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.
She was 17 - not underage. We don't know the circumstances in which the photo was taken. How many of us, if at an event with a royal, wouldn't want our photo taken with the royal?

We don't know the circumstances at all.

This, by the way, is nothing new. This was all made public in 2011 (about Andrew I mean).

In 2015 Virginia Roberts tried to be added to a court case against Epstein and the judge ruled that she couldn't be added.

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.

The Queen didn't give Andrew 'some kind of award'. It just happened that the story broke at the exact time that he, and Prince Michael of Kent, were due for their regular military promotion.

All British royals who serve in the military are given substantive promotions every five years after they leave the military under an agreement with the government and the MoD. That is why Harry was promoted to Major last year - at about the time, had he stayed in the army he would have been due for that promotion on merit. Now he, like his uncle, brother, father and the Queen's cousins who served, will get a promotion every five years.

That is all that happened with Andrew in 2011 - he was due for his five yearly promotion at the time the story broke. The Queen didn't give him any award at all. The system just worked and he was promoted.

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?

Charles and Camilla stay at Birkhall for most of the summer but they still go to church at Craithie Church as it is the nearest church to the Balmoral estate and Birkhall is on the Balmoral estate.

The Yorks go up for the first week, so that Sarah can be with Andrew and Beatrice for her birthday and before Philip arrives as he won't be around if Sarah is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
She was 17 - not underage.

I think, the case is, that she was prostituted. And prostitution with 17 is a crime in any case. And these underage girls were trafficked over state boundaries too and abroad too - while Epstein was the pimp.

What Prince Andrew is involved here in, is the "high class" equivalent to the grooming gangs and victims of Rotherham.
 
Any material released and reported on is obviously not of any interest to the DA's in either Florida or New York.

The material was probably sealed for no other reason than the stature of those involved. I mean now you have the current President, ex President, a Nobel Laureate, a Prince of the UK, etc. If there was not enough evidence to charge them then they were obligated not to destroy their reputations or risk being up being sued in Civil Court.

Nothing has changed as regards those files. They didn't cut the mustard ten years ago and harping and sniping about Andrew is just an action replay of the same vitriolic rants of a decade ago.

However, I am as interested as everyone else in any further bona fide evidence that could come to light with the renewed interest in the new Florida investigation due to the legal anomalies.

I can only reiterate that the NYDA office stated they had no evidence connecting PA to their current case and Florida released all the original sealed files which would indicate they were of no evidentiary interest to them.

So, until something new comes to light I refuse to endorse villification of PA. We did that a decade ago and have no right to play God. I mean 'Andrew shouldn't go to church"? Really? Such judgemental behaviour has the thinking about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
 
Age of consent is 17 in NY state; 18 in Florida. And it depends what else the prosecution has. DM is claiming Ghislaine Maxwell is ready to talk to the feds.
 
Virginia Roberts Guiffre, one of Epstein’s many accusers, and a self described “sex slave” says she was 16 when recruited by ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s alleged “madam”. Maxwell accused Guiffre of lying and in 2015 Guiffre filed a anti defamation lawsuit against her. On Friday, the day before Epstein’s death, a federal judge released 2000 pages of sealed documents related to the anti defamation lawsuit and two women, Guiffre and Johanna Sjoberg accused Prince Andrew. Sjoberg’s 2016 deposition corroborated Guiffres testimony.

In the picture of Andrew and Virginia, has has his arm around her waist, not your usual royal photo. 17 year old girls (I thought she was younger) would still be eligible for statutory rape status with a man more than 4 years their senior.
 
I think, the case is, that she was prostituted. And prostitution with 17 is a crime in any case. And these underage girls were trafficked over state boundaries too and abroad too - while Epstein was the pimp.

What Prince Andrew is involved here in, is the "high class" equivalent to the grooming gangs and victims of Rotherham.

Exactly. It wouldn't have mattered if she was 37, these girls were being coerced/threatened into having sex with Epstein and his friends and they were frightened to say no as they knew they were powerful people . The trafficking and coercion are in themselves a crime.
 
As daughter of Robert and his wife Elizabeth Maxwell Ghislaine Maxwell was a well-connected socialite living in London, who had an American visitor that got photographed with Prince Andrew when he was a guest there. That is all. Andrew knew Epstein and his ex-wife allowed Epstein to pay some of her debts. A lot of people knew Epstein and Fergie has had a lot of people giving her money. She has survived worse scandals that taking money from Epstein.
Some girls claim that Andrew cuddled them or slept with them but obviously there is no proof and the prince denies this. According to the law you are innocent until proven guilty.

I am really not a fan of Andrew and Fergie and their circle of very rich friends. But in this instance he is to be considered innocent.
 
I think, the case is, that she was prostituted. And prostitution with 17 is a crime in any case. And these underage girls were trafficked over state boundaries too and abroad too - while Epstein was the pimp.

What Prince Andrew is involved here in, is the "high class" equivalent to the grooming gangs and victims of Rotherham.
Exactly! Seeing smiling Queen supporting smiling Andrew make me sick. They should be ashamed of themselves. https://media.gettyimages.com/photo...kirk-after-a-picture-id1160971428?s=2048x2048
 
Exactly! Seeing smiling Queen supporting smiling Andrew make me sick. They should be ashamed of themselves. https://media.gettyimages.com/photo...kirk-after-a-picture-id1160971428?s=2048x2048

Isn't that a bit harsh? Have we resorted to being Andrew's judge, jury and executioner because last I've heard, the only thing pending against Andrew, himself, is unsubstantiated allegations that haven't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew actually participated in wrongdoings or criminal offenses.

Life goes on and the Queen and her family still attend church together, love each other and support each other through thick and thin. That's how it should be in my book. ?
 
In the picture of Andrew and Virginia, has has his arm around her waist, not your usual royal photo. 17 year old girls (I thought she was younger) would still be eligible for statutory rape status with a man more than 4 years their senior.

I agree. The photo seems a little suspicious to me particularly now, given all we know about Epstein. It just doesn't seem natural - one wouldn't pose with a 17 year old like this if they were quadruple their age on their own in a natural setting (e.g. if it were at a party, I think it'd be more likely the young girl would be with a friend or a parent at least). I'm not accusing Andrew, but I still think he needs to be properly investigated so a verdict can be made. But, as I said yesterday, this isn't a "regular" case...
 
Isn't that a bit harsh? Have we resorted to being Andrew's judge, jury and executioner because last I've heard, the only thing pending against Andrew, himself, is unsubstantiated allegations that haven't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew actually participated in wrongdoings or criminal offenses.

Life goes on and the Queen and her family still attend church together, love each other and support each other through thick and thin. That's how it should be in my book. ?

Even if Andrew didn't engage in sexual activity with these young girls (and, to date, 2 of them said that he did) he is a disgrace by his association with Epstein in the first place. By all accounts Epstein's houses, planes, yachts etc were a hotbed of vice and the Duke of York was entirely comfortable in this enviroment to the point where he still sought out the man's company after he had been convicted of engaging in sexual activity with a minor. Being "judge and jury"?, yeah I'm pretty comfortable with that at this point.
 
Last edited:
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:

I find the whole thing very disturbing. It’s just sick and twisted and my deepest sympathies lie with the victims of the sordid sexual abuse/rape. Not the disgusting men & “madam” who targeted the poor girls. I sincerely hope justice is served somehow and that the victims can find some closure. The powerful in society always seem to get away with anything though.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that a bit harsh?
It's a nightmare for the victims

Life goes on and the Queen and her family still attend church together, love each other and support each other through thick and thin. That's how it should be in my book. ?
I rather support the victims, because they have no royal protection, money, connections and status. They were chosen for grooming because of this.
Attending church in this situation I find cheesy and hypocritical.
 
There's a glimmer of hope coming out of all of this Epstein saga for the victims. Many states are now passing new Child Victims Act laws that allow people who suffered sexual abuse as children to file lawsuits in cases going back decades.

"Thanks to Jeffrey Epstein and cases like his, people know more about the gravity of criminal misconduct against a child and what they can do about it," said Anderson, who has handled these types of cases for three decades. "No more pedophile protection."

This, thankfully, allows the victims to file lawsuits against Epstein's estate and that looks like even with Jeffrey dead, the case against him continues.

Perhaps there is good that will come out of all this after all and the victims will get closure they so sorely need. This also points to the possibility that Andrew's name and reputation isn't out of the woods just yet.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-state-laws-open-door-to-decades-old-child-sex-abuse-cases/

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...eins-victims-to-go-after-his-estate/23792126/
 
The very frustrating thing here for all of us on this thread is that the Wheels of Justice turn very slowly.
So we have to wait and wait to see what happens.
Like all of you I wish justice for the victims and the Law had better not mess this up. Public opinion might quieten down for awhile but the Public will and has every right to raise merry hell if it looks like the right and proper course of action is not taken against the perpetrators.
And so we wait and wait.
 
I find this entire case very disturbing and Prince Andrew's involvement very disconcerning.

IMHO, it has permanently tarnished his reputation because the best case scenario is very poor judgment and lack of empathy for the victims by continuing to associate with a known pedophile.
 
Age of consent is 17 in NY state; 18 in Florida. And it depends what else the prosecution has. DM is claiming Ghislaine Maxwell is ready to talk to the feds.
Ghislaine Maxwell talking to the feds, if true, would be an interesting development. Particularly since there are allegations that she acted as a procurer for Andrew as well (article also linked several pages ago
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/07...bring-women-to-buckingham-palace-report-says/ ) although it doesn’t seem she was looking for under age females for Andrew.
I’ve noticed in their most recent denial that BP has said “[a]ny suggestion of impropriety with under age minors is categorically untrue.” I wonder why they didn’t issue a more general denial, since we don’t know the age of the groping victim.
There are reports that the Feds seized discs from a locked safe in the NY mansion that appeared to have photos/videos of people in addition to Epstein. Also interesting that they just now searched the private island.
How often does parliament question a member of the RF? Is there any precedent for that?
 
With regard to Prince Andrew, I think he should be required to disclose the details of all meetings he had with Epstein after his conviction and his reasons for those meetings. This is the period of time when there is no excuse for 'not knowing' he was associating with a sex offender & he must be held to account for it.
 
Life goes on and the Queen and her family still attend church together, love each other and support each other through thick and thin. That's how it should be in my book. ?


This. :flowers:

Andrew is the Queen's child (many claim he is her favorite child) and of course she is going to support him.
I can't imagine any mother who wouldn't do the same. No matter what.
 
what does supporting someone mean? She must be aware that even if he is her favourite son and of course she loves him he has been at best extremely stupid and wilful in continuing to associate with Epstein who was basically a Pimp.
 
I don’t want to be flippant but this has been going on for a decade and although the optics look terrible for Andrew there’s so far never been a shred of evidence against him and he’s strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

Relatively speaking, Andrew is a comparatively small fish compared to some of the people that had personal dealings with Epstein
 
Last edited:
With regard to Prince Andrew, I think he should be required to disclose the details of all meetings he had with Epstein after his conviction and his reasons for those meetings. This is the period of time when there is no excuse for 'not knowing' he was associating with a sex offender & he must be held to account for it.

I agree with this. There were many people who associated with Epstein over the years, and many of them may not have known much about his morally and legally questionable activities, they just accepted his invitations, etc. because he was part of the "in" group. What is more significant to me, are the people who visited his private island, people who accepted frequent rides on the Lolita Express, and people who continued to associate with him even after it became clear that there was something seriously off about his lifestyle. Unfortunately, Andrew seems to fall in that latter group, and I think asking questions about that is a reasonable thing to do.
 
True, but he is the most obvious one to escort her as he alone is unmarried.

I am going to repeat myself here by pointing out that Andrew lives in the UK and if someone there is convicted on charges concerning paedophilia on the level of the charges against Epstein in Florida over a decade ago, they go to prison for life NOT thirteen months.

They would have no idea that the DA or prosecutors could be bought off (nobody will ever convince me that a great deal of money didn't changed hands somewhere). On a case that big and that depraved the idea an unknown "someone" could literally take down the system is beyond the realm of fantasy.

That being the case, many of his bona fide friends would have commiserated with him. He had no trouble hosting a very large number of guests at his celebratory dinner in NY.

Epstein' s death has left everybody in shock, just as the revelations regarding what happened in his earlier charges in Florida have done. I personally find it beyond belief, fantastical no less.

All that is left is to wait and see what the investigations unearth.
 
What makes matters more difficult is we live in the age of ‘the woman is always to be believed’ and the courts have to go by evidence. I have no idea if the women making these claims against Andrew are telling the truth but his statement on the matter appears pretty confident.
 
The black book has been opened . There are 16 numbers for Andrew with palace landlines and 18 for Fergie.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lack-book-including-Jagger-Blair-Branson.html

Why do you need that many phone numbers? As for the people in the book they are probably talking to their lawyers and crisis management teams right now.

Directly from the article posted above--

"The book is now in the hands of the FBI - but there is no suggestion that the people named were involved with Epstein's crimes and many will never have met him."
 
Never met Epstein? Well, that's not so for either Andrew or Sarah is it? They met him several times, holidayed on his island, used his private plane, knew Ghislaine Maxwell, his chief assistant, and borrowed money from him, in Sarah's case.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom