking nervous would have looked better with head held high.
Sorry I still think he was involved


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
I don't agree. Head high would have looked like he didn't care one way or another. Noone would walk with their head high after the week he had, guilty or not. So that would just have looked bizarre.
 
Unfortunately for Prince Andrew, I don't think this story is going to go away any time soon. Gawker has some of the flight logs from Epstein's jet and it shows that both Clinton and Dershowitz flew on it at various times. I think Clinton's connection may give this story much more publicity. Especially with an election year coming up.

http://gawker.com/flight-logs-put-clinton-dershowitz-on-pedophile-billio-1681039971
 
Some people have very strange morals they are still blaming the female. Poor Andrew ????


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The difference is that I see the Duke of York as innocent until proven. You seem to see the Duke as guilty unless he has proven he is not. That is the world upside down.

"You are my father!"

"I beg your pardon, how dare you? I am not!"

"Prove it! Prove that you are NOT my father!"


That is the same practice, people almost enforced against the wall and prove their innocence instead the other way.

:flowers:
 
Unfortunately for Prince Andrew, I don't think this story is going to go away any time soon. Gawker has some of the flight logs from Epstein's jet and it shows that both Clinton and Dershowitz flew on it at various times. I think Clinton's connection may give this story much more publicity. Especially with an election year coming up.

Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire’s Sex Jet

What does the fact that Mr Clinton and Mr Dershowitz shared a plane have to with the Duke of York and the accusation of alleged misconduct uttered towards him by a lady claimed to be "forced", three times even?
 
The difference is that I see the Duke of York as innocent until proven. You seem to see the Duke as guilty unless he has proven he is not. That is the world upside down.

"You are my father!"

"I beg your pardon, how dare you? I am not!"

"Prove it! Prove that you are NOT my father!"


That is the same practice, people almost enforced against the wall and prove their innocence instead the other way.

:flowers:


What I'm saying is people still say " it's the girls fault " and yes I think he did have sex with her. I'm not going to go back over why as it's just repeating what I've said before.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
What does the fact that Mr Clinton and Mr Dershowitz shared a plane have to with the Duke of York and the accusation of alleged misconduct uttered towards him by a lady claimed to be "forced", three times even?

As my post pointed out, this story isn't going away any time soon. First is was Prince Andrew, now other high profile people are being brought into it. The more publicity it gets, the more damaging it is for Andrew.
 
Last edited:
With Andrew its not strictly a matter of guilt or innocence. He needs to be concerned about spin and PR. He represents the Queen and British Government and the longer the story stays in the media and the more high profile figures get mentioned (like Clinton) the longer it hangs over Andrew and potentially could lead to him scaling back duties or even retiring from pubic life.

I personally think Andrew is in for a very rough year
 
When the Duke of York and his legal team can demasqué the lady as a fraud and a swindler, then he can get out of all this with head up. Also the later King Edward VII had to face public scandals in Court (once to be heard in gambling case and once to be heard in an adultery case) but this did not prevent him to regain public approval.
 
Last edited:
I wonder who is advising him. I think inviting the press in and mentioning it in his speech was not good PR. We now have pictures and video of him looking to me as a very worried and desperate man. Just digging the hole deeper



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
When the Duke of York and his legal team can demasqué the lady as a fraud and a swindler, then he can get out of all this with head up. Also the later King Edward VII had to face public scandals in Court (once to be heard in gambling case and once to be heard in an adultery case) but this did not prevent him to regain public approval.


Very different times and no where as bad as sex with underage girl and helping a friend !! get a lighter sentence for having sex with children. Girls as young as 12 !!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom