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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andrew has only ever denied that he had sex with her not that he was ever in her company so I don't really see where he is going with this fake photo thing. I'm sure if the photo didn't exist he would have denied that he had ever met her.
 
So posters are relying on a tabloid report that obviously got no traction or it would have popped up all over the news and net. It hasn't, yet here are all these posters taking the 'moral high ground, tut, tut, tutting and metaphorically sharing their point little index fingers over one unattributed report.
 
MARG said:
So posters are relying on a tabloid report that obviously got no traction or it would have popped up all over the news and net. It hasn't, yet here are all these posters taking the 'moral high ground, tut, tut, tutting and metaphorically sharing their point little index fingers over one unattributed report.
Click to expand...
That sums it up pretty much, yes.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
The original source was apparently this article in the Sunday Times.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/prince-andrews-experts-study-doctored-photos-zvnq3n90l
Click to expand...

He's scurrying around trying to find anyway at all to distance himself from the whole episode. I look forward to Ghislaine Maxwell being apprehended and questioned but the cynic in me feels that people in power are actually allowing her not to be caught. I suspect it's either that or have her commit suicide too which just wouldn't wash at this point in time so soon after Epstein's highly suspicious death.
 
At this point in time, we actually have no concrete evidence of any wrongdoings by Andrew at all. There are allegations and accusations and a photo that allude to a possible moral lapse of character but until the facts have been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew actually did do what he's been accused of doing, I'm not going to character assassinate the man.

Although its true that Andrew has never been among my favorite members of the BRF and I can believe that perhaps all these allegations and accusations and trying to prove the photo itself was faked do point to wrong doings by Andrew, but in the here and the now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as I do believe that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Ghislaine Maxwell has the ways and the means to discreetly disappear off the face of the earth should she want to. What kind of a life will she have though knowing she always needs to look over her shoulder to avoid being caught? That, in and of itself would make anyone feel like they're a prisoner in their own mind. She has as much of a lack of freedom now that she would have behind bars. The fact that she's not come forward gives credence to the accusations that she aided and abetted Epstein in his crimes. Then, again, she is innocent until actually proven guilty.

She's not doing herself any favors by "ghosting" herself though. In a way, her self exile kind of reminds me of the sad picture that Saddam Hussein presented when they finally found him hiding in a six by eight hole looking very much like a caged animal. Its sad but cowards do not take kindly to facing up to their deeds let along themselves in a mirror.
 
Osipi said:
At this point in time, we actually have no concrete evidence of any wrongdoings by Andrew at all. There are allegations and accusations...
Click to expand...


Well, we have no evidence of any crimes of Epstein himself too. :ermm:

Just some alleged witnesses which spoke out! Some of them accused Epstein, some Prince Andrew too.

Btw An forensic expert, a well known one, hired by Epstein's brother, claimed yesterday, Epstein was murdered with the highest probability.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/jeffrey-epstein-was-strangulated-famous-forensic-expert-says
 
victor1319 said:
Well, we have no evidence of any crimes of Epstein himself too. :ermm:
Click to expand...



Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and charged with sex trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex. This is what he was in jail for when he died. The only reason charges were dropped was due to his death.

I very rarely come on to this thread anymore, but I will say this.

Prince Andrew has not been charged, arrested or investigated for anything.
 
Lumutqueen said:
Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and charged with sex trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex. This is what he was in jail for when he died. The only reason charges were dropped was due to his death.

I very rarely come on to this thread anymore, but I will say this.

Prince Andrew has not been charged, arrested or investigated for anything.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that in addition to the charges you mentioned 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.
 
Lumutqueen said:
Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and charged with sex trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex. This is what he was in jail for when he died. The only reason charges were dropped was due to his death.

I very rarely come on to this thread anymore, but I will say this.

Prince Andrew has not been charged, arrested or investigated for anything.
Click to expand...

I'm open to correction but he hasn't been accused of anything either. Virginia said Epstein forced her to have sex with Andrew but she has never said Andrew raped her, or that Andrew had sex with her knowing she didn't consent and was being forced to service him, or that Andrew knew she was being trafficked, or that she was under the age of consent when she and Andrew had sex. (Andrew has, of course denied that they ever had sex.)
 
Lumutqueen said:
Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and charged with sex trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex. This is what he was in jail for when he died. The only reason charges were dropped was due to his death.

I very rarely come on to this thread anymore, but I will say this.

Prince Andrew has not been charged, arrested or investigated for anything.
Click to expand...


Also for Epstein, right, innocent 'til proven guilty.

And I wonder and I asked this before, if Prince Andrew enjoys some kind of immunity from penal law - abroad and in Britain? Wikipedia has also no real answer (or my English is not good enough):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_Kingdom
 
I always try to remember that there were young girls who were hurt in this whole thing. They went through something that no young girl or young woman should go through.

The power differences in this situation plays a major part here. The rich and powerful men and woman who put these young girls through this horrific experience got what they wanted out of these girls and has done everything possible to cover for themselves and for each other. At the end of the day, they get the upper hand and the benefit of the doubt.

The young girls and women who were sexually used and abused for the powerful people’s entertainment and sick desires are left on their own. Fighting to get their voices and stories heard. Left trying to legally convince the courts and public that their horrible experiences were real and not something they just made up. The only power they have is to bravely come together as one and demand some justice for which they deserve.
 
victor1319 said:
Also for Epstein, right, innocent 'til proven guilty.

And I wonder and I asked this before, if Prince Andrew enjoys some kind of immunity from penal law - abroad and in Britain? Wikipedia has also no real answer (or my English is not good enough):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_Kingdom
Click to expand...



I think you’re misreading what I have written.

Epstein was accused, charged and was sent to jail in 2019. As another poster has mentioned, in 2008 Epstein was found guilty of procuring a girl for prostitution under the age of 18. So in relation to the charges put to him in 2019, he had previous offences which linked to the accusations.

I repeat for the last and final time, Andrew has never been accused, charged or investigated for anything.

Andrew does not have any kind of immunity.
 
Iluvbertie said:
The Met has already conducted an investigation. ... The Met - one of the best police investigative forces in the world - has already cleared Andrew of any crime in the UK.
Click to expand...

Don't want to be pedantic ... but ... what a Met Spokesperson was actually reported as saying in September 2019 about their previous response was,

"Having closely examined the available evidence, the decision was made that this would not progress to a full investigation. As such, the matter was closed."

The Met Spokesperson continues regarding their more recent response,

"We acknowledge the considerable interest and concern around this case and have revisited that decision making and believe it remains entirely appropriate. 'Therefore no further action is being taken. "

So, I take that to mean there was not enough evidence and / or inclination to proceed with a "full investigation". Not quite the same as Andrew being "cleared"?
 
Last edited:
MaryQueenofScots said:
Don't want to be pedantic ... but ... what a Met Spokesperson was actually reported as saying in September 2019 about their previous response was,

"Having closely examined the available evidence, the decision was made that this would not progress to a full investigation. As such, the matter was closed."

The Met Spokesperson continues regarding their more recent response,

"We acknowledge the considerable interest and concern around this case and have revisited that decision making and believe it remains entirely appropriate. 'Therefore no further action is being taken. "

So, I take that to mean there was not enough evidence and / or inclination to proceed with a "full investigation". Not quite the same as Andrew being "cleared"?
Click to expand...

Actually it is. Every ctominal court case is brought by the Crown Prosecution Service. Since the statement was made by a Met Police Spokesperson it seems to suggest there was either no evidence, or insufficient evidence to even send to CPS.

In short, there was no case to answer.
 
That's the way the law works. In order to actually indict and take a case to court, there has to be a concrete case with evidence and actual criminal intent to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court to be heard.

As far as I'm aware, the case against Andrew that was looked at by the Met Police showed no reason to pursue it further. As the allegation that Andrew had sex with Ms. Giuffre at Maxwell's residence in London and that she was sex trafficked there by Epstein and Maxwell, the facts are that Andrew had no part in the trafficking angle of any of this and even if he did have sex with Ms. Giuffre at the time, by UK statutes, Ms. Giuffre was of a legal age to consent.

There was nothing in the case to warrant it being taken to a court or investigated further. The Met Police may find they have a totally different opinion should they ever find and investigate and decide that Ms. Maxwell would be brought up on charges. ;)

Lumutqueen said:
I think you’re misreading what I have written.

Epstein was accused, charged and was sent to jail in 2019. As another poster has mentioned, in 2008 Epstein was found guilty of procuring a girl for prostitution under the age of 18. So in relation to the charges put to him in 2019, he had previous offences which linked to the accusations.

I repeat for the last and final time, Andrew has never been accused, charged or investigated for anything.

Andrew does not have any kind of immunity.
Click to expand...

There's something we need to remember. The charges that Epstein was tried and convicted of way back then and his arrest in 2019 are totally different. The 2008 case where he was tried and convicted and sentenced didn't have any kind of a hint to charges of sex trafficking. Sex trafficking was the meat and the potatoes of his 2019 arrest.

Andrew, for his part, has no bearing on the 2019 charges other than he was friends with two people that were the actual sex traffickers. Epstein and Maxwell remain the top suspected perpetrators in these alleged crimes. One is dead. The other is in hiding somewhere.

To be clear here, the charges against Epstein this year were "Financier Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in July 2019 on charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking."

MaryQueenofScots said:
So, I take that to mean there was not enough evidence and / or inclination to proceed with a "full investigation". Not quite the same as Andrew being "cleared"?
Click to expand...

What it means in a nutshell is that there was no indication of a need to pursue an investigation into Andrew for committing a crime. As mentioned above, at the time, Ms. Giuffre was of legal age to consent to sex in London regardless of just *how* that sex came about (if in fact, it did happen). ;)
 
Last edited:
ACO said:
Not sure if posted but here is an ABC News anchor admitting how they were allegedly threatened by the palace (her words) over some interview she had 3 years ago with Virginia Roberts. Interesting watch.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1191716801178034180
Click to expand...

Wow, the things that allegedly went down to help cover up the Epstein and Prince Andrew story is unbelievable.
 
Wow, she forgot Trump, Bill Gates, a "mystery" Nobel Laureate, etc. Et sl. Like "The Palace" would threaten the giant ABC and let the BBC, et al go for it in 2011.
 
Dman said:
Wow, the things that allegedly went down to help cover up the Epstein and Prince Andrew story is unbelievable.
Click to expand...
Trying to kill the right to free press.. Nice! It's no wonder his hired PR man quit because there is no saving this big ol' mess. And I hope he isn't saved.
 
The allegation over Buckingham Palace threatening the anchor is serious, although you wouldn’t think any of this is serious by the way the British press is ignoring the case and story. Sad.
 
Last edited:
Dman said:
The allegation over Buckingham Palace threatening the anchor is serious, although you wouldn’t think any of this is serious by the way the British press is ignoring the case and story. Sad.
Click to expand...
That is serious and, had it been proved true, I would be angry that the Palace, and for Palace read HM the Queen, would ever authorise, let alone allow it to happen.

These allegations have no grounding, not with the state police, the FBI nor the Metropolitan police. The police in the UK have no problem charging members of the royal family. Princess Anne was charged when one of her dogs was off-lead and bit someone. Hardly the same as the allegations, yet these are just that, allegations with no evidence to support any criminal or civil action.
 
We have no idea what they did or did not do. We just have a woman on record saying what happened to her. If she is lying than the Palace can very easily take action. Though if she is not I would imagine they wouldn't want that on record either.

Robert Jobson was on an Australian show earlier and said that while surprised about the comments that he knows the palace can have some influence when they want it it. But he hadn't had that experience himself.

Time will tell as always but no one can claim they did or did not do anything. We have zero knowledge of what transpired 3 years ago.
 
Last edited:
The first thing that came to mind is that perhaps that anchorwoman didn't know the *full* details of what happened that quashed that story. It could be possible that the news station was threatened with a defamation lawsuit should they air Ms. Giuffre's allegations in an interview. Perhaps it wasn't a cover up but rather a warning.

Airing something like this that names names (especially Andrew in this case) and accusations on a major TV station could easily be said to cause harm to a person's reputation. As Marg has pointed out, these allegations against Andrew have nothing concrete to point to the allegations being true other than Ms. Giuffre's word. This is as valid today as it was three years ago and back in 2008 or any other time Andrew has been connected with this.

Even if that interview was aired tomorrow, there is still no real backing to the claims against Andrew. Epstein, yes. Maxwell, perhaps and Andrew, no.

The time for a major news channel to air something like this would be *after* its been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew actually did what Ms. Giuffre is alleging that he did. News channels are there to report the facts and not a venue for rumor, hearsay or allegations without something to back them up.

This is how I see it anyways.
 
ABC said it did not meet the required standard of evidence for its 20/20 program. The reporter said she was caught venting and the "million reasons" not to Air I am guessing, all had $ signs on front of them.
 
I don't know which is worse - BP threatening ABC or ABC caving. These are allegations but they still look bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The statement "we were threatened by the Palace a million different ways" is, to me, quite vague. The investigative journalist in me wants to find out just who at what palace made said threats. Was it the public relations department? Was it the Palace's own legal team? Was it the second undersecretary to the housekeeping department? It does seem logical that the Palace is Buckingham Palace as Andrew's office and staff are located there. We shouldn't assume that this has the mark of the Queen on it.

Why were said threats made and what were those actual threats consisting of? If and when such threats were made, who was contacted with them and just how were these threats delivered? Was it the owner of the news channel? Was it the public relations department of the news channel or its legal department? Did the anchorwoman get an anonymous email warning her to back of and signed with a skull and crossbones?

The biggest question though to me is in the why said threats were issued. There, to my my thinking, would have to be a very valid reason for the Palace to react at the news of this interview being aired . I'm sure that this anchorwoman believes she was told to not air this because of "threats" but she does leave a lot open to interpretation on just why there were threats in the first place and underlying reasons and ramifications for them. If I had to make an educated guess, it would be that Andrew's office threatened a defamation of character lawsuit should this interview be aired. Again, that's *my* supposition in the matter and not credible facts.

Lotsa questions remain. Probable a million of them. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -
6 7 8
Replies
223
Views
14K
Curryong
C
L
  • Locked
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003
3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
28K
Alexandria
A
J
  • Locked
Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik, Current Events 1: May 2003 - November 2006
17 18 19
Replies
564
Views
100K
norwegianne
norwegianne

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom