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.
I wouldn't worry overly much about Andrew. He has diplomatic immunity and I don't think he's going to be involved in all of this whatsoever. He may have had "association" with Epstein but there is nothing to indicate that Andrew was part and parcel of what they were going to prosecute Epstein on. They're going to go after the people that aided and abetted Epstein in his proclivities.

I'm sure the Yorks are enjoying their time away at Balmoral. Its a wonderful place to be at this time of the year. ?
 
Chloep said:
Yep.... :censored:. Watch them single out a semi-famous, but ultimately unimportant person as a scapegoat and the rest being swept under the rug. Just way too many high profile people all over the spectrum were his 'friends' and 'associates' - this was going to happen no matter what.
Click to expand...


That's what I think too.
The top tier will get away clean.

And, if anyone truly believes Epstein committed suicide, there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale...
 
Well let's say it is very convenient this suicide. But not knowing him I won't judge….
 
Osipi said:
The more that comes out, the fishier things are starting to smell. I sincerely don't believe that someone that was to be on constant suicide watch would have that watch given such an extended break just for maintenance. And the camera "malfunctioning"? Its a coincidence right? Too "convenient" for me to believe.

I bet some heads are going to roll at MCC. The FBI is investigating.
Click to expand...

That does sound all-too convenient. When I saw this news a few hours ago I could hardly believe it because he was supposed to be on suicide watch. A few minutes later I thought someone must have turned a blind eye on purpose.

Intriguing to wonder who was behind this (at the least) failure to prevent Epstein's suicide...I usually dismiss conspiracy theories but this one doesn't seem possible *without* some conspiracy behind it.
 
So how long now do we have to wait for the Truth to come out. 48 hrs or longer. However long it takes we want the Truth not some made upconvenient story.
And the investigation must go on for justice to be served for these poor girls.
 
We'll probably never know the whole truth. In one report according to former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, the case against Epstein dies with him:

"Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide ends the criminal case against him because no one else was charged in the indictment. … [It] means that there won’t be a public trial or other proceedings that could reveal evidence of his wrongdoing. Evidence collected via grand jury subpoena won’t be released to the public. It’s still likely that the public will learn additional information from civil cases by victims against his estate or non-criminal investigations (for example, the DOJ OIG investigation).
 
At any rate, I heard that Epstein's victims are furious (understandably so) now. Everything's going to be swept back under the rug, it seems.
 
Well that will be a travesty of justice right there Osipi. Espeically If everything is swept under the rug, if the investigation is stopped. There are still repeat offenders attached to this case. So justice should continue on the same course. Crimes have been committed do they just lose interest now because the main perpetrator is dead.
The whole world is watching. Are they going to show that the justice system in the USA is now warped and corrupt as other third world places.

I have to amend my last sentence. Now warped and corrupt as other Western and third world places. Because it is becoming clearer everyday so many wealthy countries can be just as corrupt in many practices and getting away with it.
 
Last edited:
Troy Thompson said:
At any rate, I heard that Epstein's victims are furious (understandably so) now. Everything's going to be swept back under the rug, it seems.
Click to expand...

Yes. The worst part of this is that the victims won't see Epstein pay for his crimes or feel closure about this.
 
A Truth and Reconciliation Commission sounds like something we should have Every time a new government is elected.
Governments and politicians these days lie and lie about all sorts of things. Mostly they get away with it as a distortion of the facts.
If a commission were held on a previous governments conduct then we can hold them more accountable and the newly elected government might just behave themselves for more than 5 minutes.
 
We had Andrew show up with HM at church. IMHO the optics of this are very bad.
 
What is so bad about Andrew going to church with his mother - as he does every year when he is at Balmoral? This is just the family doing what they always do - it is Sunday at Balmoral so we go to church.

Hiding away will only give those who wish to believe the worst ammunition. Andrew has denied the allegations - way back in 2011.

The UK has a very simple legal principle as well - innocent until PROVEN guilty. Trial by media isn't a means of proof. Until Andrew faces a court of law and is PROVEN guilty he has every right to go about his life.

I remember a court case in the UK last year where a small piece of video was sold to the media and on the basis of that snippet the public were convinced of a man's guilty. However the jury saw and heard a lot more and the man walked free from the court room having been found 'not guilty' in a court of law. Of course the people who only saw the snippet and want to believe the worst of the man believe that there was a miscarriage of justice while the jury who heard all the evidence and not just one little part of it were convinced of the man's innocence.

Andrew is entitled to the same assumption of innnocence as any other person in Britain.
 
Iluvbertie said:
What is so bad about Andrew going to church with his mother - as he does every year when he is at Balmoral? This is just the family doing what they always do - it is Sunday at Balmoral so we go to church.

Hiding away will only give those who wish to believe the worst ammunition. Andrew has denied the allegations - way back in 2011.

The UK has a very simple legal principle as well - innocent until PROVEN guilty. Trial by media isn't a means of proof. Until Andrew faces a court of law and is PROVEN guilty he has every right to go about his life.

I remember a court case in the UK last year where a small piece of video was sold to the media and on the basis of that snippet the public were convinced of a man's guilty. However the jury saw and heard a lot more and the man walked free from the court room having been found 'not guilty' in a court of law. Of course the people who only saw the snippet and want to believe the worst of the man believe that there was a miscarriage of justice while the jury who heard all the evidence and not just one little part of it were convinced of the man's innocence.

Andrew is entitled to the same assumption of innnocence as any other person in Britain.
Click to expand...


If only that were true. A certain demographic gets the brunt of miscarriages of justice because they are assumed guilty due to unconscious biases in the justice system.
 
The tabloids are having a field day. They are making sure Andrew's name is tied to this suicide. It's not helping that public figures and newscasters are suggesting murder. It's a matter of time before the BRF is accused. The Windsors have to worried now. This won't go away with Esptein's death.
 
Iluvbertie said:
Andrew is entitled to the same assumption of innnocence as any other person in Britain.
Click to expand...

In a court of law this is absolutely true. However, in real life, we all carry our reputations around with us wherever we go, and people will and do judge us by our actions, how they compare to our words, and the company we keep, along with other things. At the very minimum, Andrew showed appalling judgment in continuing to have contact with Epstein, and it raises questions in a lot of people's minds, fairly or not.
 
This only matters if one pays attention to tabloids. I'll wait for the real facts with credible sources. :D
 
Ista said:
In a court of law this is absolutely true. However, in real life, we all carry our reputations around with us wherever we go, and people will and do judge us by our actions, how they compare to our words, and the company we keep, along with other things. At the very minimum, Andrew showed appalling judgment in continuing to have contact with Epstein, and it raises questions in a lot of people's minds, fairly or not.
Click to expand...

Indeed and it's probably going to get hotter for him for a while with this "suicide" and documents being released. The press hadn't really jumped on him too much before this time around.

That said him accompanying his mother to church when he's staying with her isn't bad optics for her. Laying low wouldn't help him much either.
 
The fact that Andrew was a friend of this monster and even holidayed with him is enough to tarnish his reputation anyway but it's not just Epstein. Ghislaine Maxwell, the women who supposedly procured girls for Epstein and his friends to abuse, is another close friend of Andrew and the authorities now have her in their sights.This, and the accusations against him from two of the girls concerned, means that this story is far from over.
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
... Of course the people who only saw the snippet and want to believe the worst of the man believe that there was a miscarriage of justice while the jury who heard all the evidence and not just one little part of it were convinced of the man's innocence.

Andrew is entitled to the same assumption of innnocence as any other person in Britain.
Click to expand...
I agree that oft times the press will focus on a snippet and ignore the nuances. However, here in the U.S., and I assume in the UK, criminal juries don’t find people innocent, thus to find some one not guilty a jury need not be ‘convinced of the man’s innocence.’ To acquit a criminal jury need only decide that the prosecution did not prove guilt under the highest burden of proof in law - beyond a reasonable doubt. A great example of the difference in the burden of proof is OJ Simpson - criminal jury found him not guilty whereas civil jury found him liable.
The Queen gave Andrew some kind of award last time Epstein related allegations were in the press, so of course she’ll support him this time as well. That said, the Yorks always go to Balmoral around this time of year, so Andrew’s appearance at church is not out of the ordinary IMO.
I read that Charles was at church as well? I don’t recall him being at Balmoral at the same time as the Yorks in past summers - I assume he would be at Birkhall?
 
Osipi said:
This only matters if one pays attention to tabloids. I'll wait for the real facts with credible sources. :D
Click to expand...

Osipi, these accusations against Andrew are not coming from tabloids. Two women named Andrew in unsealed court documents, which were revealed hours before Epstein's suicide.

I admit your post from yesterday made me slightly queasy-- the idea that a man who, if we take the stance of believing victims, was involved in the way he was in this affair, is comfortable under diplomatic immunity, basking in a country estate, enjoying the beautiful weather this time of year (?) with his ex-wife and daughters is truly nauseating.
 
HighGoalHighDreams said:
Osipi, these accusations against Andrew are not coming from tabloids. Two women named Andrew in unsealed court documents, which were revealed hours before Epstein's suicide.

I admit your post from yesterday made me slightly queasy-- the idea that a man who, if we take the stance of believing victims, was involved in the way he was in this affair, is comfortable under diplomatic immunity, basking in a country estate, enjoying the beautiful weather this time of year (?) with his ex-wife and daughters is truly nauseating.
Click to expand...

Diplomatic immunity? How far down the line of succession do members of the royal family have from being charged with crimes?
 
A lot of people have been named in this Epstein saga including the President of the United States and a former President of the United States. The lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump documents were even posted in this thread. So was Prince Andrew of the UK named among many more high profile people.

We don't know the facts of just how much any of them were really involved in Epstein's "lifestyle" and if any of them actually committed a criminal offense. Its possible that they will all have to answer questions as to how they were involved but the main case against Epstein, himself, went to the grave with him. Whether or not victims file a civil case against these people remains to be seen. There's a lot of evidence and documentation and allegations that point towards Andrew, himself, but I'm not his judge nor his jury.

This is not something that is going to disappear in a New York minute, I fear. It remains to be seen just what happens now with Epstein out of the picture.

Don't quote me on this as I can't for the life of me remember just where I read or heard this but it was stated that Andrew has not set foot on American soil in quite some time now. I'm actually not sure just how protective "diplomatic immunity" works. Perhaps someone that knows more can inform us. Perhaps Andrew was only covered by it with his role as UK's trade envoy?
 
Last edited:
sophie25 said:
The fact that Andrew was a friend of this monster and even holidayed with him is enough to tarnish his reputation anyway but it's not just Epstein. Ghislaine Maxwell, the women who supposedly procured girls for Epstein and his friends to abuse, is another close friend of Andrew and the authorities now have her in their sights.This, and the accusations against him from two of the girls concerned, means that this story is far from over.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it won't come to head until the Queen passes, imo + Ghislaine is in deeeep with the British tabloid world/ at least has some close ties to some of the big head figures. (especially the DF).

These are not some made up 'tabloid' stories from 'exclusive(imaginary) sources'. They are first hand and explicit victim testimonials that are supported by (public) photographic evidence. The later is the reason why Andrew's name is tied more concretely to the Epstein case than anyone else's.

If by some miracle this doesn't blow up even more once Charles takes over(and this is a big *if*, imo) the best course of action would be for Andrew to quietly retire from his royal duties/role and hope to the high heavens that it won't be bought up again for the sake of his family.:ermm:
 
Last edited:
Chloep said:
.........

These are not some made up 'tabloid' stories from 'exclusive(imaginary) sources'. They are first hand and explicit victims testimonials that are supported by public photographic evidence. The later is the reason why Andrew's name is tied more concretely to the Epstein case than anyone else's.

:
Click to expand...

I think this is a very important point of differentiation. My recollection is that either the recently released depositions or earlier information explicitly named Andrew as having had inappropriate contact with the plaintiffs, but apparently neither Trump or Clinton did, unlike some other previously well regarded U. S. political figures.

When you have multiple people corroborating a story, at some point you have to consider that it is not simply tabloid gossip, and that there may possibly be some fire under all that smoke.

Edited to add: It really does devolve at some point into the question that crops up far too often: How many women giving consistent testimony does it take to make accusations against a powerful male stick? In another recent case, it took over 60 women, and there were still people who were willing to be apologists for the accused.
 
Last edited:
sndral said:
I read that Charles was at church as well? I don’t recall him being at Balmoral at the same time as the Yorks in past summers - I assume he would be at Birkhall?
Click to expand...

Birkhall is on the Balmoral Estate. Yes, Charles and Camilla were at church. They arrived separately because they came from a different house.
 
A couple of posts have been deleted as they add nothing to the discussion.

Let's try to stay on topic and cease with the speculative comments as well as the conspiracy theories.
 
I'm not surprised at all by Epstein's suicide. He seemed to be a pretty horrible and manipulative individual and I hope that the victims in this case receive the right amount of support and justice.

sophie25 said:
The fact that Andrew was a friend of this monster and even holidayed with him is enough to tarnish his reputation anyway but it's not just Epstein. Ghislaine Maxwell, the women who supposedly procured girls for Epstein and his friends to abuse, is another close friend of Andrew and the authorities now have her in their sights.This, and the accusations against him from two of the girls concerned, means that this story is far from over.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. If this were a "regular" sexual abuse/paedophile investigation and case, Andrew would be investigated to determine whether he was involved or not just as any other friends of Epstein or others who were accused would be. I believe it's only fair for Andrew to be investigated especially as two women have come forward separately from the tabloids, though I doubt that he will be.
 
The picture of him with one of the two women who name him is on the internet. She sure looks underage to me!
 
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