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.
Globetrotting over the world in private jets doesn't really go together with sex slave. Sex slave is more locked up in a basement of a house in Cleveland or the kidnapped girl who was living in the backyard shack getting raped for 18 years in California. Why not tell someone?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Globetrotting over the world in private jets doesn't really go together with sex slave. Sex slave is more locked up in a basement of a house in Cleveland or the kidnapped girl who was living in the backyard shack getting raped for 18 years in California. Why not tell someone?

I have a feeling the term "sex slave" is at least partly due to the nature of the legislation under which Epstein has been charged and the wording of the sections, partly sensationalism, and partly afterthought on the part of the girls when they became aware they could get money - well, more money - out of what Epstein had done.

The crimes relating to minors are strict liability crimes; consent is irrelevant. One can be a sex slave without being chained up for years and raped. The legislation only requires persuasion, inducement, or enticement, not knocking the person out cold and transporting them unconscious and threatening them with violence if they don't do what they're told.
 
Disgusting! I wonder what the chances are for guilty parties to be brought to justice? Given past history on such cases, very close to nil I'd say.
 
Andrew may have remained friends with Epstein because Epstein might have used the excuse:
'The girl lied, she told me she was 20.”

The 18 year old Kentucky man with a criminal record that went on the lam with his 13 year old girl friend is using the same excuse. His mother said he told her the girl was 19.

Do you trust your friend or do you trust an unknown?
(I am not defending Epstein in any way.)
 
Andrew may have remained friends with Epstein because Epstein might have used the excuse:
'The girl lied, she told me she was 20.”

The 18 year old Kentucky man with a criminal record that went on the lam with his 13 year old girl friend is using the same excuse. His mother said he told her the girl was 19.

Do you trust your friend or do you trust an unknown?
(I am not defending Epstein in any way.)


Not many 12 year olds look like 20 year olds
I'm over some people blaming those very young and in most cases poor girls instead of the weathly older manipulating men


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Jeffrey Epstein is accused of having sex with children as young as 12.. [...]

You yourself used the correct word: accused.

Mr Epstein was convicted for felony solicitation of prostitution. All other possible alleged crimes and misdemeanors thrown to him are, for so far, what they are: accusations.

These days you can even accuse public persons, the very day after they have died. Then suddenly claimants pop up that the just-died person would have "raped" three decades ago or something. That is easy, the person is dead and can not defend himself anymore (the late Lord Brittan) who died 6 days ago). Result: smear on a man's grave.

:ermm:
 
Not many 12 year olds look like 20 year olds
I'm over some people blaming those very young and in most cases poor girls instead of the weathly older manipulating men


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

why do you keep referencing a 12 year old? has Andrew been accused of having relations with a 12 year old? Because if he has, I must have missed it. Can you provide the source of your accusation?

While some of us [myself included] are questioning some of the facts, I don't seem to recall anyone blaming any of the victims and giving the likes of Epstein a pass on anything that he has done. What we are trying to do is trying to balance the tabloid like headlines with the facts that out there, the righteous indignation, the calls to hang Andrew before we know all the facts, etc. I mean, when did the Daily Mail become a legitimate news sources. Have I bumped my head?

Many of us realize that rape, the sexual exploitation and victimization of the young is a serious issue and crime that needs to be addressed. Let it be known, however, that for myself, I am getting a little tired of the suggestion that because we ask a question or state an opinion that questions the veracity of charges, we are blaming the victim, making excuses for Andrew, or absolving the like of Epstein for his convicted crimes.

And for the record, it is possible for a young girl to pretend to be older. I just found out recently that while while i was in college [many many years ago], my younger sister was dating someone who was my age. She is a 8 years younger than I. While I wouldn't say that she looked anywhere near my age, she certainly didn't look 13.....I was away at college and my parents were going thru a divorce, and she was doing her thing because no one was paying attention. Trust me....while there aren't a hundreds of thousands of 12 year old pretending to be 18 or above, all it takes it just one.
 
Last edited:
I never said Andrew did but there 12 year old girls used in the whole disgusting mess.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I never said Andrew did but there 12 year old girls used in the whole disgusting mess.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

While it is truly disgusting, why don't we just focus on Andrew and the girls who are apart of this civil case.
 
Because they are apart of this case too as far as I can see.
It's a fact that Epstein only got the tiniest slap on the hand and everything was easily covered up. It's disgusting and Andrew , Clinton and anyone else involved should be made to pay.
But not the girls.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Because they are apart of this case too as far as I can see.
It's a fact that Epstein only got the tiniest slap on the hand and everything was easily covered up. It's disgusting and Andrew , Clinton and anyone else involved should be made to pay.
But not the girls.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

But pay for what exactly? other than having extremely bad judgement on picking Epstein for a friend.....what are they exactly guilty of? has Andrew and Clinton been charged with anything specific? and are you the jury and executioner in determining their guilt?

Not to speak for everyone, but this is exactly what I mean. We are letting emotions rule instead of rational thoughts and facts. You speak that they should be made to pay but pay for what exactly? Certainly if in a court of law, they are found guilty by a jury of their peers after specific evidence that determine their guilt is presented, than yes they should pay but not before it. Its like trial by internet. All you need is internet access and a keyboard, and people are pulling up facts faster than you can say Zonk. It doesn't matter if people haven't check these call facts. It's on the internet than it must be true.

And for the record, the last time I checked Epstein was the accused of these horrific crimes. Not Andrew. So although Andrew has shown extremely bad judgement, and there are MANY MANY questions that need to be answered, last time I checked...the 12 year old had nothing to do with Andrew.
 
Last edited:
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy

Using their power to get such a reduced sentence for Epstein and sorry I thought we could say what we thought and felt but it appears not !!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Andrew is being made the scapegoat by the media.

The media failed to give this story the proper coverage when the 1st charges were brought against Epstein. The media failed to question why Epstein received a very light sentence.

The media is complacent in the cover up.
 
Andrew is being made the scapegoat by the media.

The media failed to give this story the proper coverage when the 1st charges were brought against Epstein. The media failed to question why Epstein received a very light sentence.

The media is complacent in the cover up.


Andrew is not being made a scapegoat by the media. He has been accused so of course they are writing about him. Yes they should have questioned the sentence and they didn't let's hope they do this time but I very much doubt it.
For too long rich powerful men have got away with treating children and women as "things" to be used and abused. And for too long others have stood by and let it happen and blamed the victim for "asking for it " as in " she was smiling in the picture "
You don't have to worry about Andrew nothing will come of this too many of those rich powerful men and not enough people willing to stand up and stop it happening


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Andrew is being made the scapegoat by the media.

The media failed to give this story the proper coverage when the 1st charges were brought against Epstein. The media failed to question why Epstein received a very light sentence.

The media is complacent in the cover up.

So far, it appears that only the British media is putting the heat on Andrew. It's been mentioned in the US press, but not in the same intensity. Of course, if it turns out Clinton is involved, than I expect it to ramp up as we get closer to 2016.

First and foremost, the court system failed these girls. I am also surprised that the media didn't run with this story when it first came out. A rich man, young underage girls and a sex scandal...not to make light of the situation it just doesn't make sense but this is what tabloid journalism is all about. Especially since Epstein's phone book is a like a who's who.

Is there a website or newspaper who is truly investigating this like true journalist, or is just the tabloids.
 
Last edited:
No, the media weren't as incisive as they could have been in covering why Epstein was treated with kid gloves by the judicial system.

It isn't journalists however, who became close to Epstein, and who allegedly had sex with a 17 year old, introduced by him.

It isnt the media whose exes took money from their friend to cover their debts, who stayed at his house, brought him to their mothers' birthday party, or remained his friend after he was put on the sexual offenders register, having served a sentence for sexual offences with young girls.

Andrew's not being scapegoated. Lets not shoot the messenger here!
 
No, the media weren't as incisive as they could have been in covering why Epstein was treated with kid gloves by the judicial system.

It isn't journalists however, who became close to Epstein, and who allegedly had sex with a 17 year old, introduced by him.

It isnt the media whose exes took money from their friend to cover their debts, who stayed at his house, brought him to their mothers' birthday party, or remained his friend after he was put on the sexual offenders register, having served a sentence for sexual offences with young girls.

Andrew's not being scapegoated. Lets not shoot the messenger here!


Excellent agree completely


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
This reminds me of Stuart Levine.

His crimes were known to the Feds for decades but were ignored. When he went to prison he was only sentenced to 5 1/2 years because he decided to testify against the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich.

Levine was the kind of man who would fly friends, like Rod Blagojevich, on a private jet to New York for fundraisers.

Now, knowing Stuart Levine, and knowing that he hosted drug and sex parties for years, ask yourself this: How many public officials do you suppose the Department of Justice can tell what to do, and what to think, because they know of their attendance at those parties?

You see, the old slogan in Chicago was: "It's not what you know; it's who you know." The new slogan is, "It's not who you know; it's what you know about who you know."

(1.) Who attended these parties with Levine?
(2.) Are any of them still holding public office where they make decisions about our future?
(3.) Is anyone being blackmailed for having been at those parties?
And lastly, (4.) "Why does the Department of Justice refuse to release any information about those parties?

Meanwhile, the Chicago media maintains its silence and refuses to ask the obvious question: "Who attended the illegal drug parties with Stuart Levine, while he was spending millions of dollars of teachers' retirement money?" Or, perhaps several key reporters know who was there, and are, for one reason or another, unwilling to report what they know.

http://illinoispaytoplay.com/tag/stuart-p-levine/

A few more of his crimes.

"You defrauded the good people of the state of Illinois. You stole from close friends. You stole from charities. The havoc that you wreaked is certainly substantial," St. Eve declared. "You were certainly one of the most corrupt individuals this district has ever seen."

Yet minutes later the judge imposed the 51/2-year prison term on Levine, saying she was convinced that he was not the same arrogant and egotistical defendant she met four years ago when he testified in her courtroom.

Before his arrest, Levine appeared to the public to be a successful businessman living in a North Shore mansion who served on the boards of charities and key state agencies.

But behind the scenes he was using the access and influence he had amassed to steal from a long list of victims. He teamed up in kickback schemes with some of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's top advisers, squeezing millions of dollars from people seeking to do business with the state. And he stole $2 million from the estate of a close friend.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-20/news/ct-met-stuart-levine-sentencing-0720-20120720_1_political-insider-stuart-levine-purple-hotel-attorney-christopher-niewoehner
 
Using their power to get such a reduced sentence for Epstein and sorry I thought we could say what we thought and felt but it appears not !!

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

It isn't a crime to contact a prosecutor and ask him to go easy on a friend or member of the family. People do it all the time. I agree that it would be reprehensible if Andrew did so in this case, but there is no proof that he did. We will know for sure if the court decides to release the documents.

Epstein has (or had) many powerful friends. I don't think a letter or call from Prince Andrew alone would have had much impact on the prosecution. It's possible that the prosecution cut the deal because several famous people, including Andrew, were involved, but I bet that there were many considerations that went into the plea bargain.

Epstein cut deals with many of the girls and no prosecutor likes to force victims of trafficking to testify against their will. There may have been other considerations, including admissibility of evidence, police mistakes, etc... We don't have the information yet.

If it comes out that Andrew contacted the prosecutor on Epstein's behalf, his "payment" will be in the court of public opinion. I see no credible evidence that Andrew has committed a crime. There is no allegation that Andrew had sex with anyone other than Jane Doe #3, who admits she was at least 17 at the time of the encounter. It may have been a crime if the encounter took place in Florida but we don't know that yet.

Jane Doe #3's memory for dates and places does not seem to be accurate. That is not an attack on the victim. It's based on the manifests Dershowitz released. Other information may confirm her story. We don't have the facts yet.

Just because someone is a victim of a crime does not mean that we have to believe every word that comes out of her mouth.
 
Oh my God, I completely forgot about the Stuart Levine story. Greed and power sure warps 80% of people in position to screw other human beings. The one doing the illegal deeds and the many others letting it happen just so that their lives are made a little bit easier are equality at fault. By turning their eyes and playing ignorant to immoral practices, they are just as guilty. Makes no different if they are family, friends or their employers, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If anyone has had to testify in court against a person that your own family and friends thinks you shouldn't, but you must because it is the correct and truthful thing to do, you will know exactly how life should be treated.
 
Jeffrey Epstein breaks his silence over Prince Andrew 'sex slave' scandal | Daily Mail Online
Paedophile Jeffrey Epstein has hit out at 'outlandish attacks' by the 'gossip media' in his first statement since former friend Prince Andrew was accused of having sex with a 17-year-old girl.

The billionaire spoke out as he tried to prevent the release of a key plea bargain letter from the 2008 underage prostitution case which saw him jailed for 18 months.

Epstein's lawyers condemned what they called a 'media frenzy' and said their client - who Virginia Roberts said in court papers compelled her to have sex with the Prince - deserved 'protection'.
 
"The Talented Mr. Epstein"

I apologize if this old article from 2003 has already been posted, but it's quite interesting. Apparently Epstein let it be known that he managed the Queen's money- maybe that's the source of her so-called financial problems. And Rosa Monckton (Diana's good friend) is a long time friend of Epstein's. Plus Donald Trump is amusingly referred to as "real estate personality Donald Trump".

The Talented Mr. Epstein | Vanity Fair
 
Golly hope he didn't really have anything to do with the Queens money. Surely that's just him lying about himself I would be shocked if that's true.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Golly hope he didn't really have anything to do with the Queens money. Surely that's just him lying about himself I would be shocked if that's true.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I certainly hope that Epstein's ego was just talking. Surely the Queen's accountants would never permit.
 
In the Vanity Fair article it just says that Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann was 'under the impression' that Epstein manages the Queen's money. The article is not exactly sympathetic to Epstein's manner, surroundings or ways of living his life!

Maybe he gave Andrew investment advice and told others that he was giving financial advice to Britain's royal family. He sounds like he would boast in that sort of way. I think the Queen has a circle of discreet top British advisers.
 
In the Vanity Fair article it just says that Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann was 'under the impression' that Epstein manages the Queen's money. The article is not exactly sympathetic to Epstein's manner, surroundings or ways of living his life!

Maybe he gave Andrew investment advice and told others that he was giving financial advice to Britain's royal family. He sounds like he would boast in that sort of way. I think the Queen has a circle of discreet top British advisers.
That would make sense on the investment advice and Epstein just blew up the story with his imagined self-worth and importance. If true, I am sure that Epstein would have been told discreetly to cut the BS and that would have put an end to the silly story.
 
These allegations will sort themselves out one way or the other. But I'm beginning to suspect that not much will come of them for one simple reason. If Roberts had proof of these encounters with Andrew, wouldn't she have come forward with it by now? Andrew is already tarnished and will forever be haunted by his lousy judgement in associating with Epstein. But without proof that he's lying, he has nothing to worry about legally.

The real question about Andrew that I'd like the papers to explore is how he's ended up such a sad, lonely figure. Why did he allow the mega-selfish Sarah Ferguson to betray him more than once and still keep giving her the benefit of the doubt? Why did he throw away any chance to remarry in allowing her to keep her greedy grip on his sense of chivalry? How did he go from being such a dashing and appealing young man to a pudgy and arrogant has-been who seems desperate to be taken seriously?
How did his once promising life end up this way? Those are the questions I'd like to see answered. Thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom