The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022

[Osipi]

Here's what I don't get. With the "sweating" being an issue and Giuffre's lawyers bringing that up, that tells me they're focusing on the time and place in London where Andrew allegedly "assaulted" Giuffre. If Giuffre was trafficked and brought to London and then ordered to "please" Andrew, wouldn't she then have come to Andrew willingly (obeying Maxwell/Epstein)? Wasn't there even a quote from Giuffre somewhere where she actually stated that Andrew was quite nice and polite to her? This incident too has looked at a few times by the Metropolitan Police in London and dismissed as "no crime here".

I can very much believe that any encounter with Virginia wouldn't have registered with Andrew as a permanent memory. Men that seek out prostitutes and call girls always see it as a business transaction and probably the next day couldn't tell you the girl's name or really anything about her. They're a commodity. It's very possible that any girl offered to Epstein's cronies were seen the same way. A perk. Like a box of cigars on the nightstand or a 100 year old bottle of scotch. A commodity.

I think the hardest part that Giuffre's lawyers are going to have to prove is not that Andrew ever had sex with Giuffre but rather that he, personally, *assaulted* her. That charge means that Andrew used force to make her comply against her will. If she was one of Epstein's "commodities", it stands to reason that it would Epstein/Maxwell doing the forcing.

 

[Alison H]

I think the hardest part that Giuffre's lawyers are going to have to prove is not that Andrew ever had sex with Giuffre but rather that he, personally, *assaulted* her. That charge means that Andrew used force to make her comply against her will. If she was one of Epstein's "commodities", it stands to reason that it would Epstein/Maxwell doing the forcing.

Yes, that's very true. I don't think there's any suggestion, even from Virginia Giuffre, that Andrew used physical force. If this was in London and she was over 16 at the case, it wouldn't be classed as statutory coercion. If this did happen and neither of those conditions applied, it would still be horrible and wrong, but not illegal.

Ugh, this is all so sordid and nasty.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Why is the release of the details of this secret agreement between Giuffre/ Epstein so significant?

I have been in bed since Friday afternoon recovering from Covid booster side effects and I haven't posted much.

Thanks everyone...Happy New Year.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

The contention is that the terms of the settlement releases Andrew from liability from a civil suit.

The agreement released all potential defendants from civil liability. The question at hand is whether Andrew was a potential defendant as contemplated by that term.

 

[Hallo girl]

It just raises the possibility that the case may be thrown out, but IMO it doesn't clear his name.

 

[Osipi]

I don't think there's anything, anywhere that will ever be able to clear Andrew's name or restore his reputation. That's gone the way of the pet rock a long time ago. I don't even believe that Andrew will be deemed "guilty" in this civil suit brought on by Virginia Giuffre. It just seems to me to be too much of a dog and pony show with very little credible evidence behind it.

Like many before her, people like to get their 15 minutes of fame (for whatever reasons) and then milk them for whatever they're worth in any ways possible.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I agree with everyone who said the DoY will never ever clear his name no matter what happens with this case

The bottom line is that he was arrogant, stubborn and stupid enough to continue friendships with some of the most unsavory people I have ever read about...despite warnings. Not because they were worthy of loyalty

But because they were rich and powerful.

Andrew's karma is not only the loss of his prestige and reputation but the knowledge that the fallout will continue to hurt the three people in this world that I believe he truly values..his mother and his daughters.

Thanks to all who responded.

 

[Erin9]

To use my favourite quote, once stated by a Dutch MP during a debate:

"My ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the royal family, not the Holy Family".

I LOVE this quote. Well said.

 

[sophie25]

The thing is, if the case does go to trial and he wins it, it does clear his name in terms of him being a participant in abuse (with Virginia at least) even if he is still despised for his friendship with Maxwell and Epstein. Having the case dismissed dosn't improve his current position at all and will actually confirm his guilt for a lot of people as it looks like he is frightened of being questioned.

 

[Erin9]

The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2021

I don't think there's anything, anywhere that will ever be able to clear Andrew's name or restore his reputation. That's gone the way of the pet rock a long time ago. I don't even believe that Andrew will be deemed "guilty" in this civil suit brought on by Virginia Giuffre. It just seems to me to be too much of a dog and pony show with very little credible evidence behind it.



Like many before her, people like to get their 15 minutes of fame (for whatever reasons) and then milk them for whatever they're worth in any ways possible.

I tend to agree with all of this

I don’t think Andrew’s name can be cleared or restored. Too late imo.

I also rather doubt there’s any way to “prove” Andrew guilty in the civil suit. Seems like rather a waste of time and money to me. But- maybe there’s something I’m missing. I know the threshold is considerably lower in a civil suit, but still.

I do find it a bit odd that Andrew seems to be the only person getting “ called out” if you will over this. Besides Maxwell, obviously. Seems like there should be much much bigger fish than him. Civilly and criminally.

Albeit- the interview was foolish on his part. And he associated with Epstein long after he should have- but so did a lot of well known people.

 

[Erin9]

Virginia Giuffre's lawyers apparently are arguing that the 2009 settlement only applies to potential defendants in the context of her Florida damages claim.

It’ll be interesting to see how the court interprets the settlement terms.

 

[Erin9]

Having the case dismissed dosn't improve his current position at all and will actually confirm his guilt for a lot of people as it looks like he is frightened of being questioned.

Well- the case would go away. That would be an improvement for him. It’s why his lawyers are starting with that. His reputation is in tatters. I don’t think that’s fixable no matter what happens with this case.

While I see your point- I think anyone- guilty or innocent- would be afraid of being questioned. It’s easy to twist someone’s words. You don’t know how what you say will be interpreted by anyone. And time all by itself is an issue in terms of memory. Even an innocent person can- and has- come across poorly under cross examination. Or questioning by police, for that matter.

 

[ACO]

"Most shocking to me is that Prince Andrew's attorney wanted the judge to say NY's law giving child sexual abuse victims more time to sue is unconstitutional.

This would have blocked access to justice for so many victims. Does the Queen know what her son is attempting to do?"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478400205179408384

Following the hearing it sounds like the Judge is rather unimpressed by Andrew's lawyers. We shall see what the ruling is but it doesn't look great for his case not seeing trial but anything can happen.

 

[sophie25]

Well- the case would go away. That would be an improvement for him. It’s why his lawyers are starting with that. His reputation is in tatters. I don’t think that’s fixable no matter what happens with this case.

While I see your point- I think anyone- guilty or innocent- would be afraid of being questioned. It’s easy to twist someone’s words. You don’t know how what you say will be interpreted by anyone. And time all by itself is an issue in terms of memory. Even an innocent person can- and has- come across poorly under cross examination. Or questioning by police, for that matter.

It's a difficult one to call isn't it? If I was totally innocent of such a henious crime I would definitely want my day in court to clear my name but then if I wasn't too sure if I had done certain things then I might not want to go there. I think Andrew is in this position. He chose to keep company with these appalling people and now the waters have been muddied. Did he abuse a trafficked girl? Did he not? Did he do it without knowing she was trafficked? etc, etc. The bottom line is he was best friends with a notorious peodophile and his procurer and was up to his neck in their company. Sources at BP say he was warned to step away from them but he refused and entertained them at Windsor, Sandringham, Balmoral and even had a laugh photographing Maxwell and Kevin Spacey (another deviant) on the Queen and Prince Philip's thrones at BP. He is beyond a disgrace and however this whole tawdry saga pans out no one in the UK wants anything to do with him anymore.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

While I see your point- I think anyone- guilty or innocent- would be afraid of being questioned. It’s easy to twist someone’s words. You don’t know how what you say will be interpreted by anyone. And time all by itself is an issue in terms of memory. Even an innocent person can- and has- come across poorly under cross examination. Or questioning by police, for that matter.

Precisely. In the United States, legal experts advise innocent persons not to talk to the police.

A Law Professor Explains Why You Should Never Talk to Police

James Duane doesn't think you should ever talk to the police. Not just, "Don't talk to the police if you're accused of a crime," or, "Don't talk to the police in an interrogation setting"—never talk to the cops, period. If you are found doing something suspicious by an officer (say, breaking into your own house because you locked yourself outside), you are legally obligated to tell the cop your name and what you're doing at that very moment.

Other than that, Duane says, you should fall back on four short words: "I want a lawyer."

In 2008, Duane, a professor at Virginia's Regent Law School, gave a lecture about the risks of talking to police that was filmed and posted to YouTube. It's since been viewed millions of times, enjoying a new viral boost after the Netflix documentary Making a Murderer spurred interest in false confessions. His argument, which he's since expanded into a new book called You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, is that even if you haven't committed a crime, it's dangerous to tell the police any information. You might make mistakes when explaining where you were at the time of a crime that the police interpret as lies; the officer talking to you could misremember what you say much later; you may be tricked into saying the wrong things by cops under no obligation to tell you the truth; and your statements to police could, in combination with faulty eyewitness accounts, shoddy "expert" testimony, and sheer bad luck, lead to you being convicted of a serious crime.

Duane's book details several outrageous incidents just like that around the country, clearly showing the many ways the system is stacked against suspects. These include a proliferation of poorly written laws that make nearly anything a potential crime, rules that allow prosecutors to cherry-pick only the most damning parts of police interrogations at trials, and a little-known 2013 Supreme Court ruling allowing prosecutors to tell juries that defendants had invoked the Fifth Amendment—in other words, telling an officer you are making use of your right to remain silent could wind up being used as evidence against you. For that reason, Duane thinks that you shouldn't even tell the police that you are refusing to talk. Your safest course, he says, is to ask in no uncertain terms for a lawyer, and keep on asking until the police stop talking to you.

[...]

[VICE:] What has the response of law enforcement been to your speeches and your work?

[James Duane:] Believe it or not, the numerous responses that I have received from police officers and even more often from former police officers has been overwhelmingly positive. I've received a great number of emails, and I've spoken privately and publicly to many police officers about the whole subject, and almost without exception, they all say, "It's true. What you say is true."

Here is the above mentioned YouTube video:

Don't Talk to the Police – YouTube

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is a detailed story on the hearing which covers the arguments from both parties' counsel and the questions and comments from the judge.

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-a...virginia-giuffre-sex-assault-lawsuit-12508943

Ms Giuffre received $500,000, with the document stating that this would also "forever discharge… any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant… from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including state or federal..."

Mr Kaplan says: "Use of the word 'potential' is the use of a word to which you and I cannot find any meaning."

This might suggest the judge isn't yet totally convinced Prince Andrew is covered by that settlement - although he could be playing devil's advocate.

[...]

Judge Kaplan said the "real question" is what did Ms Giuffre and Mr Epstein have in mind when using the language "other potential defendants".

[...]

Judge Kaplan said: "Epstein and Giuffre had an agreement between themselves… the only people who could enforce it was Epstein and Giuffre."

[...]

Judge Lewis Kaplan said a decision should be made "pretty soon" on whether Virginia Giuffre's sex assault civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew should be dismissed.

According to the analysis of legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg, the judge viewed the "not intended to be used by any other person" clause as the main consideration.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg QC earlier listened to the hearing for Sky News.

Speaking afterwards, he said: "I think that the judge had read the papers very carefully and thought about his conclusions, and what he was doing was bouncing his ideas off the two lawyers.

"In the last few minutes, he read two particular passages to David Boies, the lawyer for Virginia Giuffre, and he wanted to know from Mr Boies what they meant.

"I think Mr Boies was perhaps taken a little bit by surprise by these questions but the judge knew perfectly well what he thought they meant.

"The two points were these: First of all, the first parties and the second parties, that means Virginia Giuffre is the first party and the second party is Jeffrey Epstein and his lawyers, they agree that the terms of this settlement agreement are 'not intended to be used by any other person, nor be admissible in any proceedings or case against or involving Jeffrey Epstein, either civil or criminal.'

"Now, the judge said 'what does that mean?', and he also read another phrase out which he thought was very significant.

"'Neither this settlement agreement nor any copy of nor the terms here of shall be used or disclosed in any court, arbitration or other legal proceedings except to enforce provisions of this settlement agreement.'

"What the judge seemed to be suggesting that this meant was that the only people who could actually enforce this agreement were Jeffrey Epstein, and he of course is dead, and Virginia Giuffre, and she has no interest in enforcing this agreement because she is trying to say that it doesn't apply.

"Given that it was confidential, or intended to be confidential, how would anybody such as Prince Andrew have known about it or be able to rely on it.

"So, taking those two provisions together as the judge seemed to be interpreting them, this means that Prince Andrew can't take advantage of this document and can't use it as a third party.

Here in context, from tommy100's link earlier, is the clause which the judge is referencing:

Additionally, as a material consideration in settling, First Parties and Second Parties agree that the terms of this Settlement Agreement are not intended to be used by any other person nor be admissible in any proceeding or case against or involving Jeffrey Epstein, either civil or criminal. First and Second Parties further stipulate and agree that this Settlement Agreement is pursuant to and is in fulfillment of Jeffrey Epstein’s obligations to Virginia Roberts, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to and in conformity with the Non-Prosecution Agreement, its Addendum, and its Affirmation (collectively, the "NPA"), between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Virginia Giuffre's lawyers apparently are arguing that the 2009 settlement only applies to potential defendants in the context of her Florida damages claim.

It’ll be interesting to see how the court interprets the settlement terms.

Quite interestingly - if I am correctly understanding the above article - the judge appears to believe that the term "potential defendants" is for Virginia Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein, and not the court, to interpret.

That would mean (and this is my speculation, not the judge's) that perhaps Mr. Epstein would have been able to invoke the agreement to shield the Duke of York from civil liability. But Mr. Epstein is deceased, and the other party to the agreement (Ms. Giuffre) interprets the term not to cover HRH.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

A totally lay, non-legal opinion. The kind of hard-hitting analysis I am sure you are all here for:

Rather than go to trial, Ms. Giuffrie chose to take a settlement. The term in dispute will have been inserted into the settlement, as is common practice, so that she could then not turn around and sue Epstein again.

But the concern (for Epstein) would be that she could still "get another bite at the apple" by going after him indirectly through his associates. In other words, people directly associated with this same cause of action for which the settlement was drafted who could then turn around and try to collect their liability from Epstein as the mastermind of the situation. It seems to me that this is what this term was hoping to address-- a situation where Epstein was endlessly liable for the same situation for which he had already paid a settlement, because Ms. Giuffrie was free to go after persons associated with the situation who could then go after Epstein.

Would Andrew be in the persons contemplated by such a concern? Personally, I would think not.

 

[Claire]

To be honest I was shocked that the settlement was so low. I expected it to be significantly higher for her to take the settlement.

 

[Osipi]

To be honest I was shocked that the settlement was so low. I expected it to be significantly higher for her to take the settlement.

Giuffre sure wasn't hurting for money. She also sued Maxwell for defamation in 2015 and won the case. It was settled under seal but it's reputed to have been settled for "millions".

I don't think Andrew has that kind of money.

 

[Mbruno]

Giuffre sure wasn't hurting for money. She also sued Maxwell for defamation in 2015 and won the case. It was settled under seal but it's reputed to have been settled for "millions".

I don't think Andrew has that kind of money.

Giuffre, as many Americans, probably thinks that, as a prince, Andrew has that kind of money and more.

 

[GraceOMalleysGhost]

Giuffre, as many Americans, probably thinks that, as a prince, Andrew has that kind of money and more.

Ms Giuffre and her American lawyers are well aware of how the wealthy hide their money I'm sure.

 

[Mbruno]

Ms Giuffre and her American lawyers are well aware of how the wealthy hide their money I'm sure.

I don't know if Andrew hides any money, but he's not particularly wealthy. That is an American misconception about the royals, which is the point I was trying to make.

 

[MARG]

To use my favourite quote, once stated by a Dutch MP during a debate:

"My ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the royal family, not the Holy Family".

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.32.1.pdf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a 2009 settlement of her Florida damages claim against the sex offender shows.

The document, disclosed by a New York court, reveals the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.

Ms Giuffre is suing the Duke of York in a civil case for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.

He has consistently denied the claims.

Ms Giuffre claims that 20 years ago she was trafficked to the prince by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

I believe that the release of her agreement with Epstein and Maxwell for half a million and her payout from Epstein's estate, make many people question her credibility, especially since Prince Andrew is merely one on the list of the great and good but are not being sued.

It just raises the possibility that the case may be thrown out, but IMO it doesn't clear his name.

I agree with everyone who said the DoY will never ever clear his name no matter what happens with this case

The bottom line is that he was arrogant, stubborn and stupid enough to continue friendships with some of the most unsavory people I have ever read about...despite warnings. Not because they were worthy of loyalty

But because they were rich and powerful.

Andrew's karma is not only the loss of his prestige and reputation but the knowledge that the fallout will continue to hurt the three people in this world that I believe he truly values..his mother and his daughters.

Thanks to all who responded.

The thing is, if the case does go to trial and he wins it, it does clear his name in terms of him being a participant in abuse (with Virginia at least) even if he is still despised for his friendship with Maxwell and Epstein. Having the case dismissed dosn't improve his current position at all and will actually confirm his guilt for a lot of people as it looks like he is frightened of being questioned.

I tend to agree with all of this

I don’t think Andrew’s name can be cleared or restored. Too late imo.

I also rather doubt there’s any way to “prove” Andrew guilty in the civil suit. Seems like rather a waste of time and money to me. But- maybe there’s something I’m missing. I know the threshold is considerably lower in a civil suit, but still.

I do find it a bit odd that Andrew seems to be the only person getting “ called out” if you will over this. Besides Maxwell, obviously. Seems like there should be much much bigger fish than him. Civilly and criminally.

Albeit- the interview was foolish on his part. And he associated with Epstein long after he should have- but so did a lot of well known people.

I believe his Barrister or Solicitor should have been firm in advising him not to give any interviews as it is a situation fraught with pitfalls as he now has a real reason to rue his decision. I believe most people don't care for Andrew anyway but for those that do I believe they are quietly supporting him. They understand the relationship between Epstein and Andrew in that they were friends and, it is an unfortunate truth that most royals of his generation have few firm friends were introduced through Ms Maxwell, a well-known socialite. Epstein's arrest must have shocked him very much and he would believe his friend incapable of such crimes and I think he arranged to have a private discussion with him in a very public.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

"Most shocking to me is that Prince Andrew's attorney wanted the judge to say NY's law giving child sexual abuse victims more time to sue is unconstitutional.

This would have blocked access to justice for so many victims. Does the Queen know what her son is attempting to do?"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478400205179408384

Following the hearing it sounds like the Judge is rather unimpressed by Andrew's lawyers. We shall see what the ruling is but it doesn't look great for his case not seeing trial but anything can happen.

I understand what you are saying but I don't think Andrew's argument is unreasonable in this case. The purpose of statutes of limitations is to ensure a fair trial for both sides. Justice goes both ways.

I tend to think that something happened between Andrew and her but he could be completely innocent. At this point, this is a he said-she said situation. I am unaware of any independent evidence that Andrew had sex with her or knew that she was trafficked. The entire case is based on her word.

I don't know but it is possible that had she brought this case 10 years ago, Andrew may have been able to prove his innocence. The passage of time makes it harder for Andrew to find exculpatory evidence (if it ever existed).

People can argue that the length of time also hurts Virginia Guiffre's case but the difference is that this has been within her control. She has had more than a decade to file this lawsuit. We know she is aware of the concept because she filed suits against both Epstein and Maxwell years ago. She has also been making these public allegations against Andrew since 2015 at least. Her delays have put Andrew at a legal disadvantage.

I don't think she should be able to bring a lawsuit at this late date. She has lived without the money up until now. I don't think that there is much more she can achieve at this point, except get more publicity for herself.

 

[LadyRaven]

I understand what you are saying but I don't think Andrew's argument is unreasonable in this case. The purpose of statutes of limitations is to ensure a fair trial for both sides. Justice goes both ways.

I tend to think that something happened between Andrew and her but he could be completely innocent. At this point, this is a he said-she said situation. I am unaware of any independent evidence that Andrew had sex with her or knew that she was trafficked. The entire case is based on her word.

My issue is the changing word I still have screen shots of Virginias first interview with the dm with no suggestion that there was any sexual contact between her and the prince or that Andrew knew she was paid for such contact with Epstein buds. I don’t know what changed between 2011 and 21. Waiting to the statue of limitations is always a red flag for me as my mother did that in civil cases when she was in the wrong when I was a kid

 

[US Royal Watcher]

My issue is the changing word I still have screen shots of Virginias first interview with the dm with no suggestion that there was any sexual contact between her and the prince or that Andrew knew she was paid for such contact with Epstein buds. I don’t know what changed between 2011 and 21. Waiting to the statue of limitations is always a red flag for me as my mother did that in civil cases when she was in the wrong when I was a kid

That is an excellent point, I had forgotten that the allegations surfaced in 2011. I do not think there is a justification for extending the statute of limitations in cases like this. she has been making public allegations for more than 10 years and has filed multiple lawsuits against other people in the interim. The only reason to delay filing is because she was worried that exculpatory evidence would come to light earlier. She was definitely a victim of Epstein but that does not give her the right to destroy other people.

 

[Hallo girl]

Excuse my lack of knowledge could somebody explain to me the statute of limitations, the timeframes and the relevance in these particular circumstances.

 

[Claire]

Question - if Epstein was alive. Would she still have brought this case up?

 

[Lori138]

Question - if Epstein was alive. Would she still have brought this case up?

I don't see how she could have as the agreement signed between her and Epstein would have scuttled any lawsuits. Personally, as others have said here, she may have been trafficked, but she did not leave this lifestyle until she was an adult and could have left sooner. She has already been paid millions of dollars, if not from Epstein, then from Maxwell and at this point to me she just looks like a gold digger, no matter who she is suing.