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

[Mbruno]

The Guardian states that an underaged girl was forced to have intercourse with Andrew - that’s a clear definition of “rape” if it is true:


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ince-andrew-us-court-document-jeffrey-epstein
.

The girl mentioned in this article, who is supposed to be Virginia Giuffre, has said herself that Prince Andrew never raped her. And as I said, I am not aware of her ever accusing him of any such thing.

 

[Somebody]

The Guardian states that an underaged girl was forced to have intercourse with Andrew - that’s a clear definition of “rape” if it is true:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ince-andrew-us-court-document-jeffrey-epstein

It’s not premature to say that what Andrew might be involved with is severe either. Unless you are of the mindset of those who inflict these crimes (obviously not saying you are, but in general) any sexual interactions with minors who cannot give consent is a severe crime. I know the court may give different sentences depending on the nature of the crime but morally all sexual interactions with minors (especially if Andrew knew that they were minors) will have severe consequences for Andrew’s future - or lack of - in the BRF and associations with the life he was used to.

Note that I’ve always said *if* in my posts, as we still do not know the outcomes of the case. So I’m not saying it’s definite Andrew is involved because he has not yet been proven guilty by court. Nobody knows any confirmed cases, but several victims of Epstein’s trafficking ring have come forward.

The girl was 17 according to herself, while the age of consent is apparently 16 and at the time she didn't indicate she wasn't willing, so please explain how that constitutes rape.

So far, there is NO CASE brought against him. So, there won't be an outcome either... Nor will he be sentenced unless a valid case is brought against him at some point (which is true for everyone who is currently not accused of a crime). What he allegedly did was morally wrong, however, it wasn't punishable by law. If it was rape, why hasn't he been charged?

In addition, I am not sure what additional consequences for Andrew you are thinking about. He has been completely removed from official royal life, many of his patronages have decided to give up on him. So, what other severe consequences do you have in mind?

 

[QueenMathilde]

I am not aware of anyone having accused Prince Andrew of rape. Nor am I aware of the Prince having had sex with anyone under the age of consent in England.



I also think it is premature to make conjectures about the severity of Andrew being guilty when he has not even been charged with any crime yet.

Victoria accused him of rape. She was trafficked into England and she had sex with him against his will. In the US she'd be a minor but even if 17 is the age of consent in the UK it's illegal there to have sex with a woman who has been traficked.


Andrew need to keep his mouth shut and his head down.

 

[Osipi]

If you mean Virginia, she never accused Andrew of rape. If she did have sex with Andrew in London, it was because she assented to doing so after being told by Maxwell it was expected of her to do this. Andrew didn't force her (if the sex actually took place) so there's no rape involved here.

The manipulation was all done presumably by Ghislaine Maxwell and nobody else.

 

[Somebody]

Victoria accused him of rape. She was trafficked into England and she had sex with him against his will. In the US she'd be a minor but even if 17 is the age of consent in the UK it's illegal there to have sex with a woman who has been traficked.

Wouldn't the other party have to know that the person that was trying to engage him in said activity was trafficked? And can we be sure Andrew did know or (from a legal perspective) should have known? While he clearly shouldn't have engaged in it at all, why has he not been persecuted if it was illegal what he did? It is not that it isn't known (Andrew denying it doesn't make much of a difference imho), so apparently the prosecutors think there is no case?! What makes you think otherwise?

I do hope that in this whole mess something positive comes from it in raising awareness that there might be some background stories to young girls presenting themselves to older men... resulting in fewer future victims. And hopefully justice is served by first and foremost having an appropriate sentence for one of the two that was at the center of it all and is currently in custody.

Andrew need to keep his mouth shut and his head down.

Agreed. Which is exactly what he is doing, isn't he?

 

[QueenMathilde]

Wouldn't the other party have to know that the person that was trying to engage him in said activity was trafficked?

Nope. How is the victim supposed to tell the abuser that she is being trafficked? Under UK and US law if he has sex with a woman who was brought there unwillingly HE is at fault. Not HER. It's rape. She doesn't have to say "Hey, I've been trafficked" before they have sex. The people who trafficked her could retaliate against her. So he has committed a crime. Look it up. Oh and the age doesn't matter in either country. Though he's a complete PIG for having sex with a girl young enough to be his daughter against her will. And it astounds me anyone would defend him for this action.

 

[Osipi]

Looking at all this, I don't see anything at all alluding to Guiffre being "unwilling". She wasn't dragged in chains to the UK. At any point in time, she could have somehow signaled that she was being "forced" to fly to the UK, fly to Epstein's island, forced to dance with Andrew at Tramp's among other things.
She was psychologically conditioned and the glamour of the lifestyle of the rich and famous is a powerful draw for young girls.

This is what is happening with the court case against Maxwell now. She recruited these girls, led them to believe that they'd have the "good life' and be well taken care of and coerced them into performing sex acts as part and parcel of that life.

All of this lies at Ghislaine Maxwell's door now. Without Maxwell, none of this stuff would ever have happened. She was that instrumental to Epstein.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Looking at all this, I don't see anything at all alluding to Guiffre being "unwilling". She wasn't dragged in chains to the UK. At any point in time, she could have somehow signaled that she was being "forced" to fly to the UK, fly to Epstein's island, forced to dance with Andrew at Tramp's among other things.
She was psychologically conditioned and the glamour of the lifestyle of the rich and famous is a powerful draw for young girls.

This is what is happening with the court case against Maxwell now. She recruited these girls, led them to believe that they'd have the "good life' and be well taken care of and coerced them into performing sex acts as part and parcel of that life.

All of this lies at Ghislaine Maxwell's door now. Without Maxwell, none of this stuff would ever have happened. She was that instrumental to Epstein.

Seriously? She's unwilling because she was dragged around as a poor girl who was bullied into having sex with men with money and power. If you don't understand that YOU don't understand the law. Though it might be different for Andrew seeing as his mother is above the law. Or that might be how HE sees it.

 

[Pranter]

I just remember reading that someone that is trafficked cannot give consent regardless of their age. So if the victim is claiming that then her age according to U.K. law for consent is not relevant, if that charge were to be upheld.

Looking happy for a picture doesn't mean she wasn't trafficked or forced into this situation. PPL need to look up what happens with pimps and the women who don't play the role right.



LaRae

 

[Jacknch]

This thread has been cleaned up with the removal of several posts.

In regard to the sensitive issues surrounding the topic of the thread, members are reminded to be especially respectful of one anothers' views even when you do not agree.

We MUST limit our commentary on the case to the facts as we currently know them and avoid making speculative judgements before further facts and details are known. Thank you.

 

[Osipi]

Seriously? She's unwilling because she was dragged around as a poor girl who was bullied into having sex with men with money and power. If you don't understand that YOU don't understand the law. Though it might be different for Andrew seeing as his mother is above the law. Or that might be how HE sees it.

I think on this subject, I'm going to stick to what the Metropolitan Police have deemed in relation to Andrew and Guiffre. They may reopen the case in the future and then again, they may not. They are far more experienced in handling this situation than either you or I are.

Andrew will get no special treatment because he's his mother's son. The Queen may be above the law but Andrew isn't.

 

[Lady Daly]

I'm sorry but as I sift through this thread the entire Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew relationship is seriously disturbing. The salacious details of what we think we know are head spinning. I don't even think Ghislaine's trial starts until July 2021, although a lot can happen until then. My one concern is that Donald Trump could pardon Ghislaine prior to the trial especially if he wins the upcoming election in Nov (God forbid!) The president was just recently wishing her well. Yikes!! A big thank you to the many of you who have been following these cases and know the intricacies to keep the rest of us updated regarding Prince Andrew, his involvement and the pending Maxwell trial.

 

[Osipi]

I'm sorry but as I sift through this thread the entire Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew relationship is seriously disturbing. The salacious details of what we think we know are head spinning. I don't even think Ghislaine's trial starts until July 2021, although a lot can happen until then. My one concern is that Donald Trump could pardon Ghislaine prior to the trial especially if he wins the upcoming election in Nov (God forbid!) The president was just recently wishing her well. Yikes!! A big thank you to the many of you who have been following these cases and know the intricacies to keep the rest of us updated regarding Prince Andrew, his involvement and the pending Maxwell trial.

Maxwell being pardoned is something that seriously gives me the creeps. What's even scarier is that a sitting president of the United States can pardon anyone he wants to at any time he wants to and, IMO, Trump has his reasons to want Maxwell off the hook. Hopefully though, Maxwell will be brought to court, tried and convicted of her crimes. Anything else, even a pardon, could be construed as obstruction of justice and won't go down well.

In all this, Andrew is really just a little minnow in the pond that floated around the exterior circle of Epstein/Maxwell. Andrew may have partook in the banquet every now and then but as a "guest", he wasn't part of the operation to put on the banquet itself. ?

 

[Denville]

That's not the point. The point is that Andrew was involved in using young women.. even f he didn't know they were trafficked or borderline under age. He may not be as guilty as teh repellent Epstein and Maxwell but he was the one who said at his interview taht Ghislaine was his friend of the 2.. and she was Epstein's pimp.

 

[Osipi]

At the most then, he's guilty by association. There have been no criminal charges filed against Andrew. He is not being looked at for any criminal activity at this time. In other words, they're looking to prosecute Maxwell as the "pimp" "enabler" 'instigator" "co-conspirator with Epstein". Andrew doesn't fit into that mold at all. ?

 

[Denville]

At the most then, he's guilty by association. There have been no criminal charges filed against Andrew. He is not being looked at for any criminal activity at this time. In other words, they're looking to prosecute Maxwell as the "pimp" "enabler" 'instigator" "co-conspirator with Epstein". Andrew doesn't fit into that mold at all. ?

just because he's not been charged does not mean that he has not behaved appallingly. Hes "not a pimp" isn't exacly the standard of behavior one expects from a royal.

 

[Somebody]

I'm quite sure everyone agrees that he behaved appallingly. I haven't seen any post suggesting that what he did was admirable or decent. The discussion concentrated on whether he committed a crime. The MET so far concluded he did not; or that at least there isn't sufficient evidence to charge him.

 

[Osipi]

just because he's not been charged does not mean that he has not behaved appallingly. Hes "not a pimp" isn't exacly the standard of behavior one expects from a royal.

So, then tell me. What do you think a royal that behaves badly should face? Andrew is just as human as the rest of us whether or not he's a royal. He's responsible for his own behavior and his own actions and from where I'm sitting he's reaping what he's sown. Being "royal" doesn't make him a different species of the human race. If a human shows his life to be one of depravity, it will be reflected in how people see that person. Andrew's character and reputation has gone down the tubes. That's on him. ?

 

[Denville]

So, then tell me. What do you think a royal that behaves badly should face? Andrew is just as human as the rest of us whether or not he's a royal. He's responsible for his own behavior and his own actions and from where I'm sitting he's reaping what he's sown. Being "royal" doesn't make him a different species of the human race. If a human shows his life to be one of depravity, it will be reflected in how people see that person. Andrew's character and reputation has gone down the tubes. That's on him. ?

so what does it mean that he is human? Yes people make msitakes but this is more than a mistake. I hope he hasn't committed a crime but I fear that he was bordering on one.. and that possibly his positon is saving him from a deeper investigation or a charge. IMO he should be stripped of his HRH. He is still a wealthy man leading a comfortable life, and I know the Queens not likely to remove his HRH but i wish she would. However she's a very old woman and I suppose it is hard for her to accept that her favourite son has behaved so appallingly...so she may just not want to beleive it...

 

[Somebody]

so what does it mean that he is human? Yes people make msitakes but this is more than a mistake. I hope he hasn't committed a crime but I fear that he was bordering on one.. and that possibly his positon is saving him from a deeper investigation or a charge. IMO he should be stripped of his HRH. He is still a wealthy man leading a comfortable life, and I know the Queens not likely to remove his HRH but i wish she would. However she's a very old woman and I suppose it is hard for her to accept that her favourite son has behaved so appallingly...so she may just not want to beleive it...

If she didn't believe any of it; why did he step down from royal life?

 

[Osipi]

so what does it mean that he is human? Yes people make msitakes but this is more than a mistake. I hope he hasn't committed a crime but I fear that he was bordering on one.. and that possibly his positon is saving him from a deeper investigation or a charge. IMO he should be stripped of his HRH. He is still a wealthy man leading a comfortable life, and I know the Queens not likely to remove his HRH but i wish she would. However she's a very old woman and I suppose it is hard for her to accept that her favourite son has behaved so appallingly...so she may just not want to beleive it...

HRH is a honorific form of address and only pertains to his position of birth. People don't earn HRHs. A medical doctor earns the M.D. after his name and that would be stripped if that doctor's actions sullied his role as a medical doctor and he would lose his license to practice medicine. A serial killer of 54 people is still entitled to be addressed as Mr. An 77 year old woman is still correctly addressed as a Miss if she's never married. Being born into a royal family and going by UK traditions, Andrew remains a HRH which will not be removed for any reason other than treason.

What the Queen believes or doesn't believe doesn't figure into it. I don't think that the Met Police would treat Andrew with any more deference when it comes to a crime than any Joe Public off the street. When it comes to indicting, prosecuting and sentencing someone for a crime, its the crime committed that deems the outcome. Not status, name or personal connections. This is what is upsetting actually about the rumor being floated around of Trump pardoning Maxwell. I personally would see it as obstruction of justice and a sitting person using the office of the president for "personal reasons".

 

[Denville]

If she didn't believe any of it; why did he step down from royal life?

Ummm could it be because noone would work with him? Charities dropped him left right and center.. Even so I think Charles had to step in to insist that Andrew stepped down. But it was obvious that he had to go, once the charities started to drop him...

 

[Somebody]

What the Queen believes or doesn't believe doesn't figure into it. I don't think that the Met Police would treat Andrew with any more deference when it comes to a crime than any Joe Public off the street. When it comes to indicting, prosecuting and sentencing someone for a crime, its the crime committed that deems the outcome. Not status, name or personal connections. This is what is upsetting actually about the rumor being floated around of Trump pardoning Maxwell. I personally would see it as obstruction of justice and a sitting person using the office of the president for "personal reasons".

The latter already happened in other cases, so, it's not unthinkable that he would do it again.

However, that has little to do with Andrew being prosecuted if there was sufficient evidence of a crime he committed. Just like Iñaki and Cristina were prosecuted with Iñaki being convicted and currently serving time.

 

[Denville]

HRH is a honorific form of address and only pertains to his position of birth. People don't earn HRHs. A medical doctor earns the M.D. after his name and that would be stripped if that doctor's actions sullied his role as a medical doctor and he would lose his license to practice medicine. A serial killer of 54 people is still entitled to be addressed as Mr. An 77 year old woman is still correctly addressed as a Miss if she's never married. Being born into a royal family and going by UK traditions, Andrew remains a HRH which will not be removed for any reason other than treason.

What the Queen believes or doesn't believe doesn't figure into it. I don't think that the Met Police would treat Andrew with any more deference when it comes to a crime than any Joe Public off the street. When it comes to indicting, prosecuting and sentencing someone for a crime, its the crime committed that deems the outcome. Not status, name or personal connections. This is what is upsetting actually about the rumor being floated around of Trump pardoning Maxwell. I personally would see it as obstruction of justice and a sitting person using the office of the president for "personal reasons".

if you beleive that Trump might pardon Maxwell or that Epstein received a "sweet deal" I don't see why Andrew might not wriggle out of any prosecution, esp if it was hard to make a good case...

And he should certianly lose teh HRH.

 

[Waika]

At the most then, he's guilty by association. There have been no criminal charges filed against Andrew. He is not being looked at for any criminal activity at this time. In other words, they're looking to prosecute Maxwell as the "pimp" "enabler" 'instigator" "co-conspirator with Epstein". Andrew doesn't fit into that mold at all. ?

We know that the Feds are investigating Maxwell, but we don't know who else is in their sights. If Epstein really did record everything, there's tons of evidence to go through. They may have video tapes, phone calls, and emails, to examine. The following links explain the criteria for charges to brought against traffickers and the men/women who used the trafficked teenagers.


https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-sex-trafficking


The last paragraph of this link pertains to foreign citizens.


https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ce...extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children

 

[Osipi]

The bottom line is that we can debate crime or no crime and deem what Andrew's "punishment" should be until the cows come home but the reality is that it will be the courts and the judges and the prosecutors and defense teams that will deem justice at the end of the day.

As of now, today, Andrew has not been accused of any crime. Andrew is not being looked at, to my knowledge, of committing any crime. Andrew's reputation is in the toilet never to be redeemed and that's basically all we have to go by right now.

 

[Osipi]

if you beleive that Trump might pardon Maxwell or that Epstein received a "sweet deal" I don't see why Andrew might not wriggle out of any prosecution, esp if it was hard to make a good case...

And he should certianly lose teh HRH.

On what grounds would it be deemed the right thing to do to remove his HRH? Because he behaved badly, immorally, brought disgrace to himself and the rest of the British Royal Family?

Removal of a HRH sets a precedence. We saw that with Diana's divorce from Charles, the Queen removed her HRH *but* it was deemed that *all* divorced wives of a HRH had their HRH removed and therefore Sarah lost hers too. It involved letters patent. There has to be a solid reason to remove a HRH.

So, lets say the Queen decides that because of bad behavior, immoral activities etc, its grounds to remove Andrew's HRH. With that being the precedent set that certain behaviors deem the removal of a HRH, then it would also stand to reason that she would also then remove Charles' HRH for *his* not so upright behavior in the past. Its just logic.

 

[victor1319]

HRH is a honorific form of address and only pertains to his position of birth. People don't earn HRHs.

Yeah, and bad luck, that "HRH" signals membership in the Royal Family...

Like in this "Gotti film": They rise and march and fall together, the persons of power...

So, I think, you are correct - getting rid of Andrew's HRH would set quite an unpleasent example! But not getting rid of Andrew's membership card for the "firm" could prove also as very unpleasent!

A Lose-Lose-situation.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Seriously? She's unwilling because she was dragged around as a poor girl who was bullied into having sex with men with money and power. If you don't understand that YOU don't understand the law.

Looking happy for a picture doesn't mean she wasn't trafficked or forced into this situation. PPL need to look up what happens with pimps and the women who don't play the role right.

None of the preceding comments denied that.

 

[Osipi]

I think we can safely say that Andrew is no longer associated with the "Firm" side of the family business. His office at BP has been dismantled, he holds no public roles representing the BRF or the monarchy and has effectively been put out to pasture to graze for the rest of his life. The biggest thing we'll see from Andrew is photos of him driving a car going somewhere of no real importance at all.