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.
Leopoldine said:
VG has an excellent lawyer. I can't see him going ahead with this unless he saw a clear path forward.
Click to expand...

According to the NY Times, "Ms. Giuffre’s lawsuit accuses Prince Andrew of raping her at Ms. Maxwell’s home in London, saying that Prince Andrew, Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell had forced her to have intercourse with the prince against her will."

So the allegations in this lawsuit are about what allegedly happened between Andrew and Ms. Giuffre in London. I see a whole lot of holes in this with including Andrew. Andrew didn't force this woman onto a plane to fly to London. Andrew wasn't part and parcel of procuring, grooming and manipulating what these young girls had to do. Unless this lawyer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew did anything by force, the case isn't going to go anywhere.

Ms. Giuffre may have a good, solid case against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein and against Ghislaine Maxwell though.
 
This is interesting. The proceedings are being brought under the Child Victims Act, a 2019 New York state law that allows victims to make legal claims of abuse that occurred when they were children regardless of when or how long ago the alleged abuse occurred. https://childvictimsact.com/ I've been trying to find a copy of the filed documents but no luck so far.
 
If you read the AP article in post 4254, it states that she filed it under the child victims act and New York, Virgin Islands and London were the places she was abused by him.
 
Osipi said:
According to the NY Times, "Ms. Giuffre’s lawsuit accuses Prince Andrew of raping her at Ms. Maxwell’s home in London, saying that Prince Andrew, Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell had forced her to have intercourse with the prince against her will."

So the allegations in this lawsuit are about what allegedly happened between Andrew and Ms. Giuffre in London. I see a whole lot of holes in this with including Andrew. Andrew didn't force this woman onto a plane to fly to London. Andrew wasn't part and parcel of procuring, grooming and manipulating what these young girls had to do. Unless this lawyer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew did anything by force, the case isn't going to go anywhere.

Ms. Giuffre may have a good, solid case against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein and against Ghislaine Maxwell though.
Click to expand...

Not just London, New York also.
 
Roslyn said:
This is interesting. The proceedings are being brought under the Child Victims Act, a 2019 New York state law that allows victims to make legal claims of abuse that occurred when they were children regardless of when or how long ago the alleged abuse occurred. https://childvictimsact.com/ I've been trying to find a copy of the filed documents but no luck so far.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to read the actual complaint and see what has been alleged. If she is only alleging sexual relations in London, I think she will have a hard time winning, unless there is evidence that Andrew knew she was forced into prostitution.

My understanding is that the age of consent in New York and the Virgin Islands is 18 years old and neither have a statute of limitations on child sexual assault. If she is alleging sexual assault in those two jurisdictions, she would have a better chance of winning a civil suit.

With respect to criminal prosecution, I don't see it. The US Mann Act prohibits transporting a child less than 18 years old for prostitution or for criminal sexual activity. Since age of consent in London is 16 and she was 17 when the encounter allegedly occurred, the prosecutor would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Andrew knew that she was prostitute and/or coerced. Unless there is a recording, letter or email, I think that would be very difficult to prove.
 
US Royal Watcher said:
It would be interesting to read the actual complaint and see what has been alleged. If she is only alleging sexual relations in London, I think she will have a hard time winning, unless there is evidence that Andrew knew she was forced into prostitution.

My understanding is that the age of consent in New York and the Virgin Islands is 18 years old and neither have a statute of limitations on child sexual assault. If she is alleging sexual assault in those two jurisdictions, she would have a better chance of winning a civil suit.

With respect to criminal prosecution, I don't see it. The US Mann Act prohibits transporting a child less than 18 years old for prostitution or for criminal sexual activity. Since age of consent in London is 16 and she was 17 when the encounter allegedly occurred, the prosecutor would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Andrew knew that she was prostitute and/or coerced. Unless there is a recording, letter or email, I think that would be very difficult to prove.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is why I want to read the actual statement of claim. I think the filed documents are available to the public if you know where to look.
 
Virginia Guiffre's lawyers are cleverly deploying the tremendous fire power of the U.S. legal system. They will likely try to corner Prince Andrew by compelling him to give evidence by invoking the Hague Evidence Convention, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

Best for Andrew to perform a bit better during that future deposition of his then he did in a certain interview in late 2019. It was, after all, alleged perjury in a civil trial that for a large part got Ghislaine Maxwell in her present predicament.
 
Last edited:
Osipi said:
Unless this lawyer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew did anything by force, the case isn't going to go anywhere.
Click to expand...

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof is set only for criminal trials, in both the US and UK. Civil trials in either country are generally determined under the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, under which the plaintiff needs only to persuade the judge or jury that their allegations have a greater probability of being true than false.
 
I saw on SKY that the suit only came about as the statue for limitation expires in a few days and that Ms. Giuffre's lawyers and Prince Andrew's lawyers were unable to reach an out of court settlement.
Is this reported anywhere else?
 
I wouldn't have thought that Prince Andrew's lawyers would agree to an out of court settlement, because that would effectively be admitting that he'd done something wrong. Even if he had, it's going to be almost impossible to prove, so I can't see him agreeing to any sort of settlement.


This isn't getting as much publicity in the UK as Virginia Giuffre's lawyers probably expected, because it's happened on the same day as school exam results being announced, with a lot of debate going on over how grades were assessed due to schools closing during lockdown, and that's very much pushed the Andrew story out of the headlines.
 
As Tatiana Maria mentioned, "beyond reasonable doubt" is not the standard of proof here since we are talking about a civil lawsuit, rather than a criminal prosecution, and therefore balance of probability should be enough.

In any case, if it came to a criminal case, the meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt" itself is not entirely clear in the legal systems that use this criterion. Personally, I interpret "beyond reasonable doubt" as meaning that there exists an alternative explanation for the facts, which may even be less likely, but is nonetheless still plausible based on the evidence (or lack thereof). In that case, the defendant may be acquitted even if he/she is probably guilty.
 
okay - not been a lawyer here is a few questions
1. Does Andrew have to personally attend the trail ? Is there a trail ? Or is it just a lawyer get together.
1. to prove probability of guilt the layers in NY have to proof that Andrew knew or had knowledge of Ms. Giuffre's age and that she was coerced into the sexual act. Now unless she told him her age and the rest of the detail - can they pull emails and letters ect from the other cases?
 
Claire said:
1. Does Andrew have to personally attend the trail ? Is there a trail ? Or is it just a lawyer get together.
Click to expand...

Andrew will for a certainty have to be present at his deposition during the pre-trial discovery process, either in person or by video link.
 
[.....]
Anyway, as I said before, I think it will be difficult for a case to be made against Prince Andrew specifically, although there is probably a case against Mrs Maxwell and certainly Mr Epstein, who, unfortunately, is already deceased.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At some point the complaint will appear on Google. Right now it would be readily available on PACER which is the federal court database unless for some unlikely reason it has been restricted. One needs a login and then pays a nominal fee to download the complaint. Rather than use
My firm login I’ll wait a few days.
 
According Giuffree's declaration, from the age of seven she was molested by 'a family friend' and she lived on the streets at age 13 before getting abused by a 65-year-old sex trafficker, Ron Eppinger.
She was trafficked to a large amount of wealthy men since she was a child but why Virginia is suing only Prince Andrew who had one or two intercourses with her when she was almost an adult?
In the previews interview she actually never said anything negative about Andrew, stating that he was 'nice' to her.
I don't doubt any of her worlds but she should make public names of all of her clients/abusers. If she is taking to the court only her well-know client seems like she is more interested in public attention and money that she could make out of this trial....
I'm not trying to defend Andrew, who is a complete jerk. But Giuffree life is a proff that outhere there a men who literally abusing and exploiting little children which is far from having an intercourse with someone who is almost a legal adult.
 
Several posts have been deleted as being speculative, insulting or both. Let's remember that the subjects under discussion are real human beings, and post according to forum rules:

Insulting comments about other posters and royals are not permitted. Criticism is acceptable; insults and flames are not. We expect our members to treat each other with respect.
Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources. The moderators reserve the right to delete posts containing the more fanciful types of gossip and speculation, whether they originate in gossip magazines and websites or are simply fabricated.
 
Claire said:
I saw on SKY that the suit only came about as the statue for limitation expires in a few days and that Ms. Giuffre's lawyers and Prince Andrew's lawyers were unable to reach an out of court settlement.
Is this reported anywhere else?
Click to expand...

The reports on Sky and elsewhere say that the statute of limitation expires on 14th August - it may well be renewed, but, for the time being, it expires later this week.

As I understand it, Prince Andrew could refuse to appear in court or to give evidence, but could be found guilty in absentia and asked to pay damages ... if the court were to find against him, which seems unlikely because there's no proof.
 
Alison H said:
The reports on Sky and elsewhere say that the statute of limitation expires on 14th August - it may well be renewed, but, for the time being, it expires later this week.

As I understand it, Prince Andrew could refuse to appear in court or to give evidence, but could be found guilty in absentia and asked to pay damages ... if the court were to find against him, which seems unlikely because there's no proof.
Click to expand...



If jurisdiction is properly obtained over Andrew by the court and he refuses to appear he is in default. Usually as a consequence of a default the party admits to all allegations against him. Proof unnecessary.
 
This is not going away. I don't know why Andrew has his hand in the sand. He needs to do something because honestly nothing is helping him at the moment.
 
This is so bad, I'm not sure that anything he can do or say would make a difference. Do we know whether Andrew has diplomatic immunity? I think he would be immune to most lawsuits if he does.
 
Magnolia471 said:
According Giuffree's declaration, from the age of seven she was molested by 'a family friend' and she lived on the streets at age 13 before getting abused by a 65-year-old sex trafficker, Ron Eppinger.
She was trafficked to a large amount of wealthy men since she was a child but why Virginia is suing only Prince Andrew who had one or two intercourses with her when she was almost an adult?
In the previews interview she actually never said anything negative about Andrew, stating that he was 'nice' to her.
I don't doubt any of her worlds but she should make public names of all of her clients/abusers. If she is taking to the court only her well-know client seems like she is more interested in public attention and money that she could make out of this trial....
I'm not trying to defend Andrew, who is a complete jerk. But Giuffree life is a proff that outhere there a men who literally abusing and exploiting little children which is far from having an intercourse with someone who is almost a legal adult.
Click to expand...

This brings up a really good point for me. I'm sure that there are other men that Virginia saw many more times than she did Andrew. Her abuse didn't start and end with Andrew.

I don't discount one little bit what this woman went through ensnared in the Epstein/Maxwell trap but to just single out Andrew makes me believe there's some other motive than the abuse she suffered.
 
Osipi said:
This brings up a really good point for me. I'm sure that there are other men that Virginia saw many more times than she did Andrew. Her abuse didn't start and end with Andrew.

I don't discount one little bit what this woman went through ensnared in the Epstein/Maxwell trap but to just single out Andrew makes me believe there's some other motive than the abuse she suffered.
Click to expand...

I've always felt this way too. Even though I do believe she suffered abuse, she has really gone after Andrew and not other men.
 
Prince Andrew has even worse judgement than Prince Charles. This scandal is odious and it has not been explained how Epstein made his money and whether or not he had planned to blackmail big shots eventually. I hope Prince Andrew is never back in public life, ever. Prince Andrew's pattern is too sleazy.
 
Susan D said:
Prince Andrew has even worse judgement than Prince Charles. This scandal is odious and it has not been explained how Epstein made his money and whether or not he had planned to blackmail big shots eventually. I hope Prince Andrew is never back in public life, ever. Prince Andrew's pattern is too sleazy.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he'll ever return to public life. I think there is simply no way back for him now, even if there is no legal judgement against him - the allegations have simply done too much damage.

As the details of this case unfold, there may be calls for him to be punished even further - to be stripped of his titles and removed from the succession. And I know that is neither easy to do, or something that should be done without a guilty verdict, but I can definitely see it happening.

It's a pretty heinous situation.
 
Susan D said:
Prince Andrew has even worse judgement than Prince Charles. This scandal is odious and it has not been explained how Epstein made his money and whether or not he had planned to blackmail big shots eventually. I hope Prince Andrew is never back in public life, ever. Prince Andrew's pattern is too sleazy.
Click to expand...

According to a former business associate, Epstein made his money in a Ponzi scheme in which they were both involved. (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/14/7511...r-business-associate-i-want-to-assist-victims) Netflix's miniseries about Epstein interviewed this guy, and he seemed sincerely horrified at what he'd unwittingly enabled.
 
US Royal Watcher said:
This is so bad, I'm not sure that anything he can do or say would make a difference. Do we know whether Andrew has diplomatic immunity? I think he would be immune to most lawsuits if he does.
Click to expand...

No - the Queen has, as head of state, but other members of the Royal Family haven't.

It would be very awkward to claim it anyway. There's a lot of controversy in the UK over diplomatic immunity, after the wife of an American diplomat was involved in a road traffic accident in which a teenage boy was killed, then fled to America and has refused to come back and face trial on the grounds of "diplomatic immunity".
 
Claire said:
I saw on SKY that the suit only came about as the statue for limitation expires in a few days and that Ms. Giuffre's lawyers and Prince Andrew's lawyers were unable to reach an out of court settlement.
Is this reported anywhere else?
Click to expand...

It was in the complaint. They asked Prince Andrew's lawyers to agree to toll the statute of limitations (that is, to pause it) so that they could avoid having to file the suit immediately. They claim that they got no response whatsoever to that request.

On July 19, 2021, counsel for Plaintiff proposed a tolling agreement that would have enabled Plaintiff not to sue Prince Andrew at this time, while avoiding any argument that her failure to do so caused her claims to be time-barred. Again Prince Andrew stonewalled—ignoring Plaintiff’s letter and emails without any reply or response, thereby making this action necessary now. A copy of the July 19, 2021, letter proposing a tolling agreement is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
Click to expand...
 
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