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.
:previous:
Exactly Andrew is an adult. He has made his bed and must now lie in it. :whistling:

I hope if Roberts is not yet again being led astray, but by her lawyers this time. I do believe her motive is money and that can be very tempting to keep going. I'm just wondering if this is a case of lawyers comparing who has the bigger d*ck and trying to take down someone like Dershowitz, of course they could also be completely taken in by a compulsive liar. OR, of course, she could be telling the truth, however at the very least I suspect there is a great deal of "embellishment" to her story.
Someone is telling a lie but whatever the result the damage has already been done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope if Roberts is not yet again being led astray, but by her lawyers this time. I do believe her motive is money and that can be very tempting to keep going. I'm just wondering if this is a case of lawyers comparing who has the bigger d*ck and trying to take down someone like Dershowitz, of course they could also be completely taken in by a compulsive liar. OR, of course, she could be telling the truth, however at the very least I suspect there is a great deal of "embellishment" to her story.
Dershowitz is not an idiot. I doubt that he would have filed an affidavit if he couldn't prove that he was only on the island once with his wife and daughter. Unless there was another way to get on the island, the plane's manifest should settle it. He also has to know that the U.S. government has the plane's manifest and the lawyers for Jane Doe #3 can access it. If it turns out he was on the island more than that once, his credibility would take a major hit.

I suppose it is possible that Dershowitz slipped away from his family for a rendezvous but it is hard to believe. Although there are men that would find it would add an element of "danger," most wouldn't risk it with their wife and daughter so close by. It would be interesting to know if Jane Doe said anything about the wife and daughter being there. If not, that would also undermine her credibility because I think that would be a memorable detail.
 
Last edited:
Of course The Dirty Duke will not lay charges.
He certainly does not want to stand up in a court as he knows all kinds of other things will then surface.
This is becoming a nightmare for the beloved Queen and I pray that it will not affect her health negatively in any way.
 
The reporter was likely hoping to catch her off-guard, get an off-the-cuff remark, and make a headline out of it. I'm guessing that everyone in the Windsor clan and their close friends have been told to say nothing.

Why would someone be stupid enough to try to question ZARA??:bang:
 
The problem with the she is only doing it for money is that she was offered money and lot's of it by Epstein years ago. If that is all she wanted why wouldn't she have taken it then? She now has her name all over the press and her reputation is being pulled apart. She knew this would happen if she went ahead with the lawsuit. Her lawyers aren't dummies either and I would think they would have some sort of proof to back up their story besides their client. I find it pretty remarkable that he always seems to have had his wife and daughter with him on these business trips on the dates she is saying. Not exactly unbiased third party. Andrew can put his head in the sand all he wants this isn't going to go away anytime soon. More allegations will come out and then when the court case happens even more will. Problem for Andrew is he did meet the girl it's a fact, he did party in all the places she claims with Epstein, another witness has said he swam with naked young girls, five other victims of Epstein refused to answer questions about Prince Andrew and there are two Jane Doe's so who is the other one and what is she claiming? Civil court isn't like criminal you don't have to prove as much this I fear is going to get far worse not just for Andrew either.
 
The problem with the she is only doing it for money is that she was offered money and lot's of it by Epstein years ago. If that is all she wanted why wouldn't she have taken it then? She now has her name all over the press and her reputation is being pulled apart. She knew this would happen if she went ahead with the lawsuit. Her lawyers aren't dummies either and I would think they would have some sort of proof to back up their story besides their client. I find it pretty remarkable that he always seems to have had his wife and daughter with him on these business trips on the dates she is saying. Not exactly unbiased third party. Andrew can put his head in the sand all he wants this isn't going to go away anytime soon. More allegations will come out and then when the court case happens even more will. Problem for Andrew is he did meet the girl it's a fact, he did party in all the places she claims with Epstein, another witness has said he swam with naked young girls, five other victims of Epstein refused to answer questions about Prince Andrew and there are two Jane Doe's so who is the other one and what is she claiming? Civil court isn't like criminal you don't have to prove as much this I fear is going to get far worse not just for Andrew either.
You have a point about the money. Jane Doe is not suing Prince Andrew or Alan Dershowitz. It is too late. She is actually suing the US Attorney's office (the prosecutor in the case). She is probably honestly upset about the plea bargain. I know I would be.

Her lawyers have an obligation to help her put forth her claims. Although there is some obligation to research them to avoid wasting court time, it is not the requirement--that's why most people don't think Dershowitz will be successful in having the attorneys disbarred.

There is another issue for Dershowitz: he submitted an affidavit and could be charged with perjury if it were false. Jane Doe also submitted affidavits, but if it turns out she is lying, she probably wouldn't be charged with perjury. She is a victim of child sexual assault and judges would be sympathetic to her.

On the other hand, if it turns out that Dershowitz is trying to intimidate the witnesses, there would be little sympathy for him and he could be facing criminal charges.

We still don't have all the facts but I just can't believe Dershowitz is that stupid, whereas Jane Doe is probably less sophisticated in the legal arena. It's also possible that she is suffering from false memories.
 
This is becoming a nightmare for the beloved Queen and I pray that it will not affect her health negatively in any way.

I hope not. She has fortunately good experience with her childrens many scandals, but she is almost 90.
 
Why would someone be stupid enough to try to question ZARA??:bang:

Possibly hoping to elicit a response along the lines of the "Naff off!" that her mother said to a reporter some years ago. The Queen's granddaughter blowing up at the press would be great fodder for the evening news here.

This is becoming a nightmare for the beloved Queen and I pray that it will not affect her health negatively in any way.

I think that's a fair concern in view of her age. When my mother was in her late 80s she had to deal with some very difficult issues relating to my brother and his last wife, and it had an deleterious effect on her health.
 
Last edited:
The false memory aspect an interesting one and certainly "changes the water on the beans." If she had therapy, which wouldn't surprise me, these 'memories' might have arisen then. False Memory Syndrome Foundation Lots of strange things can happen to a person's mind when they're under serious trauma.

We still don't have all the facts but I just can't believe Dershowitz is that stupid, whereas Jane Doe is probably less sophisticated in the legal arena. It's also possible that she is suffering from false memories.
 
Prince Andrew with topless women on holiday with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein | Daily Mail Online

Prince Andrew is a 't**s and bums man' who is prone to making spectacularly inappropriate comments about women, a former acquaintance has claimed.
The source said Andrew often breached the bounds of social acceptance with his remarks - including one that left a pregnant woman 'ashen-faced' with shock.
'He has always been a t**s and bums man,' said the acquaintance.
The claims came as historic pictures of the Prince re-emerged, showing him surrounded by topless women in tiny bikinis enjoying an end-of-year holiday back in 2001.
The picture, it is understood, was taken while Andrew was on holiday in Phuket, Thailand, with his friend Jeffrey Epstein.



And as suspected the media seem keen to drag this out and Andrew just keeps giving them plenty to talk about. Clearly Andrew knew what sort of man Epstein was, even if he didn't know his crimes.
 
The false memory aspect an interesting one and certainly "changes the water on the beans." If she had therapy, which wouldn't surprise me, these 'memories' might have arisen then. False Memory Syndrome Foundation Lots of strange things can happen to a person's mind when they're under serious trauma.

Possibly. She may just hate Dershowitz because he was one of Epstein's lawyers. On the other hand she could be telling the truth. We'll see if the details add up.
 
:previous: Yes. Unless she and her lawyers withdraw their suit, this will play out for a long time.
 
I doubt that Andrew has done what he is accused of. I think he was too naive to know what Epstein was doing, but there is no excuse to the fact that he continued this friendship after Epstein was arrestert.
Andrew has poor judgment and he has always been surrounded by scandals such as friendship with dictators, lovers, the madness with Sarah etc etc.
The mail, the sun and the mirror is not going to give up, this will go on throughout the year.

This should have been another good year for the royal family with the birth of an new royal baby in April and The Queen's milestone in September. I hope it blows over before Her Majesty's 90th birthday in 2016.

I feel sorry for The Queen. Yet again she has been let down by her family.

And to those in the press who says that Andrew is The Queen's favourite son, Sophie the favourite daughter-in-law and Peter Phillips the favorite grandson, this is just nonsense. I have heard that The Queen loves all her children, daughters-in-law and grandchildren, she hasn't any favourites.
 
Prince Andrew with topless women on holiday with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein | Daily Mail Online

Prince Andrew is a 't**s and bums man' who is prone to making spectacularly inappropriate comments about women, a former acquaintance has claimed.
The source said Andrew often breached the bounds of social acceptance with his remarks - including one that left a pregnant woman 'ashen-faced' with shock.
'He has always been a t**s and bums man,' said the acquaintance.
The claims came as historic pictures of the Prince re-emerged, showing him surrounded by topless women in tiny bikinis enjoying an end-of-year holiday back in 2001.
The picture, it is understood, was taken while Andrew was on holiday in Phuket, Thailand, with his friend Jeffrey Epstein.



And as suspected the media seem keen to drag this out and Andrew just keeps giving them plenty to talk about. Clearly Andrew knew what sort of man Epstein was, even if he didn't know his crimes.

You know, for quite a while I was feeling sorry for Andrew regarding his marriage to Fergie. Now I believe that the two of them are well-suited.
 
One thing I think we can pretty much be sure on is that no matter what happens with the civil suit filed by the Jane Does or the defamation affidavits being slung between the attorneys, in the long run, the Jane Does will win quite a bit of fame and green dollars. One is already writing her "memoirs" and I smell a big round of talk show appearances with perhaps a made for Lifetime TV movie.

The rash of publicity I think is the first and foremost aim of any of the Jane Does or the lawyers pressing the suit. It seems to have worked. This will not go away silently into the night.
 
I can't link it because I can't find it but The Times (British broadsheet) came out with a strong editorial today, referring to the Andrew mess and calling for a slimmed down monarchy. The leader stated 'no royal family is permanent or indispensable.'
 
One thing I think we can pretty much be sure on is that no matter what happens with the civil suit filed by the Jane Does or the defamation affidavits being slung between the attorneys, in the long run, the Jane Does will win quite a bit of fame and green dollars. One is already writing her "memoirs" and I smell a big round of talk show appearances with perhaps a made for Lifetime TV movie.

The rash of publicity I think is the first and foremost aim of any of the Jane Does or the lawyers pressing the suit. It seems to have worked. This will not go away silently into the night.

If you're right, I can't find myself able to care. Epstein certainly used the girls to his advantage and to further his aims, and if they manage to turn it to their advantage I say good luck to them!
 
I can't link it because I can't find it but The Times (British broadsheet) came out with a strong editorial today, referring to the Andrew mess and calling for a slimmed down monarchy. The leader stated 'no royal family is permanent or indispensable.'

I don't agree.
 
I don't agree.

I haven't read it which is why I said I can't find it, but a royal correspondent referred to it and there have been quotes from it appearing on other forums and on the Internet.

That's why I asked if anyone had read it/ had links to it so I could see the leader or editorial in its entirety.
 
I think if you want a royal family you accept them warts and all...or get rid of them. Edward VII, Edward VIII, Prince Phillip, Charles and Dianna, Princess Margaret to name a few, have all had inappropriate relationships and going further back it is as bad. Certainly Queen Elizabeth seems beyond reproach and devoted to her position and country, as does William but there will be continue to be scandals when you're in the public eye and act inappropriately. Despite this I find their lives fascinating.
 
It's one of the things that bugs me whenever something like this happens the republics etc always want to use it as an excuse to get rid of the Royal Family, every family has issues and things that happen but they don't get front page news. This will help Charles if he really does want a slimmed down Monarchy. The girl or girls could have already made plenty of money without doing all of this and going through with it all. I can see why they are mad he got a real sweet deal for what he did and they want answers and they want it not to happen to others. We don't know how much they are asking for the fact they never went after Andrew and refused to be paid off by Epstein makes me think it isn't all to do with money. Let's hope we don't get anymore Andrew bombshells or pictures. I also hope he hasn't been seeing Epstein on the sly the last couple of years he is arrogant enough to. Her lawyers would off had to have done some sort of checking or they would look like fools and could be disbarred. I'm afraid we will be hearing about this until the court case is over. The Queen doesn't need this not at any age Prince Phillip wasn't well last year and he seems to have recovered but you can't bounce back like you used to at 90. According to reports Andrew is going to continue with his duties like nothing is going on I'm not so sure this is the best idea.
 
I'd go so far as to call it a very bad idea. Maybe there'll be a re-think?
 
Can anyone think of any respected Establishment-type person who has spoken up in the Duke of York's defense? So many people have had dealings with him over the years with various things: his Naval career, his work for British business, his various charity and educational endeavors. Why isn't anyone from these fields coming forward saying that they find the allegations unbelievable? That Andrew is above the things he's accused of? The silence is deafening.:ermm:


I fully agree with Glover's closing statement: "The danger is that, when she is gone, indolent and roistering princes will be allowed to undermine the precious institution she has so selflessly served.":sad:

Read more: STEPHEN GLOVER: Even if falsely accused, Andrew's an unguided missile who has done the monarchy grave harm  | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This is Steven Glover in the Daily Fail also referring to the Times article, which is behind a paywall. I agree with Glover, however that it is odd comment from a serious broadsheet that is usually (though left-leaning) pro-Establishment.

STEPHEN GLOVER: Even if falsely accused, Andrew's an unguided missile who has done the monarchy grave harm* | Daily Mail Online
 
I can't link it because I can't find it but The Times (British broadsheet) came out with a strong editorial today, referring to the Andrew mess and calling for a slimmed down monarchy. The leader stated 'no royal family is permanent or indispensable.'

Finally found it! I subscribe to "The Times" online but it's only in the last half hour that I have learned how to search for articles. I have been under-utilising the resource!:blush:

Starts by summarising the allegations against Epstein, refers to photos of Andrew with the topless girls on the yacht, to claims evidence against Epstein has been covered up following lobbying by "political and social connections", that women have refused to answer questions about Andrew's involvement, noting names of persons listed in Epstein's contacts book, the claim prosecutors are refusing to release important evidence, refers to the plea bargain and allegation US attorney’s office promised Epstein that he would not be prosecuted for the sexual abuse of 30 under-age girls if he admitted a lesser charge, to letter from Robert's lawyer to Attorney-General in 2008 in which he said Epstein “may be the most dangerous sexual predator that the country has ever seen”, refers to the three women who refused to give self-incriminating evidence when interviewed about Prince Andrew and other matters, and sets out the terms of the questions they would not answer.

It then goes on to talk about Andrew's life since he left the navy. Then says:

"Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is clear that while Prince Andrew’s life out of uniform has not been short of entertainment, it has been short of structure. He has been content to craft for himself the portfolio existence of a freelance royal. He has depended too much on his friends to help to support a lifestyle that, even as a scion of one of Britain’s richest families, he could not fund himself. And he has chosen those friends poorly."

Then discussion about the changes over the last 2 decades with HM starting to pay tax, cost cutting and savings including the sale of the R.Y. Britannia, and proceeds to say the RF is too big and needs to be streamlined, for the sake of the family and the country.

"As elected leaders wrestle with tight budgets and taxpayers struggle to fund them, it is only right that the royal family cuts its cloth accordingly. This is not only a question of funds, but of expectations and an evolving sense of what the monarchy stands for. It has endured as a symbol of constancy and as a ceremonial focal point at times of national mourning and celebration. To go on enduring it must become more like the royal families that coexist comfortably with modernity elsewhere in Europe, and less like the retrograde clichés foisted on it by an endlessly fascinated media."

It then says that the monarchy's official duties should be performed by HM and those in direct line to succeed her, that others (Anne, Harry and Andrew) have set inspiring examples but have been most constructive when gainfully employed. "Outside such roles they represent more of a risk than a benefit to the royal family."

[Comment: Don't understand the remark about Anne, who is one of the most productive and impressive, since she has never been "gainfully employed". Maybe she's the exception that proves the rule.]

"For too long Prince Andrew has lacked a real role. He has tried and failed to find one because he has been looking in the wrong place. It is not unreasonable to suggest that his predicament is a by-product of this fruitless search; or to exhort younger members of the “firm” to learn from this urgent cautionary tale, forget their lineage and make their own ways in the world."

Concluding paragraph points out that, according to its website, Britain’s royal family has 18 official members, notes that Sweden’s and Belgium’s have nine, Denmark’s seven and Norway’s five, all keeping official numbers low by making clear distinctions between those with representative duties and those without, then says, "The House of Windsor needs more clarity along these lines. More importantly, it needs a clearer vision of itself, not as a crisis-prone family business but as a family led by the head of state. Last year Spain’s king abdicated; this year his daughter could face trial for fraud. No royal family is indispensable, or permanent."
 
This is Steven Glover in the Daily Fail also referring to the Times article, which is behind a paywall. I agree with Glover, however that it is odd comment from a serious broadsheet that is usually (though left-leaning) pro-Establishment.

STEPHEN GLOVER: Even if falsely accused, Andrew's an unguided missile who has done the monarchy grave harm* | Daily Mail Online

Not odd in the slightest. No sensible person in the UK, even before this scandal, would've disagreed with the idea that all public institutions should be as lean and efficient as possible. That includes the monarchy. Not even the staunchest monarchist could justify a continuation of the situation whereby the monarch's cousins as well as all her children and their spouses (with the exception of Anne's) are full-time working members of the Firm. That simply will not happen again and was going to come to an end even if Andrew had lived the rest of his life in an exemplary fashion.

It's part of the reason I hope William and Kate stop at 2 children, harsh as it sounds. As we've seen in just about every monarchy still operating, being the spare is not easy in the 21st Century. The more spares there are, the more problems seem to follow.

There's really nothing new in The Times leader column (as a Times subscriber, I read the paper daily).
 
Prince Andrew with topless women on holiday with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein | Daily Mail Online

The photos are from 2001. The time in question.
The DM refers to them as woman. If these are the type of women Andrew met when he was with Epstein then they were women not girls.

Also I wish people would not refer to teenagers whether 16, 17, 18 or 19 as young girls. They are teenagers referring to them as young girls is misleading as is the DM articles saying Andrew's accuser.

The woman is rightfully upset that Epstein received a slap on the wrist rather than a lengthly jail time. 40 girls and only months in prison.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with those who want a slimmed down monarchy, but PetticoatLane is right that the monarch's cousins doesn't need to be full-time working members of the Firm. That will not happen again and was going to come to an end even if Andrew had lived the rest of his life in an exemplary fashion, but this problem solves itself, because the so-called minor royals grow older.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom