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.
This was a sex trafficking activity. Not prostitution. These girls were trafficked to wealthy and famous men. The youngest was said to be at least 14 years old.

Read all of what I wrote, not just one sentence and responding to that sentence out of context.:flowers:
 
In your previous post you seemed to imply that Andrew committed a crime - what's the evidence for that? Because in that case it needs to be proven that Andrew knew or should have known (in a legal way) that the girls were sex-trafficked. If it was widely known, why wasn't his friend persecuted for that years ago?!

Suggesting he committed a crime is completely different than stating that 'Andrew should have known better'. That's something I fully agree with (and I assume that sentiment is shared widely - if all that is said is true, it's disgusting that it happened and that Epstein and Maxwell got away with it for so long). I would also add that everyone involved should have known better - it's not just princes that should know how to behave and treat others.

I definitely don't know if Andrew is guilty, but the fact that Jeffrey Epstein "pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He served almost 13 months in custody, but with extensive work release," would make you think that perhaps being a public person like Andrew is (and of course Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and many, many others) would have stayed away from him afterwards. Andrew and Jeffrey were photographed in Central Park in 2010, two years after the conviction. That doesn't prove anything, but kind of makes you think that if Andrew didn't care about what Jeffrey pleaded guilty of two years prior, that perhaps he wouldn't have cared even years earlier when the picture of Andrew and the girl was taken.

And I only focus on Andrew on this because of the context of where we are. A forum about the Royal Family, a thread about Andrew and Epstein. Of course there are many other men involved in this who I find just as disgusting and appalling. Whether guilty or not, still hanging out with a guy convicted of soliciting sex with a minor, is gross to me. You are the company you keep.
 
The FBI is stepping in. A new probe of Andrew's connection with Epstein

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...effrey-Epstein-wont-dismiss-claims-royal.html

This mess is getting worse by the day. No official denials are going to make it go away and Beatrice's wedding is potentially on the path of being impacted. This is staining the whole BRF. Instead of hiring a crisis manager for PR Andrew needs to get his lawyers in front of this. The best wedding present for Beatrice is for Andrew to clear his name.
 
Isn't trafficking on this level (i.e. international and also crossing federal boundaries) a matter for the FBI anyway?
And why shouldn't they investigate Prince Andrew?
I imagine they investigate everyone who has been personally associated with Epstein.
 
Investigating doesn't mean they will find evidence - if none exists because Andrew is telling the truth. I wonder how many people who have condemned him will believe that result? I suspect that many many people simply won't believe the result unless Andrew is convicted and hung, drawn and quartered - even if he is in fact innocent - as he claims.

Of course if he is guilty he should face the same penalty as anyone else.
 
Last edited:
The FBI is stepping in. A new probe of Andrew's connection with Epstein

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...effrey-Epstein-wont-dismiss-claims-royal.html

This mess is getting worse by the day. No official denials are going to make it go away and Beatrice's wedding is potentially on the path of being impacted. This is staining the whole BRF. Instead of hiring a crisis manager for PR Andrew needs to get his lawyers in front of this. The best wedding present for Beatrice is for Andrew to clear his name.

Consider the source of your information and right there, you can tell its not reliable information of what is actually happening. The investigation has been ongoing since Epstein committed suicide and will continue and every nook and cranny and every rock will be turned over to find out and get to the bottom of this.

Because Andrew is part of the investigation that does *not* imply that he's anywhere near being suspected of committing any kind of a crime that he can be prosecuted by law for. This has absolutely no bearing on Beatrice's wedding unless the people that read the tabloid stories make it to be and those can be very easily ignored.

Just because the Daily Mail says something doesn't mean it to be true and time to take a powder, clutch pearls and swoon away and call for smelling salts and imagining the blackest cloud ever hanging over Andrew or any of his family. You think that, it means you buy into the tabloid thinking.

Most likely the connection that the FBI are investigating as far as the criminal charges of sex trafficking with Andrew may not solely be because of his involvement with Epstein. We have to remember too that Andrew was/is a long time friend of Ghislaine Maxwell, who the FBI is rumored to be very seriously looking into on the sex trafficking angle. Many of the girls have stated how Maxwell lured them in and groomed them. She was the one aiding and abetting Epstein's salacious private life it seems. It has yet to be proven.

There has been no indication anywhere that Andrew was indicated as any kind of suspect in sex trafficking crimes. The Feds are not out to find and bust and prosecute every man that had sex with these girls. They're getting to the bottom of the sex trafficking of women and find and prosecute those that aided and abetted Epstein in procuring these girls, grooming them and controlling their sexual activities. I honestly don't see Andrew being involved at that kind of a level with Epstein's sex ring business.

Andrew will be just fine and do what he has to do. We don't know if or how many lawyers he has on this as its not been made public. The BRF and "Firm" as a whole will not be affected whatsoever other than seeing Andrew again as "Randy Andy" and Beatrice's wedding will be the one of her dreams and be a happy occasion. ?
 
@Osipi - The Sunday Times broke the FBI story to Andrew and I believe it is considered a reputable paper. The tabloids are picking it up.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/now-fbi-investigates-prince-andrews-links-to-epstein-xr2k0p3cx

The Times has a pay wall so I used the DM link. The Feds getting involved is still bad and Scotland Yard is providing assistance. Not good at all. And this is more than the "Randy Andy" moniker of being a player. If your name is caught up in something this serious one needs to take it seriously.
 
Last edited:
The Feds have always been involved since Epstein's death. Of course they're going to look at Andrew and want to know what he knows about both Epstein and Maxwell. What he knew, what he saw, what took place that he actually witnessed. They're most likely *not* looking at Andrew as a suspect in sex trafficking crimes.

The sex trafficking part is what we have to remember that they're looking into now with Epstein gone. This is the big difference between what Epstein was found guilty of and sentenced to prison for in Florida for crimes in the State of Florida. None of those crimes he was found guilty of had anything to do with sex trafficking, international or federal charges. The worse he was convicted of was two felony prostitution charges, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to three dozen victims identified by the FBI. Not a whisper about any kind of sex trafficking. The more recent arrest and indictment of Epstein were to be prosecuted in a US Federal Court with the charges of criminal sex trafficking. Big differences. We have to remember too that these girls were brought by Epstein(Maxwell) outside of the US and that denotes international sex trafficking.

Andrew most likely will never recover his reputation again no matter what comes out in any investigation or if he's ever found innocent or guilty. Once a reputation is gone, its next to impossible to redeem it again. However, as far as criminal sex trafficking charges against Andrew, to me there is no indication anywhere that he would have been that involved with Epstein and Maxwell to be an active part of aiding and abetting the procurement, grooming and controlling of these young girls. He, however, could have been very aware of these young girls and took advantage of the situation in front of him at the time. That's a whole different ball of wax though aside from criminal sex trafficking.

That's what we need to remember. What is being investigated now is criminal sex trafficking on an international level and not who slept with who that was underage at the time. ?
 
I fail to see how he could be "doing fine". HIs reputation has gone.. He may not be technically guilty of a crime but it si impossible to believe that he did not know what sort of man Epsteirn was and he continued to associate with him..
 
Of course his reputation has tanked and people have long memories and there will be repercussions that come out of all this such as his reputation influencing charities and organizations to drop him and who knows what else.

What I meant actually and perhaps didn't express it clearly that when it comes to a criminal investigation, I really don't believe they're going to find anything to really prosecute him with. That's just a gut feeling but I could be proven wrong. Until he is indicted, tried and found guilty of a crime, I think Andrew will go about his life the best that he can and this whole thing isn't going to hang an ominous black cloud over the BRF or Beatrice's wedding. At least I hope so.
 
I just read the article in today's Sunday Times. It's much briefer than the Daily Mail's.

The lead paragraph states: "Prince Andrew risks being further embroiled in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal as The Sunday Times reveals today that the FBI has expanded its investigation to identify more of the billionaire’s victims, who could provide information on the royal."

The Daily Mail also repeats statements previously made to the Times by John Mark Dougan, the former Palm County deputy sheriff now living in Russia including this: "'My copies of the files [Epstein case] will never be released unless something untoward happens to me, because they are my guarantee of safety for me and my family in the US."

Today's Sunday Times article doesn't include that statement but I found it in an earlier article published September 25: "“The FBI got hold of all the data I have when they raided me. My copies of the files will never be released unless something untoward happens to me, because they are my guarantee of safety for me and my family in the US.”

Notice the sentence I boldfaced. The Daily Mail didn't include it. IMO this omission insinuates that Dougan (and perhaps the Russians) might have information on Andrew that the FBI doesn't. But obviously that's not true if the FBI already has copies of Dougan's files.

So much for the Daily Mail.
 
Last edited:
Of course his reputation has tanked and people have long memories and there will be repercussions that come out of all this such as his reputation influencing charities and organizations to drop him and who knows what else.

What I meant actually and perhaps didn't express it clearly that when it comes to a criminal investigation, I really don't believe they're going to find anything to really prosecute him with. That's just a gut feeling but I could be proven wrong. Until he is indicted, tried and found guilty of a crime, I think Andrew will go about his life the best that he can and this whole thing isn't going to hang an ominous black cloud over the BRF or Beatrice's wedding. At least I hope so.

of course he will because he seems to have no sense of wrong doing about his behaviour...
 
How many of us have made mistakes years ago that we're still wearing sackcloths and ashes in repentance for our sins? To my knowledge, anything "immoral" or "unethical" in Andrew's behavior (which still hasn't been proven to be true) didn't happen two months ago but years ago if it did even happen.

People seem to want to see Andrew confess his sins to all and sundry and do penance forever more over this. None of us are ever put into that kind of a situation for our wrong doings. If, by chance, it is found that Andrew is tried and convicted of a crime, he'll be sentenced appropriately. Until then, the public has no reason to demand that Andrew do anything at all to appease their higher sense of morality and their indignation.

Innocent until proven guilty is the way the law sees it and so will I. I do have my own thoughts about Andrew's character but in a case like this, its not my place to be his judge and jury and executioner.
 
How many of us have made mistakes years ago that we're still wearing sackcloths and ashes in repentance for our sins? To my knowledge, anything "immoral" or "unethical" in Andrew's behavior (which still hasn't been proven to be true) didn't happen two months ago but years ago if it did even happen.

People seem to want to see Andrew confess his sins to all and sundry and do penance forever more over this. None of us are ever put into that kind of a situation for our wrong doings. If, by chance, it is found that Andrew is tried and convicted of a crime, he'll be sentenced appropriately. Until then, the public has no reason to demand that Andrew do anything at all to appease their higher sense of morality and their indignation.

Innocent until proven guilty is the way the law sees it and so will I. I do have my own thoughts about Andrew's character but in a case like this, its not my place to be his judge and jury and executioner.
Where did he do any penance? 'Cause he didn't, at all.
 
Where did he do any penance? 'Cause he didn't, at all.
Of course he didn't. He determinedly stuck with Epstein after he must have realised that Epsteins behaviour was both immoral and criminal.
 
I definitely don't know if Andrew is guilty, but the fact that Jeffrey Epstein "pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He served almost 13 months in custody, but with extensive work release," would make you think that perhaps being a public person like Andrew is (and of course Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and many, many others) would have stayed away from him afterwards. Andrew and Jeffrey were photographed in Central Park in 2010, two years after the conviction. That doesn't prove anything, but kind of makes you think that if Andrew didn't care about what Jeffrey pleaded guilty of two years prior, that perhaps he wouldn't have cared even years earlier when the picture of Andrew and the girl was taken.
I fully agree with all of the above. Nonetheless, his (minor) sentence might have meant that people thought it wasn't too bad (so that's something that the judicial system in the US should look into) - even though that would be hard to believe. I guess Epstein explained it 'away' that way to his friends who were most likely more than willing to take his word for it.

And if I understand this post correctly, you are coming back from your previous statement that Andrew committed a crime. He may have but so far there is insufficient evidence to state that he is guilty of (knowingly) taking part in sex-trafficking.
 
Where did he do any penance? 'Cause he didn't, at all.

My post was to indicate that whatever "penance" he would be required to do or amends to make or anything concerning his association with Jeffrey Epstein shouldn't have to be something put out into the public domain. Even his being questioned and/or interviewed by the FBI about his connections concerning their investigation won't be made public knowledge nor the amount of lawyers he has working for him on this or if he hires some really good and awesome PR people to get ahead of this for him.

In other words, he's not required to explain anything (or do penance) at all for the general public about something that may or may not have happened in his private life a long time ago. ?
 
In America, it is the same thing that happened with Harvey Weinstein. Maybe the general public had no idea, but as soon as the story broke about Harvey, everyone and their mother in Hollywood started coming forward saying that it either happened to him, or they had heard the stories for years.

Same with Bill Cosby and Rolf Harris. Women coming forward, 'Me too'. And yet it seems to me as though no one else has come forward to say anything about Prince Andrew in that respect, that I've read, anyway.

Prince Andrew made a huge blunder in not stepping away from Epstein when it was first discovered what kind of man he was, and is going to have to live forever with the consequences of that misplaced 'loyalty'.
 
Same with Bill Cosby and Rolf Harris. Women coming forward, 'Me too'. And yet it seems to me as though no one else has come forward to say anything about Prince Andrew in that respect, that I've read, anyway.

Prince Andrew made a huge blunder in not stepping away from Epstein when it was first discovered what kind of man he was, and is going to have to live forever with the consequences of that misplaced 'loyalty'.

Why would he step away when it’s alleged he enjoyed the participation of the sex trafficking?
 
Why would he step away when it’s alleged he enjoyed the participation of the sex trafficking?

Who is alleging that besides some posters here and the Daily Mail?

I think, Andrew, like many other people, enjoyed the money and high powered friends of Epstein.

Andrew seems to be kind of a jerk, but I do not believe he is a pedophile.
 
Why would he step away when it’s alleged he enjoyed the participation of the sex trafficking?

He has denied ever sleeping with the one woman who has made allegations against him.

His word against hers.

He has been cleared by the Metropolitan Police who have already investigated Ms Roberts claims.

I therefore assume you are a believer in trial by media and guilty until proven innocent rather than trial by jury and innocent until proven guilty.

Why believe Ms Roberts rather than Andrew?

I have no idea which one is telling the truth but only one of them can be and until one admits they are lying or there is conclusive evidence to prove which one is lying why not give Andrew the same rights you would expect for yourself? As assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
 
Why would he step away when it’s alleged he enjoyed the participation of the sex trafficking?

This sentence you wrote is very differently worded than what Andrew was actually alleged to have done.

To participate in "sex trafficking", Andrew would have had to be out and about (perhaps in London on his various events) and scouring the people around him for a woman that would appeal to Epstein, somehow convince her that he knew a good place and a good friend that could "help her get ahead in the world", and actually, perhaps, deliver her to Epstein or even Maxwell and then decide just where this woman would go and what this woman would do. He would be her "handler". That is sex trafficking.

As Iluvbertie has said, the only woman accusing Andrew of having sexual relations with her is Ms. Roberts. Ms. Roberts was procured, groomed and controlled by both Maxwell and Epstein and brought by *them* to London and Ms. Maxwell's residence. Andrew was one person Roberts was told at the time to "service".

So what we have is Andrew is alleged to have had a sexual relationship with Ms. Roberts as ordered by the Epstein/Maxwell handlers. Andrew was cleared by the Met Police because of the fact that, at the time, Roberts was of legal age of consent in London. No where, ever, has it been accused that Andrew participated in "sex trafficking".

Just like in the Florida sentence of 2008 and the charges against Epstein in 2019 are different. In Florida, Epstein was found guilty of charges dealing with prostitution. In SDNY last summer, Epstein was facing charges of sex trafficking. Two totally different colors of crayons from the box.
 
We don't know why Andrew was cleared by the Met - whether it was because of Ms Roberts age or whether she was unable to substantiate her claim they even had sex with Andrew denying that they ever did.
 
Last edited:
Okay. I guess you all didn’t pay any attention to me saying Andrew “allegedly” participated in the sex trafficking. He’s been accused of having sex with Mrs. Guiffre.

Andrew could be innocent. Andrew could be guilty. Virginia could be telling the truth. Virginia could be lying. The only way for this ‘she said, he said’ to end is through some legal channels. Somebody has got to confess.

Now, let’s not forget that Andrew not only knew Epstein for years, but he also brought Jeffery and Ghislaine around The Queen and members of the royal family. These folks vacationed on the royal estates. Even after Epstein was convicted as a paedophile, Andrew continued his friendship with these two and there’s video evidence of Andrew at Epstein’s residence after his conviction. So, excuse me for being a little suspicious of Andrew and not so quick to jump on the bandwagon of saying Andrew only remained friends with Epstein out of loyalty and money.

All this stuff stinks to high heaven.
 
Why would he step away when it’s alleged he enjoyed the participation of the sex trafficking?

I think there needs to be a distinction between what I think you're saying, 'participation of the sex trafficking,' meaning he possibly had sex with Virginia Roberts, who was a victim of Epstein...and 'participating in the sex trafficking,' which would mean Andrew actually procured girls for Epstein. No one said he has done the latter thing and we aren't sure if the former thing happened.

But even if he did have sex with Virginia, there is no proof that he knew she was a victim of sex trafficking at the time, or that he knew she was underage, or that he knew what the age of consent was in the U.S. (She was 17 when this incident is alleged to have taken place, and the age of consent is 16 in England.)

And I am not sure how anyone would be able to prove all these things in a court or why anyone would bother with charging Andrew, who is one of many men alleged to have slept with Epstein's girls. The main person they need to be questioning is Ghislaine Maxwell.

I do think Andrew seems guilty of some very bad judgment, but even IF he did sleep with Virginia as she alleges, this is not necessarily a crime. It's only a crime IF he knew she was underage and a victim of sex trafficking and was having sex with him under duress.

However, like I said, it seems very unlikely that anyone will be able to prove any of this even in court, so it will be Virginia's word against Andrew's into the foreseeable future.
 
Andrew could be innocent. Andrew could be guilty. Virginia could be telling the truth. Virginia could be lying. The only way for this ‘she said, he said’ to end is through some legal channels. Somebody has got to confess.

No, nobody has got to confess. There are all kinds of court cases where the perpetrator never admits to a crime but they are convicted anyway on the evidence, but there's no actual way to prove Andrew is innocent, that I can see. Only that he is guilty. It sounds like a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies can't be disproven.

Like iluvbertie said, Andrew was cleared by the Met, which may mean they didn't have enough evidence to convict him. The only evidence that could prove that he is guilty would be some sort of video of him having sex with Virginia, or some sort of audio or video in which he tells someone he knows Virginia is underage or some such thing. If that kind of evidence doesn't exist, then even if Andrew is 'guilty,' he won't be found guilty. You're asking basically for someone to confess so there can be some 'proof' that he is guilty but that proof may not exist. It doesn't mean he's innocent and it doesn't mean he's guilty, it just means that only Andrew and Victoria really know the truth.
 
Last edited:
No, nobody has got to confess. There are all kinds of court cases where the perpetrator never admits to a crime but they are convicted anyway on the evidence, but there's no actual way to prove Andrew is innocent, that I can see. Only that he is guilty. So you're asking basically for someone to confess so there can be some 'proof' that he is guilty. It sounds like a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies can't be disproven.

Like iluvbertie said, Andrew was cleared by the Met, which may mean they didn't have enough evidence to convict him.

I’m saying: something has got to give, here. There needs to be a proper investigation of this matter.
 
Last edited:
Okay. I guess you all didn’t pay any attention to me saying Andrew “allegedly” participated in the sex trafficking. He’s been accused of having sex with Mrs. Guiffre.

Being accused of having sex with someone that is underage is totally different than being accused of sex trafficking. Two very different accusations. There have been *no* allegations or accusations of Andrew being involved in sex trafficking.

The FBI is investigating the sex trafficking crimes that Epstein was indicted for in SDNY. As we know with the accusations against Andrew (and the picture), one of Epstein/Maxwell's "charges" were ordered to have sex with Andrew in London which actually makes for criminal *international* sex trafficking.

Perhaps you meant to say that Andrew enjoyed reaping the benefits of Epstein/Maxwell's sex trafficking ring? Just like a "john" at a brothel enjoys the activities there but its the "madam" or the "pimp" that holds the keys to the girl's "working life". ;)

For example. A pimp in NYC could have 15 girls of any age working for him. Its local. If that pimp was to solicit girls from Europe (for example) and then open up his business in Chicago, Detroit and Parumph and move his girls between locations, it would be transporting these girls across state and international lines and henceforth be a criminal sex trafficker.

Epstein's convictions in Florida were on a state level (local) and the convictions dealt with prostitution. In SDNY, he was being indicted on criminal sex trafficking crimes on a state and international level. He killed himself and the investigation is going forward to determine just who actually aided and abetted Epstein in trafficking these girls. Maxwell is prime suspected sex trafficker that helped Epstein.

Its not about who slept with whom. Those cases are not part and parcel of the sex trafficking allegations but those that *were* trafficked and that those that are alleged to have participated with those girls can perhaps aid the investigation to determine who, besides Epstein, actually committed criminal sex trafficking deeds and could be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

With the operation that Epstein obviously had and the multitude of women that have come forward, its not hard to believe that Epstein didn't run all of this by himself without people aiding and abetting him. This is what the FBI is looking into.
 
I’m saying: something has got to give, here. There needs to be a proper investigation of this matter.

When it comes to Andrew though, he's just a little fish in a very big pond. As the investigation by the FBI at a federal level is trying to get to the bottom of criminal sex trafficking, it seems Andrew is one of a *lot* of men that will be questioned and investigated to find out what he knew.

Remember Andrew was not only friends with Epstein but also Maxwell. If the FBI were sure that only Epstein was involved, they wouldn't still be pursuing this investigation. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom