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.

The Times story was picked up by the Daily Mail and to me the BRF really need to worry. MI6 worry means Andrew is perceived as a potential national security risk, that Russia has kompromat on Andrew regarding Epstein and the Kremlin can use to get information on certain UK affairs and at least do long term damage to the BRF. The monarchy would be under more threat if the Windsors are perceived as rolling the dice on the nation's safety to protect one of their own.
 
:previous: If this is true and the still Prince Andrew might be with a high probability on a tape, showing him doing the big nasty with little girls... - than Epstein was a blackmailer and not a mere pimp of minors.

And the still Prince Andrew was back then not warned by the Secret Service of Her Majesty, that Epstein is really dangerous, albeit they should have really known.
 
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?

Your absolutely correct.
 
I agree with the idea Andrew needs to at the least, take a hiatus from representing the family. At least till this is all sorted. It may be that he needs to 'retire from public life' totally after it's all said and done.



LaRae
 
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)

Yes, the court of law is sometimes just /s [your phrase]. But not always.

On the other hand, lynching someone because you think they are guilty, without any proof, and despite their vehement denials, 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).
But Epstein was never convicted of sex trafficking. He was convicted of soliciting prostitution from underage girls. Reprehensible as that is, it's not the same as sex trafficking. And as others have stated (sometimes in response to my own posts) Epstein's sentence could be seen as a slap on the wrist for a "mistake." So he wasn't, as you state, "exposed for what he really is."

It's also been pointed out Epstein was invited to Beatrice's 18th birthday party. Granted this was before Epstein's conviction, but this could be interpreted to mean that Andrew wasn't aware of Epstein's criminal activities. Would Andrew expose his daughters to a man he knew to be a sex trafficker of young 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.
I agree, Andrew should have ended the relationship once Epstein was convicted. His failure to do so baffles me. At the very least it shows extremely poor judgment on his part.

So you may believe that Andrew is innocent of all he has been accused (despite numerous testimonials, other circumstantial evidence and even pictures)
Virginia Giuffre has accused Andrew of having sex with her when she was 17 which Andrew has vehemently denied. I'm not aware of any other accusations of criminal activity on his part. We don't know if Andrew is guilty or not. Unfortunately all we have is she said/he said.

The pictures only prove Andrew knew Epstein and visited him in his home, which Andrew has admitted. They don't prove he was guilty of having sex with underage, sex-trafficked girls.

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.
But Epstein wasn't exposed for what he really is (a sex trafficker of underage girls) when Andrew severed their relationship. As I pointed out earlier, he was only convicted of soliciting underage prostitutes, not the same as sex trafficking. It is only recently that we have learned the complete truth.

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.
How do you suggest they respond to the half-truths you have stated in your post?
 
Last edited:
I notice several posters on this thread have mentioned that they would like to read the documents released on Epstein etc. for themselves. If you search for Giuffre and Exhibits you will find links to the court case material, including Virginia Roberts Giuffre's version of events in a short story she submitted to the court called Billionaire's Boy's Club.
 
I notice several posters on this thread have mentioned that they would like to read the documents released on Epstein etc. for themselves. If you search for Giuffre and Exhibits you will find links to the court case material, including Virginia Roberts Giuffre's version of events in a short story she submitted to the court called Billionaire's Boy's Club.

The material will be unpleasant.
 
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.
It for a person, male or female between 16 to 18 in the state of Florida, though other states which allow consent below 18have similar laws. Since we are only talking ny and Florida I mentioned those. Ny is 18
 
:previous: There is also the allegation of Andrew and Ms. Giuffre meeting and having sex at Ghislaine Maxwell's home in London. This is what the Metropolitan Police looked into and deemed there wasn't anything that constituted a crime as Giuffre was 17 at the time and of legal age of consent.
 
This was a sex trafficking crime going on. These girls weren’t casually having sex with these powerful men. This wasn’t a prostitution business. It was sex trafficking.
 
You make a very good point. If I were 20 years younger I would probably be of the "shame, shame, shame, brigade and thinking a low(very low) profile would be good for all concerned.

But, I am not and I like to think I consider and weigh the facts between before being led by the nose by the media. I have seen tragedy as a result of unsubstantiated gossip. Fearless warriors with no integrity.

A family torn apart, children hurt and harassed, broken people who should never have been hurt. A father committing suicide after his ownly daughter turned to drugs to dull the pain.

None of it was true, but the heroic vigilantes sticking paedophile photos on lamp posts got off Scot free.

I will never join lynching party and will leave it to a court to assign guilt or innocence. But if you think anyone charged by an uncorrupted system gets away with it, think again.
 
One thing I think we can be pretty sure of is that there is a world of difference between those that were "serviced" by these girls and those that procured and groomed and controlled just what these girls were to do and where.

Right now it doesn't look like they'll have anyone to pin sex trafficking charges on with the only exception *maybe* being Ghislaine Maxwell as the "madam" that aided and abetted Epstein in this operation. We may see that happen but then again, we may not.
 
One thing I think we can be pretty sure of is that there is a world of difference between those that were "serviced" by these girls and those that procured and groomed and controlled just what these girls were to do and where.

Right now it doesn't look like they'll have anyone to pin sex trafficking charges on with the only exception *maybe* being Ghislaine Maxwell as the "madam" that aided and abetted Epstein in this operation. We may see that happen but then again, we may not.

As a member of the upper classes, I don't imagine Ghislaine would have that sort of organising role in such a supply chain.
 
Yes, you are right. However the webpage cited gives a color coded map of the USA on the home page with NY coded as 18. They don't have a "close in age" exemption" either as Florida does.

I am not familiar with the laws regarding a sex trafficked individual.

And regardless of age of consent, if Epstein was trafficking these girls, then even if they were 40 years old, that is still a crime. If Andrew engaged in sex with any of them (even those of age) it is still a crime because no one is really consenting if they are being sex trafficked. So when you bring that same girl down to the age of 17, where it might be legally of age in NY, it is still disgusting and questionable and Andrew should not have been anywhere near that situation!
 
And regardless of age of consent, if Epstein was trafficking these girls, then even if they were 40 years old, that is still a crime. If Andrew engaged in sex with any of them (even those of age) it is still a crime because no one is really consenting if they are being sex trafficked. So when you bring that same girl down to the age of 17, where it might be legally of age in NY, it is still disgusting and questionable and Andrew should not have been anywhere near that situation!

I am not legally schooled but shouldn't someone at least be somehow knowledgeable (or should be reasonably expected to be able to figure out) that certain behavior was completely different than it looked like for it to be considered a crime? Specifically, if Andrew had no way of knowing (I don't know whether that was the case; we don't even know what happened) that she was not free to say 'no', I don't think it can be held against him nor considered committing a crime; or can it?
 
And regardless of age of consent, if Epstein was trafficking these girls, then even if they were 40 years old, that is still a crime. If Andrew engaged in sex with any of them (even those of age) it is still a crime because no one is really consenting if they are being sex trafficked. So when you bring that same girl down to the age of 17, where it might be legally of age in NY, it is still disgusting and questionable and Andrew should not have been anywhere near that situation!

Yes, we know now that the girls were allegedly not willing participants.

But 15-20 years ago, many people probably assumed the girls were willing and getting money or other benefits/advantages from prostitution. Really, there is not any difference between a 17 year old or an 18 year old in looks. And while prostitution is not legal in many places, it is perfectly legal in others.
 
I would possibly equate it to someone that has bought a stolen diamond ring from a pawnshop. The person that bought the ring had no idea it was stolen and the purchase was made "in good faith". With discovery that the ring was stolen and then pawned, the legal owner of the ring recovers it, the person that bought it from the pawnshop is out the money he spent on it and its pawnshop owner that sold the ring that is indicted with the crime of selling stolen goods.

It would be a different kettle of fish for Andrew if it could be proven that he specifically *asked* Epstein to "please bring Ms. X" with him to London as that implicates him in the act of sex trafficking. If Andrew just took advantage of what was "available" to him at the time, he's like the guy that bought the stolen diamond ring.

I'm no legal expert at all either but just offering an opinion.
 
Yes, Osipi, but if the pawnshop owner brought those practices into his private life, and over a drink in the evening with a customer said 'I have this terrific ring in my pocket' wink, wink, and offered it for a certain price, that would be different, wouldn't it?

And IMO it all really comes down to what Andrew knew about his friend Epstein's views on sex, women, girls etc; what he knew about his friend's morals and ethics and way of life.

I've just got a feeling from what I have read, that Epstein was not coy about his views, that he enjoyed talking sexual matters. If you have known someone like that for a number of years and that person is not shy with their opinions then I would say you have a good idea about them as people.

In other words, maybe things didn't really have to be spelled out with Epstein. They were there on the table, so to speak!
 
Last edited:
To add to Curryong's points, all you have to do is read the accounts of the decor in Epstein's house, the recounting of conversations others had with him, and the descriptions of the lifestyle from the victimized women to know that he was not someone who was reticent about sexual matters. Add to that the plethora of very young girls who surrounded him, traveled with him, and were made available to Epstein's friends, and I believe it would be an astonishingly stupid or naive person to have been completely unaware that there was something seriously off kilter about Epstein's lifestyle. So which is Andrew? And if he is neither naive nor stupid, then it opens up some very concerning questions about his judgment and his ethics.
 
Yes, Osipi, but if the pawnshop owner brought those practices into his private life, and over a drink in the evening with a customer said 'I have this terrific ring in my pocket' wink, wink, and offered it for a certain price, that would be different, wouldn't it?

Actually, I think it would be a similar situation to selling it in a store to a stranger. Unless the guy with the ring in his pocket has told the friend or the friend knew that he's a fence and is dealing in stolen goods. So basically, it boils down to what knowledge anyone had of the pawnshop owner being a fence for stolen goods.

And IMO it all really comes down to what Andrew knew about his friend Epstein's views on sex, women, girls etc; what he knew about his friend's morals and ethics and way of life.

This is it in a nutshell. Its been obvious that the York/Epstein friendship was good enough that it wasn't a problem to attain an extensive loan from Epstein when Sarah needed it. How much Sarah, or even Andrew knew of Epstein's sex ring though is still up in the air.


I've just got a feeling from what I have read, that Epstein was not coy about his views, that he enjoyed talking sexual matters. If you have known someone like that for a number of years and that person is not shy with their opinions then I would say you had a good idea about them as people.

In other words, that things didn't really have to be spelled out with Epstein. They were there on the table, so to speak!

His views, his opinions and his salacious lifestyle and what he preferred was totally in the open and we even have Trump quoted as saying "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." Yes, what Epstein liked and preferred in his lifestyle was very well known *but* the kicker is how many friends were actually aware of the actual sex trafficking and grooming and controlling of these girls?

We realize too that the charges that Epstein was indicted for and found guilty of and sentenced for, even if a sweetheart deal, had no implications or references to actual criminal sex trafficking of women. Epstein was not a man that was "teched in the head" or stupid and probably kept the "ring" part of his lifestyle close to the vest which only a few knew about. Maxwell would be one of them.

OF course, this is all my opinion and we'll probably never know all the answers. Epstein took a lot of those to the grave with him.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but Andrew certainly knew about the charges on which his friend Epstein was found guilty. He knew about the lifestyle and had for years. Yet he continued to be his friend.

Andrew went to New York and stayed with him. So if Andrew was so blind and naive as to what all these young girls without having their parents were doing around this single middleaged man before the conviction, afterwards it didn't mean a loss of his friendship.

And it's debatable as to whether, if that photo of Epstein and himself strolling in Central Park had not been published, whether the friendly visits and contacts would have continued on. IMO they would.
 
Last edited:
One thing I imagine attracted Andrew to Epstein in the first place is that he would be running in the circle with the "big dogs" who had clout, wealth and influence. It could very well have been that Andrew "needed" Epstein more than Epstein needed him. In fact, there are few people that I'd put claim to Epstein needing at all. Egocentric people are like that and they flock together.

There's no doubts in my mind that Andrew's ethics and morals are deeply called into question over all of this but to hang anything "criminal" on Andrew is stretching the rope at this point until we have proof and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is something to prosecute Andrew for.

His reputation from his association with Epstein has gone down the toilet and will be with him for the rest of his life and most likely be the thing he's most remembered for regardless if he committed a crime at any point or not.

I also remember how shocked and disgusted people were once the "dark side" of Bill Cosby's life came out to the public. Not many people had any kind of a clue what his inclinations were towards women and it was like the man was a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Cosby has been indicted, found guilty of three counts of aggravated indecent assault and sentenced to prison. Even after release, there is no way he'll regain his good name ever again.

To me, the loss of respect and reputation by any kind of Andrew's involvement with Epstein is even a worse punishment than an actual criminal conviction. Its something he'll never, ever recover from in the public eye. But then again, to an egocentric type of person, which I am wont to believe that Andrew is in his character makeup, it probably doesn't make a dent in his own opinion of himself. I don't know Andrew at all but he comes across that way to me.
 
I am not legally schooled but shouldn't someone at least be somehow knowledgeable (or should be reasonably expected to be able to figure out) that certain behavior was completely different than it looked like for it to be considered a crime? Specifically, if Andrew had no way of knowing (I don't know whether that was the case; we don't even know what happened) that she was not free to say 'no', I don't think it can be held against him nor considered committing a crime; or can it?

Well...none of us know at this point what exactly happened, or what Andrew knew or did not know, but Epstein was a shady character and had already been accused of things like this in Florida, which he ultimately and unfortunately got away with, so Andrew couldn't be that "not in the know" as to what Epstein was up to. I truly can't believe that Andrew had no clue. All the men who's names have come up in connection to this whole thing were smart men, and people knew what Epstein was doing, and that he was disgusting.

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.
 
Again, to me the claim Andrew didn't know only goes up until epstein was convicted, even though Andrew had been around him and his seedy sounding houses long enough to see plenty IMO up until Epstein was convicted he could say he didn't know the girls were underage, forced etc. Having a seedy art collection isn't an actual crime even if it sounds like a crime against art. However, Andrew knew about Epsteins conviction when he was pictured with him again in 2010 and that shows IMO he wasn’t that bothered about it. There was no excuse then for meeting him and Andrew’s claims of not knowing anything fall down at that point.
 
Again, to me the claim Andrew didn't know only goes up until epstein was convicted, even though Andrew had been around him and his seedy sounding houses long enough to see plenty IMO up until Epstein was convicted he could say he didn't know the girls were underage, forced etc. Having a seedy art collection isn't an actual crime even if it sounds like a crime against art. However, Andrew knew about Epsteins conviction when he was pictured with him again in 2010 and that shows IMO he wasn’t that bothered about it. There was no excuse then for meeting him and Andrew’s claims of not knowing anything fall down at that point.

I agree with you 100%. Even if there had been no photos of Andrew with his arm around the waist of one of the girls who came forward, and even if Andrew didn't engage in relations with any of these girls (which I think most of us believe he did), after Espstein was convicted in Florida the first time, Andrew should have known better than to keep associating with a registered sex offender. What was he thinking? And walking through NYC's Central Park with him after the fact? Doesn't make me think he is the sharpest tool in the shed.

I've heard that Andrew is more concerned with not being able to come back to the United States because he had planned to open businesses here, and let's be honest...it doesn't fare well for any person in power and celebrity to not be able to come here. I don't think he is legally not allowed here, but he certainly wouldn't be able to hide behind mummy's skirt if he came here.
 
Yes, we know now that the girls were allegedly not willing participants.

But 15-20 years ago, many people probably assumed the girls were willing and getting money or other benefits/advantages from prostitution. Really, there is not any difference between a 17 year old or an 18 year old in looks. And while prostitution is not legal in many places, it is perfectly legal in others.

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.
 
I agree with you 100%. Even if there had been no photos of Andrew with his arm around the waist of one of the girls who came forward, and even if Andrew didn't engage in relations with any of these girls (which I think most of us believe he did), after Espstein was convicted in Florida the first time, Andrew should have known better than to keep associating with a registered sex offender. What was he thinking? And walking through NYC's Central Park with him after the fact? Doesn't make me think he is the sharpest tool in the shed.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom