The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Dman

Well, you do know that Andrew has been accused of actually having sex with an underaged girl, right? Not being in awe of the wealth, power and “lifestyle” of Jeffery Epstein. There’s video of the man in and waving off a young lady from what’s described as “the House of Horrors.” So the idea he had not a clue in the world what was really going on is ridiculous. It’s like standing next to Leatherface in his basement, but saying you didn’t see any bodies, blood and didn’t hear any human screams going on around you.

Andrew, his official advisers and lawyers knows he’s in some major doodoo and they’re releasing the dumbest of dumb statements that I’ve ever seen released from Buckingham Palace. They are digging deeper holes right before their feet.

These allegations can’t be tossed in the garbage like before. There must be a full and thorough investigation into all the claims and the facts laid bare for everyone to see. The victims in this sick case deserve their justice.

He is "alleged" to have had sex with a minor. Virginia Roberts, one accuser, said she had sex with Andrew in London. She was an consenting adult by law and she never stated it was Andrew that "forced" her. Her "keepers" did. Until there is evidence that proves Andrew had sex with a minor that'll stand up in a court of law, he's actually not committed a crime. I believe Andrews accusations have been looked into twice. Once by the Florida courts and deemed inadmissible and thrown out and by the Metropolitan Police System that deem the allegations weren't able to be prosecuted. What happens with civil suits is a totally different elephant in the room and it remains to be seen if any are filed against Andrew and he actually is prosecuted. Allegations and accusations do not a criminal sentence make nor award "justice". And, as in all court cases, the burden of proof is not on Andrew but on his accusers.

Andrew, whether or not he knew the full extent of Epstein's sex ring or not is not a crime. Sure, he could have said "hey... this is wrong. Gotta tell someone" or not. That was a decision he made at the time. It doesn't mean Andrew is complicit in sex trafficking of underage girls. That is all on Epstein and perhaps Maxwell (whom they're investigating) and some others that haven't been named as of yet. Who had sex with Andrew isn't being investigated at this time as far as I know. They're investigating the sex trafficking ring itself and its big players. Those are the ones that, in all honesty, the victims need to have brought to justice. Andrew, in my eyes, is small potatoes compared to some of the "big" players.

I'm going out on a limb here and even suggest that Andrew's legal team have advised him to lay low, don't talk and follow their advice. Andrew has not been exonerated from any wrong doings by any means but until that time comes, which I fear will never really happen, he's only shown very poor judgment in his friends, his reputation now has the "sleazy" tinge to it and the public's opinion of him has plummeted to a new low.

The past can and does come back to haunt you and this is a prime example of it. Even if Andrew had sex 10,000 times with women in Epstein's circle that actually were of legal age, its the company he kept and the perversion of that circle in its "dark" underside that is hanging over Andrew's head right now along with many, many more powerful and influential and wealthier men than Andrew.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by sndral

Edward VIII was never convicted of any crimes, yet his morals were judged to be lacking and he was forced to abdicate.
I see two separate issues with Andrew - the first being whether he committed a crime & could he be convicted of doing so - and given the passage of time and his likely diplomatic immunity I doubt that he could be convicted.
The second issue is whether in the era of ‘me too’ someone such as Andrew, whose defense now appears to be yes I’ve slept with 1000s of women but they were all adults & besides I barely knew Epstein, is a liability to the firm due to his actions & choices and if so, what actions will the firm or the charitable organizations Andrew is patron of take to limit the damage.
Last time the firm just rode it out, but this time more information is coming to light and the public mood seems different.

Edwards V111 were nothing to do with the abdication. He wanted to marry Wallis Simpson and make her queen, and he was told it could not happen.
If anything it was her morals that were called into question, not his.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

DM had this story but it was taken down

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mments-7391369

What was the point of posting a link to no story?

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Osipi

He is "alleged" to have had sex with a minor. Virginia Roberts, one accuser, said she had sex with Andrew in London. She was an consenting adult by law and she never stated it was Andrew that "forced" her. Her "keepers" did. Until there is evidence that proves Andrew had sex with a minor that'll stand up in a court of law, he's actually not committed a crime. I believe Andrews accusations have been looked into twice. Once by the Florida courts and deemed inadmissible and thrown out and by the Metropolitan Police System that deem the allegations weren't able to be prosecuted. What happens with civil suits is a totally different elephant in the room and it remains to be seen if any are filed against Andrew and he actually is prosecuted. Allegations and accusations do not a criminal sentence make nor award "justice". And, as in all court cases, the burden of proof is not on Andrew but on his accusers.

Andrew, whether or not he knew the full extent of Epstein's sex ring or not is not a crime. Sure, he could have said "hey... this is wrong. Gotta tell someone" or not. That was a decision he made at the time. It doesn't mean Andrew is complicit in sex trafficking of underage girls. That is all on Epstein and perhaps Maxwell (whom they're investigating) and some others that haven't been named as of yet. Who had sex with Andrew isn't being investigated at this time as far as I know. They're investigating the sex trafficking ring itself and its big players. Those are the ones that, in all honesty, the victims need to have brought to justice. Andrew, in my eyes, is small potatoes compared to some of the "big" players.

I'm going out on a limb here and even suggest that Andrew's legal team have advised him to lay low, don't talk and follow their advice. Andrew has not been exonerated from any wrong doings by any means but until that time comes, which I fear will never really happen, he's only shown very poor judgment in his friends, his reputation now has the "sleazy" tinge to it and the public's opinion of him has plummeted to a new low.

The past can and does come back to haunt you and this is a prime example of it. Even if Andrew had sex 10,000 times with women in Epstein's circle that actually were of legal age, its the company he kept and the perversion of that circle in its "dark" underside that is hanging over Andrew's head right now along with many, many more powerful and influential and wealthier men than Andrew.

This is a very good summary of the facts.

And I am sure Epstein did not always show all his perversions to all his friends. Con men and sociopaths such as Epstein are very good at presenting themselves to people.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Dman

Well, you do know that Andrew has been accused of actually having sex with an underaged girl, right? Not being in awe of the wealth, power and “lifestyle” of Jeffery Epstein. There’s video of the man in and waving off a young lady from what’s described as “the House of Horrors.” So the idea he had not a clue in the world what was really going on is ridiculous. It’s like standing next to Leatherface in his basement, but saying you didn’t see any bodies, blood and didn’t hear any human screams going on around you.

Andrew, his official advisers and lawyers knows he’s in some major doodoo and they’re releasing the dumbest of dumb statements that I’ve ever seen released from Buckingham Palace. They are digging deeper holes right before their feet.

These allegations can’t be tossed in the garbage like before. There must be a full and thorough investigation into all the claims and the facts laid bare for everyone to see. The victims in this sick case deserve their justice.

You do know that the “young lady” Andrew is saying goodbye to in that video was a 28 year old woman, identified as Katherine Keating—a York family friend and the daughter of the former Prime Minister of Australia. How that means he knew all of Epstein’s perversions is a leap.

I agree with Osipi’s earlier post. I think Epstein’s money and circle of friends and acquaintances attracted Andrew far more than sex.

And honestly men who are like what Epstein presented to the world-rich, influential, etc do attract hangers on-groupies. So yes, I can see how people might have assumed things about the women/girls around Epstein that were not the truth. I think many would not have immediately assumed that Epstein was acquiring female “companionship” with a deliberate methodology.

Yes, there should be a thorough investigation, with facts. Not trial by media, with one breathless story after another, giving no new facts but implying things by embellishing stories.

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Dman

Folks, Andrew knew Jeffery Epstein was a convicted paedophile. He only continued to hang around Epstein because he was getting something out of it. Sex and pleasure. Don’t fall for the palace oke doke.

Nope, and this is the Elephant in the Room - Epstein was probably even more shady: a blackmailer.

He probably offered his "services" not for free, but with the motive to fleece his victims. And even that is not all: He might have had very strong links to mighty secret services!

And this is, what disturbs me, because the UK has secret services too and they did not vet this Epstein dude nor warn Prince Andrew.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

What was the point of posting a link to no story?

This member is known for posting non stories like this, especially in the Sussex thread, just for stirring the pot a bit ...

[Madame Verseau]

My last post is to point out the drip feed is still going. Andrew's "explanation" is not flying. This situation is so bad that PM Boris Johnson was asked about Andrew at the G7 Summit (why ask about it there I don't know)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKCN1VF0EQ

Johnson touts Andrew's service for UK business but does no comment on his mess which is smart. It's starting to spill over outside the BRF. I wish the Windsors get a strategy session going because statements aren't working.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by victor1319

Nope, and this is the Elephant in the Room - Epstein was probably even more shady: a blackmailer.

He probably offered his "services" not for free, but with the motive to fleece his victims. And even that is not all: He might have had very strong links to mighty secret services!

And this is, what disturbs me, because the UK has secret services too and they did not vet this Epstein dude nor warn Prince Andrew.

Possibly they did and Andrew refused to listen. He said that "loyalty to a firend was a virtue". Epstein made his living from procuring girls... as far as I can see,,,Im not sure why he would be a "blackmailer." (

[Denville]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

This is a very good summary of the facts.

And I am sure Epstein did not always show all his perversions to all his friends. Con men and sociopaths such as Epstein are very good at presenting themselves to people.

His whole lifestyle was about havng girls and women around, luring them into working for him and providing them for men. How could that be "not shown" to people who were friends with him? He wasn't taking Andy and other rich and powerful men to the opera.. or to see his collection of rare books.. he was there surrounded by girls and women...

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

My last post is to point out the drip feed is still going. Andrew's "explanation" is not flying. This situation is so bad that PM Boris Johnson was asked about Andrew at the G7 Summit (why ask about it there I don't know)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKCN1VF0EQ

Johnson touts Andrew's service for UK business but does no comment on his mess which is smart. It's starting to spill over outside the BRF. I wish the Windsors get a strategy session going because statements aren't working.

I hardly think we can judge anything by the quantity of stories put out by the DM.

BTW-Epstein was so good at manipulating people and presenting what he wanted to people, he fooled a psychiatrist.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investi...ogist-n1046071

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Denville

His whole lifestyle was about havng girls and women around, luring them into working for him and providing them for men. How could that be "not shown" to people who were friends with him? He wasn't taking Andy and other rich and powerful men to the opera.. or to see his collection of rare books.. he was there surrounded by girls and women...

Exactly, and as I said before, the picture of Andrew with Virginia Roberts shows that he wasn't hiding the girls away. I'd also say that if Andrew genuinely has done nothing wrong he shouldn't be afraid to say that he knew Epstein well and had him at Balmoral, Sandringham etc and that he's happy to help the police with their enquiries. If he was being open and truthful about the friendship people would be more inclined to believe that he has nothing to hide. Instead he issues these furtive statements which are full of inconsistencies and things that can easily be disproved and all it does is make him look guilty.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Exactly, and as I said before, the picture of Andrew with Virginia Roberts shows that he wasn't hiding the girls away. I'd also say that if Andrew genuinely has done nothing wrong he shouldn't be afraid to say that he knew Epstein well and had him at Balmoral, Sandringham etc and that he's happy to help the police with their enquiries. If he was being open and truthful about the friendship people would be more inclined to believe that he has nothing to hide. Instead he issues these furtive statements which are full of inconsistencies and things that can easily be disproved and all it does is make him look guilty.

I don't think he is guilty of sex with under age girls.. but given that he hung out with Epstein and visited him.. and stayed at his house how could he NOT know what Ep's lifestyle was all about? He knew that Epstein lived surrounded by young women and that they had sex with the men in his circle. He didn't visit Epstein to see his collection of rare books. He was there because as his friend has said.. his hobby is sex and he likes women and the atmosphere in Epstein's house cannot have bothered him. It was very wrong of him to bring this man to Balmoral...

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

I hardly think we can judge anything by the quantity of stories put out by the DM.

BTW-Epstein was so good at manipulating people and presenting what he wanted to people, he fooled a psychiatrist.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investi...ogist-n1046071

How is that the same? Andrew knew him as a friend..spent leisure time with him. Esptein's business was providing girls for men in their leisure time.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Osipi

He is "alleged" to have had sex with a minor. Virginia Roberts, one accuser, said she had sex with Andrew in London. She was an consenting adult by law and she never stated it was Andrew that "forced" her. Her "keepers" did. Until there is evidence that proves Andrew had sex with a minor that'll stand up in a court of law, he's actually not committed a crime. I believe Andrews accusations have been looked into twice. Once by the Florida courts and deemed inadmissible and thrown out and by the Metropolitan Police System that deem the allegations weren't able to be prosecuted. What happens with civil suits is a totally different elephant in the room and it remains to be seen if any are filed against Andrew and he actually is prosecuted. Allegations and accusations do not a criminal sentence make nor award "justice". And, as in all court cases, the burden of proof is not on Andrew but on his accusers.

Andrew, whether or not he knew the full extent of Epstein's sex ring or not is not a crime. Sure, he could have said "hey... this is wrong. Gotta tell someone" or not. That was a decision he made at the time. It doesn't mean Andrew is complicit in sex trafficking of underage girls. That is all on Epstein and perhaps Maxwell (whom they're investigating) and some others that haven't been named as of yet. Who had sex with Andrew isn't being investigated at this time as far as I know. They're investigating the sex trafficking ring itself and its big players. Those are the ones that, in all honesty, the victims need to have brought to justice. Andrew, in my eyes, is small potatoes compared to some of the "big" players.

I'm going out on a limb here and even suggest that Andrew's legal team have advised him to lay low, don't talk and follow their advice. Andrew has not been exonerated from any wrong doings by any means but until that time comes, which I fear will never really happen, he's only shown very poor judgment in his friends, his reputation now has the "sleazy" tinge to it and the public's opinion of him has plummeted to a new low.

The past can and does come back to haunt you and this is a prime example of it. Even if Andrew had sex 10,000 times with women in Epstein's circle that actually were of legal age, its the company he kept and the perversion of that circle in its "dark" underside that is hanging over Andrew's head right now along with many, many more powerful and influential and wealthier men than Andrew.

Legal age dosn't come into it if someone us being coerced into having sex because they feel they will suffer in some way if they don't do it and that is what these girls said happened to them as they knew Epstein was powerful and were afraid of him. Virginia Roberts said they were 'passed around' his rich friends, including Andrew, and that is a crime.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Legal age dosn't come into it if someone us being coerced into having sex because they feel they will suffer in some way if they don't do it and that is what these girls said happened to them as they knew Epstein was powerful and were afraid of him. Virginia Roberts said they were 'passed around' his rich friends, including Andrew, and that is a crime.

Its the people that did the solicitation of girls and trained them and controlled them to do as they were told that are seriously being investigated. There's no ifs, ands or buts about that. Ghislaine Maxwell had/has the reputation of being the "madam" of the brothel. She or Epstein said "jump" and the girls were required to respond with "how high?". Andrew, as far as I know, wasn't part and parcel of the gestapo controlling the girls. As far as Andrew and Virginia Roberts and the London accusation, there is no case. Andrew didn't force her and Roberts didn't say "no" and basically consented (assuming the story is true). The crime was committed by the people that were her "handlers" that told her just how high to jump and controlled her.

Putting it into another perspective as far as the law goes, Mr. Big may have a whole posse of teenagers that break into houses and steal valuables. He, then, fences them and keeps the money with perhaps giving the posse a small "token" payment. Joe Little buys some of the stolen goods and it is discovered. Joe Little is out the money he paid for the goods as by law, he accepted stolen merchandise unaware but he didn't commit the crime of stealing and fencing stolen goods.

I believe Andrew is a Joe Little. He was perhaps aware of what was going on but he actually did not have any part in the actual coercion, grooming and controlling of what the victims were made to do. That is on Epstein and his cohorts head and its those people that the investigators are pursuing.

Andrew may still face civil lawsuits but unless any of those girls have solid proof, the case against Andrew sleeping with them will not go very far. I'm sure Epstein made absolutely sure that those girls were controlled enough that they wouldn't think of crossing him or trying to escape their bondage let alone secrete away proof of what Epstein was doing. They feared Epstein and his cohorts. Perhaps now that Epstein is dead, they'll feel a bit more at ease talking to the investigators. We'll see.

[Dman]

There’s not that much friendship and “loyalty” in the world that make me continue to hang around a convicted paedophile. I’d get me a new rich friend. The world is filled with them. Andrew threw all risk to the wind and put his reputation and the reputation of the Monarchy on the line for a reason. That reason, I think, was in that “House of Horrors” and other place he was when that these horrific criminal acts occurred.

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Denville

Possibly they did and Andrew refused to listen. He said that "loyalty to a firend was a virtue". Epstein made his living from procuring girls... as far as I can see,,,Im not sure why he would be a "blackmailer." (

The blackmailer thingy: Video tapes of his clients doing the big nasty with little girls...

The Daily Mail once had something very vague about it:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...professor.html

And there is a lot more to find under "Epstein blackmailer" on Google. Prince Andrew might be a victim here!

[Ista]

So here is the question: if you, or someone else--in this case, Andrew--is present where something illegal is happening, something that is a serious crime, and causes substantial harm to another human being, does that person have a moral obligation to report that, or is it okay for him to continue to be present, and do nothing? That is putting aside the question as to whether Andrew received sexual services. Or are the rules of decency and morality different for royals? Are the rules only different if it's a well-liked royal?

These were young, in some cases, very young girls. Girls who should still be in middle or high school, and were being provided for the use of rich, powerful or influential men. In what universe is that okay? And in what universe is it excusable to say it's all right to stand by, observe what is happening and do absolutely nothing, and continue to attend those parties, those orgies, those topless cruises?

[Osipi]

I think the conundrum with Andrew in the question that you asked, Ista, may boil down to two choices. A) Be honorable and distance himself from what was going on around him or B) prefer not to slay the goose that laid the golden egg that afforded him a circle of people he felt he belonged among. Obviously, we know which path he chose.

I've been in that kind of situation myself when young. Had a great group of friends that I enjoyed hanging out with. Weed was flowing freely and although I didn't partake of it myself, I wasn't about to "narc" on my friends or cut them off. Weed, of course, was illegal at the time but I actually believed that it was their choice whether or not to use it. Of course I could have been seen to be a part of a bunch of stoned hippies just because I was there.

Of course the Epstein sex trafficking ring was much more criminal and heinous and very damaging to the girls he solicited but I'm going on the principle of things rather than the seriousness of the crimes. Its not always cut and dried and easy to do the "right thing" and far easier to stick one's head in the sand like an ostrich and hope it all works out for the best. I think Andrew made the decision that was the easiest for him rather than make waves. To make waves takes courage and that's not a character trait I'd attribute to Andrew when it comes to taking the moral high road.

[Ista]

In your own situation, Osipi, who was the victim? I would argue that no one was. That was why I included the caveat about "substantial harm to another human being." For me, that is the differentiating factor. Even putting the very best construction on Andrew's actions, and assuming, for the sake of argument, that he didn't have sex with any underage girls, he chose to ignore the fact that girls the age of his own daughters were being used as sexual playthings and did nothing. In many countries, individuals who suspect children are being physically or sexually abused are required to report their suspicions, and can be held accountable if they do not.

I agree with your observations about Andrew's lack of moral fibre.