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 am hanging out for an inditement, a request from the FBI via the State Department, to interview Andrew. There is no way the Queen or Prince Charles would allow him to dodge that. If said interview resulted in an arrest warrant and an inditement I shall watch with great interest what is said to have been said and done and by whom.

Needless to say, the Prosecution would field their case and Andrew and his Lawyer would rebut the claims. The jury would make a finding. Alternatively, they could empanel a Grand Jury and let the chips fall where they will.

Either way, I am not comfortable with the insults to the BRF based on hearsay information. HM has done nothing but work hard for her country and is a woman of decency and integrity, so too is the POW (despite the marriage debacle from which nobody emerged as sainted).

I take issue with those who categorically state that they would endorse trafficking, rape and abuse for no other "reason" than they are of the Aristocracy or Royalty. Neither has committed any act that would lead one to suspect they are depraved!
 
Epstein Accusers Speak Out-
 
:previous: Oh my!

And the following might sound psycho brutal, but when it comes to Prince Andrew it is a case of "She says/He says". Like in so many cases of alleged sexual abuse very hard to prove, if it were abuse or consensual.

The girls were very good briefed. I think the blonde one in the middle of the front line was very impressive.
 
All this "trial by media" leaves me queasy!
 
This needs to go to court. You’re gonna get a ‘trial by public opinion’ until this is worked out through the court.
 
:previous: You have to have a case that is more than gossip and she said, he said. I do not believe there is a case to answer or we would have seen or heard something by now. While it probably wouldn't come from BP, if there are court filings, the journalists would have found them.

That is not to say that it is over. There was a virtual who's who listed in Epstein's contacts, and hundreds if not thousands of photographs and videos/DVD's found in his properties. Going through them, identifying the subjects and ascertaining as to whether or not they pertain to a felony will take time.
 
The thing though, Dman, is that there is nothing to indict Andrew on. I did watch the video you posted and to be honest, I'm kind of surprised that Guiffre went into details about her relationship with Andrew. Right now, as has been said here many times, Andrew's involvement with Guiffre (Roberts) at the time, are purely on the hearsay level of he said/she said.

One thing I know is that if Andrew's denials are true, wouldn't Andrew then have a good case to prosecute her for slander? I'll be honest here though as watching this woman tell of her assignations with Andrew, I don't believe that she's made it all up. Oh what a tangled web they weave eh?

Another point that I noticed is that Guiffre, at no time, said it was Andrew that forced her and actually was quite nice to her "afterwards". I think in a court of law, unless these assignations took place in a state/country where Guiffre would have been underage, there is not a danged thing that they can or would prosecute Andrew for. This doesn't excuse Andrew's ethics and morals at all but its not been proven that Andrew was abusive or coercive or anything but perhaps having what would be deemed as "consensual sex" between two people.
 
There’s gotta be a legal lane to take this. Cause this surely ain’t going away. Andrew can’t statement his way out of this. There’s gotta be some justice somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Dman said:
There’s gotta be a legal lane to take this. Cause this surely ain’t going away. Andrew can’t statement his way out of this. There’s gotta be some justice somewhere.
Click to expand...



Frankly the only legal lane to take this is if Andrew filled for defamation. It’s not something we do in the UK though.

All that interview showed me, if any of it’s true, is that Virginia was in the UK and of legal consent age at the time. I don’t see what justice is needed for that.
 
rob2008 said:
The whole scénario is irresponsible and shows poor judgement. A prince of the blood should be 'squeaky clean' in all that he does.
Click to expand...
I think that ship sailed long ago with regeard to Andrew
 
He could admit it and say that he thought she was ok with it as she didn't 't seem to be upset at the time. IMO that would go a long way to dufusing the situation as very few people are buying his constant denials. He clearly dosn' t want to admit it as he knows it's sleazy for a man in his 40's to be having sex with a teenager even if it isn't technically illegal.
 
Andrew better pray Epstein didn't videotape that incident ... and SDNY knows and has the tape and won't release until the next time in court. The constant denials will be seen as outright lies and cover up.
 
Alleged incident. If Andrew's innocent then the constant denials are factual statements. Unless new evidence turns up we're stuck with the she said/he said impasse.
 
MARG said:
I am hanging out for an indictement, a request from the FBI via the State Department, to interview Andrew. There is no way the Queen or Prince Charles would allow him to dodge that. If said interview resulted in an arrest warrant and an indictement I shall watch with great interest what is said to have been said and done and by whom.
i
Click to expand...


There is no way the "said interview" can lead to an indictment, much less an "arrest warrant". First, there is no proof (yet) that Mrs Giuffre's story is true. Second, even if it is true, the alleged victim was above the age of consent at the time and she was not physically coerced into having sex, at least not by Prince Andrew for sure. So , if true, Andrew's conduct may be morally reprehensible, but I don't think it is criminal.



Andrew of course is denying the story and should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty.
 
Last edited:
He needs to be retired. Either by The Queen, or The Prince of Wales. Whoever is most appropriate. Right now. End of story.
Whether he is innocent or guilty, the negative headlines inevitably taint the entire Royal Family and the causes with which he is associated, to their detriment.
In my field of work there is a thing called 'gardening leave.' The Duke of York's gardening leave must begin now.
 
irish_royalist said:
He needs to be retired. Either by The Queen, or The Prince of Wales. Whoever is most appropriate. Right now. End of story.

Whether he is innocent or guilty, the negative headlines inevitably taint the entire Royal Family and the causes with which he is associated, to their detriment.

In my field of work there is a thing called 'gardening leave.' The Duke of York's gardening leave must begin now.
Click to expand...
kinda agree as we Look to the delayed actions of the Spanish Royal family’s damage limitation plan against the allegations of corruption involving Princess Christina’s husband Inaki. Even if the duke of Palma was found innocent the damage to the reign of Juan Carlos was irreparable.
 
In the Spanish case, Inaki was found guilty in a court of law, and sentenced.

Prince Andrew has not yet been found guilty of anything. He has not even been subjected to a police inquiry yet.
These are pretty serious allegations against his reputation and moral habitus! - I think a "garden-leave" will be seen as a clear admission of guilt.

The last time I checked the British judicial system acted under the premises that you are presumed innocent until found guilty. Not Code Napoleon, where you de facto have to prove your innocence. - Not even for royals.
 
Muhler said:
In the Spanish case, Inaki was found guilty in a court of law, and sentenced.



Prince Andrew has not yet been found guilty of anything. He has not even been subjected to a police inquiry yet.

These are pretty serious allegations against his reputation and moral habitus! - I think a "garden-leave" will be seen as a clear admission of guilt.



The last time I checked the British judicial system acted under the premises that you are presumed innocent until found guilty. Not Code Napoleon, where you de facto have to prove your innocence. - Not even for royals.
Click to expand...



The Spanish Royal House acted responsibly before any verdict of guilt. Are you suggesting the BRF should only act reactively in the final stages of an investigation after a lot of irreparable damage is inflicted on the whole lot?
 
Dalriada said:
The Spanish Royal House acted responsibly before any verdict of guilt. Are you suggesting the BRF should only act reactively in the final stages of an investigation after a lot of irreparable damage is inflicted on the whole lot?
Click to expand...

I am suggesting that Prince Andrew may not be guilty.

So why should he be treated and "retired" as if he is guilty?

If, repeat if, Prince Andrew had intercourse with a seventeen year old girl, did he know she was only seventeen?
There is a considerable difference between having intercourse with a seventeen year old and say a fourteen year old. Most seventeen year olds are physically fully developed. So you can plausible claim ignorance, even if you knew or suspected otherwise.
Was it illegal at the time and place where said intercourse took place? In many if not most countries the age of consent is lower than eighteen.
And how many ask to see a proof of age, before intercourse, when they are horny?
And was it morally wholly unacceptable at the time for an adult man to have intercourse with a seventeen year old?

- Moral norms change.
In 1960 it would have been generally unacceptable.
In 1970 they would have looked incredulous at you if you suggested that.
In 1980 it was morally acceptable.
In 2000 sixteen year old girls appeared topless regularly in major British papers and publications.
in 2019 an adult having intercourse with a person under eighteen is widely considered morally questionable. But still far from generally unacceptable.

I think we should be very careful about judging people for something they did in the past, using contemporary (and temporary) moral norms.
 
Last edited:
irish_royalist said:
He needs to be retired. Either by The Queen, or The Prince of Wales. Whoever is most appropriate. Right now. End of story.
Whether he is innocent or guilty, the negative headlines inevitably taint the entire Royal Family and the causes with which he is associated, to their detriment.
In my field of work there is a thing called 'gardening leave.' The Duke of York's gardening leave must begin now.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, the British Royal Family has gone through scandal after scandal in their history and have remained a strong institution of monarchy. Andrew's allegations are the most prominent ones in our minds right now but I do have to remember that any misdeeds on Andrew's part occurred quite a long time ago.

His actions also, I believe, do not reflect on his public roles and his endeavors to work for the monarchy. It would be a shame, to me, to exile Andrew to places unknown because of his involvement with Epstein. Andrew is one of the hardest working members of the "Firm" and his incentives have helped so many people that it would be detrimental to scrap them all because of something that happened a long time ago and was part of his private life.

His reputation as far as "trial by public opinion" leads to scars he'll bear for the rest of his life and puts his ethics and his morals into question as a person but as a working member of the BRF and the "Firm", he's done a whole lot of good.

He is human after all. ?
 
Mbruno said:
There is no way the "said interview" can lead to an indictment, much less an "arrest warrant". First, there is no proof (yet) that Mrs Giuffre's story is true. Second, even if it is true, the alleged victim was above the age of consent at the time and she was not physically coerced into having sex, at least not by Prince Andrew for sure. So, if true, Andrew's conduct may be morally reprehensible, but I don't think it is criminal.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was unclear in my post. I meant that until there was an inditement, I would continue to believe Andrew innocent, a bit gullible perhaps but, if for no other reason than he has always been seen to love, indulge and protect his daughters, IMO he would never have exposed them to a sexual predator.

I also believe that Epstein diligently groomed his VIP "friends" as a form of self-protection. The paedophile hiding in plain sight in high society.
 
A sex trafficed person is held to different standards than the normal age of consent standard.which, since she was under 18, the four year rule holds. That means anybody between 16 and 18 can be legal as long as the other partner is no more than 4 years older which of course is not the case. I haven't read this thread in a while and the way people are bending over backwards for Andrew is really appalling

Loving and protecting your daughters has nothing to do with anything. Sexual predators come in all shapes and sizes And are very good at looking good
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One thing that is pretty clear to me is that its not Andrew that was a sexual predator. Epstein and perhaps Maxwell seem to be the ones to pin that title on.

Until Andrew is tried and convicted of a concrete and provable crime beyond a reasonable doubt, all we have is allegations and hearsay. My opinion on this is that Andrew was just a little spider in Epstein's very wide and very controlled web of perversion and sex trafficking.
 
Frelinghighness said:
A sex trafficed person is held to different standards than the normal age of consent standard.which, since she was under 18, the four year rule holds. That means anybody between 16 and 18 can be legal as long as the other partner is no more than 4 years older which of course is not the case. I haven't read this thread in a while and the way people are bending over backwards for Andrew is really appalling
Click to expand...

When did Andrew face a court?

Until he has been charged with a crime (which he won't be in the UK as they have already investigated and determined that there is no case to answer - in other words in the UK he is NOT GUILTY of a crime)

Until Andrew is found guilty of a crime in a court of law he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

I realise that that is a strange concept from many people - sadly many from the US which used to hold to that standard but no longer - but in the UK, like Australia there is a presumption of innocence.

The prosecution have to prove guilt. It isn't up to the media to determine guilt.

In recent years there have been many cases in the UK where the media have attempted to convince the public of a person's guilty but when the case has gone to trial they have been found 'not guilty'.

The media tends to only present part of the story - as a means of selling their product. They leave out the evidence that doesn't support their story e.g. the story that Andrew was on a place to Epstein's island when a two minute check of the Court Circular showed that he was in the UK on one of those days - immediately bringing into question all of that evidence. If AP couldn't have been Andrew on one day who was it on that day and why wouldn't it be this other person on the other days?

When Andrew has faced a court and been found guilty he should be condemned but until then there is one woman making an allegation that she had sex with him. He has denied it. Why believe her over him?

I have no idea one way or the other but I will always believe in the principal of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and that has to be in a court of law not as a result of trial by media.
 
Dman said:
There’s gotta be a legal lane to take this. Cause this surely ain’t going away. Andrew can’t statement his way out of this. There’s gotta be some justice somewhere.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of justice went with Epstein’s death. Maybe the procurers can be prosecuted eventually. I do not think Andrew was one of those people. Nor should he be held responsible for the actions of Epstein because he is alive and Epstein is dead.

I also think Andrew has been chosen to be the villain because he is actually less villainous than other men who were Epstein’s friends. He is less likely to retaliate than other men who are famous and wealthy, either by a lawsuit or more unsavory methods.
 
Last edited:
How unfair to Andrew - maybe they can have another smiley, church ride with her Maj. That ought to make it all better! /s

I have to say the painful incompetence in the BRF is really reaching new heights these days. They can't manage a situation to save their lives. Perhaps if the staff wasn't so painfully underpaid, they could attract employees who are not only competent, but also professional. Alas, the current way of doing things is horridly out of touch and obsolete. Times change, we all have to adept - including the BRF. That is if the institution as such wishes to remain intact...

Also, people bringing up that Andrew is 'innocent' until proven otherwise - you are talking about the court of law. (which we all know is always just /s) Retiring Andrew would not be an admission of guilt or an 'unjust' decision. It would be a direct result of Andrew's decision to continuously and knowingly associate himself (and thus the Royal Family) with a convicted sex trafficker (of underage girls). While we know that Andrew, Sarah and Epstein go back many decades - any contact that they have had should have come to an abrupt end when Epstein was convicted for the first time over 10 years age. So you may believe that Andrew is innocent of all he has been accused (despite numerous testimonials, other circumstantial evidence and even pictures), but it is undeniable that he made decision to be proudly (and PUBLICLY) associated with Epstein long after he was exposed for what he really is.

Andrew should absolutely be retired - alas, he won't be until the Queen is alive. Charles ought to be happy to inherit the monarchy the state it will be left in, no?
 
Last edited:
Chloep said:
How unfair to Andrew - maybe they can have another smiley, church ride with her Maj. That ought to make it all better! /s

I have to say the painful incompetence in the BRF is really reaching new heights these days. They can't manage a situation to save their lives. Perhaps if the staff wasn't so painfully underpaid, they could attract employees who are not only competent, but also professional. Alas, the current way of doing things is horridly out of touch and obsolete. Times change, we all have to adept - including the BRF. That is if the institution as such wishes to remain intact...

Also, people bringing up that Andrew is 'innocent' until proven otherwise - you are talking about the court of law. (which we all know is always just /s) Retiring Andrew would not be an admission of guilt or an 'unjust' decision. It would be a direct result of Andrew's decision to continuously and knowingly associate himself (and thus the Royal Family) with a convicted sex trafficker (of underage girls). While we know that Andrew, Sarah and Epstein go back many decades - any contact that they have had should have come to an abrupt end when Epstein was convicted for the first time over 10 years age. So you may believe that Andrew is innocent of all he has been accused (despite numerous testimonials, other circumstantial evidence and even pictures), but it is undeniable that he made decision to be proudly (and PUBLICLY) associated with Epstein long after he was exposed for what he really is.

Andrew should absolutely be retired - alas, he won't be until the Queen is alive. Charles ought to be happy to inherit the monarchy the state it will be left in, no?
Click to expand...

You obviously have strong feelings about this. And rightly so, as all people ought to have in such a case.

However, are you privy to all information that the police have in this matter?
Were you personally involved?
Did you witness what Prince Andrew was or wasn't doing?

If the answer is no, you have named yourself prosecutor, jury and judge in this matter.
And that's lynching.

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial after a proper investigation, also Prince Andrew.

As for Prince Andrew should have known better. Perhaps. It is however a sad fact that the higher position of the perpetrator the less risk there is for being caught - especially in regards to such intimate matters as sex.
There was the much admired and even loved British TV-host, Savile. He ought to have been exposed many years ago - but everyone chose to ignore the warning signs and believe this "nice, likable man."
Something similar happened very recently in Sweden, after years as a prowler, a high ranking man in the cultural elitist circles was finally exposed. (He even tried to grope CP Victoria's behind - in public!) Yet he was allowed to continue, despite rumors, despite his behavior.
I guess something similar must have happened in regards to Epstein.
People in general have a frighting tendency to close their eyes - also royals.

Frelinghighness mentioned in regards to the age of consent, that in USA an age difference of up to four years is allowed between a person below and above eighteen.
However, if the British legislation is similar to the European Continental legislation, there is no such limit. A sixteen year old is free to have consensual intercourse with eighty year old.
 
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
101K
norwegianne
norwegianne

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom