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

[Osipi]

Looks like the London police will not look as Andrew's conduct in London

https://www.channel4.com/news/exclu...ex-trafficking-of-girl-in-prince-andrew-photo

They are not even going to try. Talk about bad optics. It looks like the palace had a word.

Do you really think that the palace could have any real influence on New Scotland Yard in this matter? I seriously doubt it. What has happened is that they've looked at what was put in front of them, studied it and weighed the possible validity of the information and deemed that there was not enough to open a full investigation.

Its not bad optics at all. Its professionalism and doing the job they're given to do.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

If the woman is not saying anything happened with Andrew in the UK, there is no case to be opened there.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The legal age of consent in the UK is 16 and Virginia was 17 at the time. As a result unless she made it clear sex wasn't wanted there is no crime committed. The police also ask whether a conviction is possible and having sex with a 17 year old who didn't say 'no' isn't going to get a conviction in the UK - as much as many people would like to see it differently.

This investigation - by the way - was 10 years ago and they found 'no case to answer' probably because Virginia was 17 at the time of any alleged sex in the UK which is not a crime.

Different jurisdictions have different ages of consent and that will be a factor. I believe the age of consent in New York state, for instance is 17 while in Florida it is 18.

 

[Elenath]

The legal age of consent in the UK is 16 and Virginia was 17 at the time. As a result unless she made it clear sex wasn't wanted there is no crime committed. The police also ask whether a conviction is possible and having sex with a 17 year old who didn't say 'no' isn't going to get a conviction in the UK - as much as many people would like to see it differently.



This investigation - by the way - was 10 years ago and they found 'no case to answer' probably because Virginia was 17 at the time of any alleged sex in the UK which is not a crime.

Legal age of consent is also 16 in the Netherlands. However, if prostitution is involved (even if the woman wants to) legal age of consent doesn’t matter. The person involved is still underaged. I’m not sure what UK law says about this though. Here age of consent only applies if no one pays.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy (2010-2019)

I was going to mention these facts but you beat me to it. Well said Osipi.



So Andrew and the Queen smiling on the way to or from Church is a sign of what, guilt, anticipation, relief, skullduggery? Oh please, you will read anything you want regardless of the "facts" of the matter and try to make them fit your opinion.



In effect, you demand HM dismiss him from the family regardless of whether he may be guilty or innocent as if that doesn't matter. But you see, Queen Elizabeth II is a stalwart example to the UK and Commonwealth of the importance of integrity, of common decency, traits you seem to find inconvenient.



You seem to have no idea what Prince Andrew may have done, and still does for that matter, that might have resulted in the award of the KCVO, and I suspect if you did it would not matter. But in reality, it matters a lot and I am the first to say I am grateful not to be living in a land and under a generation of autocratic despotism.



A land where the people are stripped of their rights, their names defamed, and where a person is no longer innocent until proven guilty but rather guilty until they can prove they are innocent. It is no wonder that the Cinemas are filled with ugly, dystopian films portraying ever-increasing depression, desperation and complete hopelessness. What a sad life to live.

I’m not sure why you quoted my post, as it seems this rather unpleasant reply was aimed more at Rob than me.

However, I’ll just be clear: nowhere was I suggesting that Andrew smiling was due to whatever reasons you suggested. I was simply saying that it doesn’t reflect well on him, is all. No need to be so harsh.

I might back out of this thread because it seems to be getting rather heated. I’d rather just read the posts and make up my own mind rather than bracing myself each time I post. Call me overreacting, over sensitive or demanding or whatever, but could we please have a civil discussion without such personal attacks? This is an online discussion forum. There will be opinions one disagrees with, but we should do so in a polite manner IMO. When we are mostly all using TRF in general to wind down and relax, I highly doubt most of us want personal attacks. Once again, I apologise for hijacking the thread because of an issue such as this - everyone probably is annoyed by me now, but I personally believe that we should all have good and interesting discussions, even if we disagree with one another. And if you don’t like a particular poster’s posting style, the ignore button is always useful.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I don’t think this particular thread would be most people’s choice for relaxing reading. The subject matter is more important than critiquing an outfit, guessing a tiara, discussing a baby or a wedding, or guessing who will attend an event.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I don’t think this particular thread would be most people’s choice for relaxing reading. The subject matter is more important than critiquing an outfit, guessing a tiara, discussing a baby or a wedding, or guessing who will attend an event.

That’s very true, I don’t think any sane person would find this relaxing - but that wasn’t what I was getting at: *in general* we tend to use this forum to wind down, and even in the more serious discussions we can still be civil towards one another and disagree with someone without getting personal or jumping down their throat. I guess that’s more what I was trying to say.

 

[Madame Verseau]

New on the Epstein case


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7365911/Jeffrey-Epsteins-lawyers-not-satisfied-coroners-ruling-committed


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7366717/FBI-investigators-zero-Jeffrey-Epsteins-8-000-acre-Zorro-Ranch-


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7366717/FBI-investigators-zero-Jeffrey-Epsteins-8-000-acre-Zorro-Ranch


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7366649/Sarah-Ferguson-shoulder-cry-Prince-Andrew-Spanish-villa.html




This is from DM but there are multiple stories all over and some how Andrew's name gets pulled in. Seriously what is the palace's strategy? Andrew's ride along with the queen to church didn't go down well with a lot of people and I don't think never complain never explain will work here. Will Andrew be part of future events with the BRF like Remembrance Day without reminders of his involvement with Epstein? The press is going to tail Andrew and Sarah. I think the BRF and specifically Andrew needs to get in front of this especially with members of Parliament are demanding explanations. This is not going away.

 

[Denville]

I think hed' be better to keep a low profile and NOT be seen with the queen etc in public...

 

[Mirabel]

Andrew may not have committed a crime, but he has definitely shown poor judgment by his continued association with Epstein.
Some of that mud will stick.

Also, I would be interested to know about that retainer Epstein paid Fergie.
What was that about?

 

[Lilyflo]

It looks like Epstein courted almost everyone who was rich and/or famous, which is a ploy used by many who enjoy a high profile amongst VIPs. It builds a cloak of respectability that assures people it's OK to be seen with or visit this person's homes because XYZ have also visited or been photographed with him or attended his events etc. We saw all this in the UK with notorious sex offender Jimmy Savile who was hiding his crimes 'in plain sight' for decades. Savile also targeted politicians & the BRF to assist in creating the facade of a decent, charity fundraiser. Meanwhile, under the radar he was an abusive monster.

There will be a great many people who have links with Epstein over the years who must be truly horrified at what was uncovered previously & dread what is still to come. These are the innocents who were part of his superficial life without having any idea of the dark interior. This group of people haven’t socialised with Epstein since his conviction in 2008 but their names will crop up as part of his life and those who wish to exploit that for personal or political gain will keep publicising those links, however unjust it is to do so.

There’s another group who might be innocent of sex offences themselves & might not have had a clue about Epstein’s crimes but for reasons only known to them, remained in social contact with Epstein after 2008. This is the group we might hope includes Prince Andrew but even if it does, he must still be held to account for his continued association after that conviction & he must answer for his actions at this time.

Then there are those who knew at least some of what Epstein was doing but said nothing. If they are powerful people then they should be shamed but some of this group could be employees or victims who feared retribution to themselves or their families.

Another group were engaged in crimes themselves and must be churning inside at what might be uncovered in evidence still to be found. Prince Andrew has been accused of being in this group but has refuted the claims.

The evidence so far indicates that Epstein lived on several levels from superficial decency down to systematic, criminal abuse of vulnerable girls & young women. Everyone who is linked with him is somewhere in those levels & the international focus now should be to find the evidence that places people where they were: from entirely innocent to deeply guilty. Once that’s established, those who are innocent should be totally exonerated and those who have committed crimes must be exposed & face the consequences. I hope there are enough brave journalists & lawyers to ensure that justice is served for everyone & those powerful people currently living a similar life will find no place to hide.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Legal age of consent is also 16 in the Netherlands. However, if prostitution is involved (even if the woman wants to) legal age of consent doesn’t matter. The person involved is still underaged. I’m not sure what UK law says about this though. Here age of consent only applies if no one pays.

Yes if prostitution was involved. Guiffre described her life as a "sex slave". In Florida, the age of consent is 18. Consensual sexual contact between a 16 or 17 year old is allowed as long as the male is under 24 years old. Otherwise, it is statuory rape
The legal age for marriage for women is 16 in Florida, with parents' consent

 

[maria-olivia]

How could we respect HRH the Duke of York for his Epstein Friendship and Sarah for Epstein paying her Debts.
How could we see this Duke wearing a Poppy on November 11 and Remembrance Day?
The Firm lost its Glory because of these 2.

 

[stunking]

Suicide? Very suspicious considering the ever changing circumstances. Prince Andrew and Fergie have shown they can make a lot of big bad choices. Part of the glue that holds them together.

 

[Rudolph]

The latest from the Daily Mail. Not a good headline.

EXCLUSIVE: Prince Andrew is pictured inside paedophile Jeffrey Epstein's £63million mansion of depravity nine years ago... so how did he miss signs of the billionaire's sexual deviance?

 

[Zaira]

The latest from the Daily Mail. Not a good headline.

EXCLUSIVE: Prince Andrew is pictured inside paedophile Jeffrey Epstein's £63million mansion of depravity nine years ago... so how did he miss signs of the billionaire's sexual deviance?

Probably because he didn't miss the signs.

 

[Osipi]

It really looks to me like guilt by association is winning hands down when it comes to Andrew and his association with Epstein. Some are even suggesting that The Duke of York slink off into a hole somewhere in shame and disappear from public forevermore. The Daily Mail isn't helping matters much either, it seems. What gets me is that there is absolutely no concrete allegations that have come to light against Andrew that would warrant prosecuting him for.

Are we perhaps judging Andrew only on his association with Epstein and deeming him not fit to be his mother's son, a prince of the UK and father of two beautiful women? Are we going to push aside the work that Andrew does for the "Firm"? In the last few tallies that Iluvbertie has done, Andrew ranks the *third* highest in events and duties and engagements behind Charles and Anne. Should all those organizations such as Pitch@Palace go to the scrap heap because old allegations have resurfaced again?

People love a good scandal and backyard, over the fence gossiping and too easy throw someone under a bus because of what *may* have been. Where the Queen and Andrew were heading that day when their picture was snapped was to a place where they knew was the One they worship that knows them best of all and loving and compassionate to His children. This is what they believe and they practice it. I can't fault that.

 

[Rudolph]

Oh I agree with you Osipi. I want to see evidence and proof before I make up my mind.

Until then innocent until proven guilty.

 

[amaryllus]

He was A Loyal friend to a pervert and predator who procured raped and Sold 14 year olds. He refused to stop associating with the person( I can’t call Epstein a man). He Refused to stop vacationing with this person. He Invited this person to his mothers home.


Let’s say he never laid a hand on one of these victimized girls. Fine. But HE KNEW. He DID NOT Care.Andrew is guilty by Association and that destroys his character and morals and judgment in my mind.

One can make all the arguments they want to excuse The Duke but facts are facts.

 

[Dman]

Oh I agree with you Osipi. I want to see evidence and proof before I make up my mind.

Until then innocent until proven guilty.

What kind of evidence do y’all want to see? Full length videos of Prince Andrew doing the horizontal mambo with the young girl? The clothes he and the girl were wearing that day?

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Guilt by association would mean that Andrew was being considered guilting simply due to his friendship with Epstein, because they had crossed paths or been photographed together, or perhaps been business associates-- literally, because he was associated with the man. In this case, Andrew has been directly accused. It is the furthest thing from guilt by association.

This has nothing to do with loving a scandal, pandering to tabloid gossip, or some campaign by the Daily Mail, and everything to do with believing survivors. Those who cannot see this should perhaps begin with themselves when questioning why 90+% of sexual crimes go unreported.

 

[Madame Verseau]

How did DM get this surveillance tape? Andrew peeking around the door does not help for it is slanted as evidence of a guilty conscience. DM I think is going for a drip, drip , drip strategy to keep Andrew tied to this scandal. This is why I believe BP needs to have a plan in place.

 

[amaryllus]

Guilt by association would mean that Andrew was being considered guilting simply due to his friendship with Epstein, because they had crossed paths or been photographed together, or perhaps been business associates-- literally, because he was associated with the man. In this case, Andrew has been directly accused. It is the furthest thing from guilt by association.

This has nothing to do with loving a scandal, pandering to tabloid gossip, or some campaign by the Daily Mail, and everything to do with believing survivors. Those who cannot see this should perhaps begin with themselves when questioning why 90+% of sexual crimes go unreported.

Yes. Even if he never participated He is Guilty of abetting and covering up sex crimes. Unless you are really prepared to say for decades he had know idea what his BFF Epstein was doing with that island and with those girls that is. Perhaps he thought they were playing chess and getting piano lessons from all those men?

If you know crimes are committed and look away you are guilty. That’s some law for you.

 

[ACO]

Andrew even continuing a friendship with a man convicted of being a pedophile and then being spotted in the home where vileness took place? Nah. They need to answer questions and the police need to really look into this. Right now it just seems like his relationship is being swept under the rug because of who he is. These victims named him. People can't just ignore that.

 

[Roslyn]

Guilt by association would mean that Andrew was being considered guilting simply due to his friendship with Epstein, because they had crossed paths or been photographed together, or perhaps been business associates-- literally, because he was associated with the man. In this case, Andrew has been directly accused. It is the furthest thing from guilt by association.

This has nothing to do with loving a scandal, pandering to tabloid gossip, or some campaign by the Daily Mail, and everything to do with believing survivors. Those who cannot see this should perhaps begin with themselves when questioning why 90+% of sexual crimes go unreported.

Well put! We do have evidence, but a lot of people still accept BP's hearsay denial as having more weight than the direct evidence of the women involved. However people have been known to lie under oath, and the allegations need to be fully investigated and the evidence of all parties needs to be tested by cross-examination. I would think an innocent man - especially one who can afford the very best of legal representation - would want the matter fully litigated.

 

[Zaira]

How did DM get this surveillance tape? Andrew peeking around the door does not help for it is slanted as evidence of a guilty conscience. DM I think is going for a drip, drip , drip strategy to keep Andrew tied to this scandal. This is why I believe BP needs to have a plan in place.

IMO, this is just another example of how the media often sits on things until they feel an opportune moment comes. I doubt they just received this video recently.

Well put! We do have evidence, but a lot of people still accept BP's hearsay denial as having more weight than the direct evidence of the women involved. However people have been known to lie under oath, and the allegations need to be fully investigated and the evidence of all parties needs to be tested by cross-examination. I would think an innocent man - especially one who can afford the very best of legal representation - would want the matter fully litigated.

Indeed. Had these survivors actually had their stories investigated properly as promised originally in '06, '07, before the sweetheart deal, the accusations in and of themselves would be enough for serious liability in a criminal setting. At the very least an investigation.

This is hardly guilt by association as many people have been associated with Epstein but have not been actively named as co-conspirators by survivors nor been seen with Epstein post conviction.

 

[Osipi]

This is hardly guilt by association as many people have been associated with Epstein but have not been actively named as co-conspirators by survivors nor been seen with Epstein post conviction.

When was Andrew ever named as a co-conspirator? If I'm remembering right, it was Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) that alleged that she was forced to have sex with Andrew in the UK at the home of Ghislaine Maxwell. Andrew, in this case, is the "client". He didn't traffic Roberts to the UK and he didn't "pay" Roberts to have sex with him and if Roberts states she was "forced" to have sex with Andrew, I don't believe it was Andrew doing the forcing but her "handlers".

The legal age of consent in the UK is 16 and Virginia was 17 at the time. As a result unless she made it clear sex wasn't wanted there is no crime committed. The police also ask whether a conviction is possible and having sex with a 17 year old who didn't say 'no' isn't going to get a conviction in the UK - as much as many people would like to see it differently.

Therefore, with all this in mind, Andrew may or may not have done the "deed" but that is perhaps a lapse in judgement on his part that happens the world over with many, many people getting themselves into messes they shouldn't get themselves into but when we think about it, Andrew was and still is single so he can't even be accused of "cheating". According to New Scotland Yard (MPS), no crime was committed on Andrew's part whatsoever.

 

[MARG]

How could we respect HRH the Duke of York for his Epstein Friendship and Sarah for Epstein paying her Debts.
How could we see this Duke wearing a Poppy on November 11 and Remembrance Day?
The Firm lost its Glory because of these 2.

It seems that Andrew and Sarah are merely two of hundreds of people in Epstein's social diary. Contacts that he skillfully nurtured so very successfully. Names that cover the spectrum of high society and political power. Names that included two US Presidents, one currently serving, Nobel Laureates and royals from Europe who included Prince Andrew. Just think, a man like that moving in the halls of power, of society, friend to the great and the good, just like Jimmy Saville, who would think so many honest decent people could be fooled?

Saville and Epstein were masters of the art of the con. How many times does a neighbour say "I never would have imagined, he seemed like the ideal neighbour, sponsored the kids, hell, he was even at a barbecue at my place last week". I just can't believe he's a murderer/serial killer/rapist/paedophile". He seemed so nice.

As to Remembrance Day? Much as it may be inconvenient to your picture of righteous anger, Andrew earned his medals in the theatre of war. He has as much right as any other Veteran and more than any other royal who has not served, to stand there.

Roslyn says we "do have evidence" to which I can only say, that feeling, believing, is not enough. Evidence of a crime is the only standard by which a person can be charged in a court of law. When Prince Andrew is charged with a crime and convicted by a jury of his peers, then I will say he is guilty of that which he was convicted. Neither you nor I have the right to decide the criminal guilt or innocence of a man or woman unless we are sitting on a jury in said court.

We are each at liberty to discuss the issue, to pronounce our opinions, but when we start pronouncing criminal guilt, dispensing with the inconvenience of the rule of law, we need to stop and look at who we are and where we stand. Here on this forum, the utmost civility was maintained by the simple expedient of those who made a contentious personal decision about a person or a subjet, prefixing it by that marvellous maxim: IMO - In my opinion.

Those of us that enjoy the rights of a democratic society and are comfortable and safe in the knowledge that we cannot be imprisoned at the whim of some person and kept there with no legal representation nor even expectation of getting a day in court, know this: as soon as you endorse the abrogation of the rule of law, that is the day your democracy begins to die and with it, your rights.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

According to New Scotland Yard (MPS), no crime was committed on Andrew's part whatsoever.

Osipi, I missed this announcement from MPS, and it would be very helpful in the context of this thread. Would you be able to provide it please?

 

[Zaira]

When was Andrew ever named as a co-conspirator? If I'm remembering right, it was Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) that alleged that she was forced to have sex with Andrew in the UK at the home of Ghislaine Maxwell. Andrew, in this case, is the "client". He didn't traffic Roberts to the UK and he didn't "pay" Roberts to have sex with him and if Roberts states she was "forced" to have sex with Andrew, I don't believe it was Andrew doing the forcing but her "handlers".



Therefore, with all this in mind, Andrew may or may not have done the "deed" but that is perhaps a lapse in judgement on his part that happens the world over with many, many people getting themselves into messes they shouldn't get themselves into but when we think about it, Andrew was and still is single so he can't even be accused of "cheating". According to New Scotland Yard (MPS), no crime was committed on Andrew's part whatsoever.

By co-conspirator I simply mean named as one of her abusers/someone who Epstein procured girls for. Its also worth pointing out that an additional woman also named Andrew. That was revealed in the latest court documents that were unsealed, although she was in her early 20s.

In addition, ignorance of the law is not a defense in any system. Andrew cannot claim that because laws around consent are different in the UK, his alleged US crimes/abuse is thus ok. He would still be liable. AFAIK, Virginia's claims are about his actions in the US and US territories, not just in London.

And MPS did not clear Andrew of anything. They simply said that no investigation was underway as no crime report had been filed in their jurisdiction to investigate.

The least thing anyone is concerned about is whether or not Andrew cheated or was single.

And again, Andrew was NOT just a name in a contact book. Epstein and Andrew spent substantial time together. Epstein was invited to the private homes of the royals, threw parties for Andrew, and was considered a close friend. Almost every other contact Epstein had stopped associating with him after his conviction. Andrew did not, and in fact his ex-wife (who he still lives with and is close to) took money from him. In addition, not every Epstein contact has been named as an abuser. But Andrew has.

I am perplexed that people really continue to chose this hill to die on. And please innocent until proven guilty/due process pertains to the courts and the literal deprivation of physical freedom, not to public opinion. Who you are friends with (or continue to associate with once wrong doing comes out) and what people credibly accuse you of should and will have an impact on your social standing. Perhaps Andrew is completely innocent. Fine. But his continued association with Epstein beggars belief.