The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Helen.CH

Did she say it was consensual? Thanks.

Well that's just it. If she was being trafficked it can't be consensual in the UK. And if she had sex with him in the US under 18 it can't be consensual.

[Helen.CH]

Originally Posted by Osipi

You have to realize too that at this time, there is only the federal investigation going on with the FBI and this is what Andrew is being asked to cooperate with. It has absolutely *nothing* to do with whether Andrew had sex with anyone at any place. It is the investigation that is trying to find and prosecute those that were actually involved in trafficking these girls and forcing them to do as told.

There is nothing whatsoever that points to Andrew having committed any kind of a crime anywhere. At this time, Andrew is *not* required to be interviewed or be questioned under oath into what he knows about those that did participate in the sex trafficking (Maxwell and cohorts).

There is no interest at this time in pursuing whether or not Andrew had sex with that woman or if he even knew she was being coerced or not. The focus is on the trafficking of underage girls. Not who was involved with the underage girls.

Victims may file suits against Epstein's estate or the people that have abused them but those will not be handled by federal investigators at all.

I and I think others, too, can see the differences between the FBI the Police and the two cases.
Repeating this over and again does not change anything,

My question focused on the british prosecuters or police.

I mentioned your interpretation above and this makes no difference.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Helen.CH

I and I think others, too, can see the differences between the FBI the Police and the two cases.
Repeating this over and again does not change anything,

My question focused on the british prosecuters or police.

I mentioned your interpretation above and this makes no difference.

My statements were not my own interpretations but the actual *facts* relating to this case.

“We therefore concluded that the MPS [Metropolitan police service] was not the appropriate authority to conduct enquiries in these circumstances and, in November 2016, a decision was made that this matter would not proceed to a full criminal investigation.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-investigation

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

Three people know exactly what happened: Virginia, Maxwell & Andrew. Perhaps the problem now is no more difficult than it would have been in the past if you have some of the people involved telling lies.

Difficult to prove at this stage what happened.

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

Yes, I didn't mean to imply that Andrew committed a crime (unless he knew she'd been trafficked & coerced). One reason for not pursuing a crime is lack of evidence so perhaps the Met felt they wouldn't be able to gather enough to proceed.

Actually, if she was trafficked and it can be proven, it doesn't even matter if Andrew didn't know about it. That at least is the current British law on this subject. However, I don't know if current British law applies since the event happened before the law changed.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Elenath

Actually, if she was trafficked and it can be proven, it doesn't even matter if Andrew didn't know about it. That at least is the current British law on this subject. However, I don't know if current British law applies since the event happened before the law changed.

But how is something to be proven at this distance in time?

[Osipi]

There's actually two scenarios that could prove it. Very unlikely though.

1. Andrew, Maxwell and Giuffre all sit down and support each other's stories and admit to what actually happened that night.

2. Epstein, by some miracle, convinced Maxwell to have closed circuit monitoring in every room in her home and the tape from that incident is found.

The incident alleged to happened between Andrew and Ms. Giuffre in 2001 and that's 19 years ago. If there was any factual evidence, it most likely would have surfaced by now. A witness seeing Andrew sweating buckets with Ms. Giuffre at Tramps doesn't prove anything at all.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Denville

What crime? As I recall VIrginia Guiffre claims that she had sex with Andrew in London, at the age of 17. If that's the case, she was of age and it was consensual. So what crime?

From what I read about U.K. law a few weeks ago, if she is the victim of trafficking then her age doesn't make any difference. She couldn't of given consent.



LaRae

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by Denville

But how is something to be proven at this distance in time?

I think that's the main problem at this point and it might also be why the British police hasn't acted.

[Osipi]

After reading actual court documents of a case filed in SDNY by one of Epstein's victims in 2016, its easy for me to believe that Ms. Giuffre was very much a victim and held by invisible chains. Threats of being "rubbed out" and harm done to family members is among some of the locks for those chains.

I won't go into more detail here as the lawsuit was not filed against Andrew or even mentioned him but I will state that reading the actual charges filed made me sick to my stomach.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Osipi

After reading actual court documents of a case filed in SDNY by one of Epstein's victims in 2016, its easy for me to believe that Ms. Giuffre was very much a victim and held by invisible chains. Threats of being "rubbed out" and harm done to family members is among some of the locks for those chains.

I won't go into more detail here as the lawsuit was not filed against Andrew or even mentioned him but I will state that reading the actual charges filed made me sick to my stomach.

But the problem is proving this sort of thng years after the event. Grooming, pressure, non violent coercion etc.. its very hard to prove..

[Osipi]

I would say almost impossible to prove. Especially as the incident involving Andrew in London was about 19 years ago in 2001.

Epstein made sure his "inner circle" were totally under his control. In this sense, I am even going to go as far as stating that in some ways, Ghislaine Maxwell also fell victim to the man. It doesn't excuse any of her actions whatsoever but it seems obvious to me that Epstein had total control over her and she did as she was told to do.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I would say almost impossible to prove. Especially as the incident involving Andrew in London was about 19 years ago in 2001.

Epstein made sure his "inner circle" were totally under his control. In this sense, I am even going to go as far as stating that in some ways, Ghislaine Maxwell also fell victim to the man. It doesn't excuse any of her actions whatsoever but it seems obvious to me that Epstein had total control over her and she did as she was told to do.

She could have walked out, and left him. SHe was not poor, or very young. She was from a privileged background. She had no need to procure girls for her boyfriend.

[rmay286]

I think all this focus on Andrew is obscuring the very real problem of human trafficking of vulnerable girls (which is on the rise even in Canada, thanks to the Internet).

As Osipi has said a few times, whatever role Andrew played in this whole mess, it was a small part (if at all) in a large web of shady characters. Yet because of who he is, the media and U.S. attorneys are focusing solely on him.

I don't think all this attention on Andrew is going to help women get justice. I saw a tweet by Virginia Roberts Guiffre that said "Tick Tock Andy, time's up," or some such thing. I haven't been a victim of abuse myself so my opinion might not count for much, but something sounds off about that tweet. It doesn't sound like it's coming from a victim seeking justice. It sounds malicious.

Victims of human trafficking deserve better than the way this case is playing out in the media. Particularly, shouldn't the focus be on Ghislaine Maxwell? She probably knows more than anyone else.

Andrew might be protecting her; he might not want to testify in case he incriminates her. Or he might not want to testify because he really is lying about having sex with Virginia. But even IF he does speak to the American FBI (which as other posters have explained is unlikely), I don't think he is ever going to say he knew Virginia was being trafficked. And if he didn't know, no one can really prove he did anything criminal at all. I don't know much about American (or British) law, but it strikes me as being somewhat like purchasing stolen goods. If the person who bought them knew they were stolen, he's in the wrong. If he didn't know, he's innocent of any crime. If Andrew knew Virginia was being trafficked, he committed a crime, but if he genuinely thought she was a willing 17 year-old girl, his actions were creepy, age-inappropriate, but not criminally wrong.

[Helen.CH]

Originally Posted by rmay286

I think all this focus on Andrew is obscuring the very real problem of human trafficking of vulnerable girls (which is on the rise even in Canada, thanks to the Internet).

As Osipi has said a few times, whatever role Andrew played in this whole mess, it was a small part (if at all) in a large web of shady characters. Yet because of who he is, the media and U.S. attorneys are focusing solely on him.

I don't think all this attention on Andrew is going to help women get justice. I saw a tweet by Virginia Roberts Guiffre that said "Tick Tock Andy, time's up," or some such thing. I haven't been a victim of abuse myself so my opinion might not count for much, but something sounds off about that tweet. It doesn't sound like it's coming from a victim seeking justice. It sounds malicious.

Victims of human trafficking deserve better than the way this case is playing out in the media. Particularly, shouldn't the focus be on Ghislaine Maxwell? She probably knows more than anyone else.

Andrew might be protecting her; he might not want to testify in case he incriminates her. Or he might not want to testify because he really is lying about having sex with Virginia. But even IF he does speak to the American FBI (which as other posters have explained is unlikely), I don't think he is ever going to say he knew Virginia was being trafficked. And if he didn't know, no one can really prove he did anything criminal at all. I don't know much about American (or British) law, but it strikes me as being somewhat like purchasing stolen goods. If the person who bought them knew they were stolen, he's in the wrong. If he didn't know, he's innocent of any crime. If Andrew knew Virginia was being trafficked, he committed a crime, but if he genuinely thought she was a willing 17 year-old girl, his actions were creepy, age-inappropriate, but not criminally wrong.

Again this is two cases, one the Epstein thing and another the abuse of Giuffre and maybe others.

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by rmay286

I think all this focus on Andrew is obscuring the very real problem of human trafficking of vulnerable girls (which is on the rise even in Canada, thanks to the Internet).

As Osipi has said a few times, whatever role Andrew played in this whole mess, it was a small part (if at all) in a large web of shady characters. Yet because of who he is, the media and U.S. attorneys are focusing solely on him.

I don't think all this attention on Andrew is going to help women get justice. I saw a tweet by Virginia Roberts Guiffre that said "Tick Tock Andy, time's up," or some such thing. I haven't been a victim of abuse myself so my opinion might not count for much, but something sounds off about that tweet. It doesn't sound like it's coming from a victim seeking justice. It sounds malicious.

Victims of human trafficking deserve better than the way this case is playing out in the media. Particularly, shouldn't the focus be on Ghislaine Maxwell? She probably knows more than anyone else.

Andrew might be protecting her; he might not want to testify in case he incriminates her. Or he might not want to testify because he really is lying about having sex with Virginia. But even IF he does speak to the American FBI (which as other posters have explained is unlikely), I don't think he is ever going to say he knew Virginia was being trafficked. And if he didn't know, no one can really prove he did anything criminal at all. I don't know much about American (or British) law, but it strikes me as being somewhat like purchasing stolen goods. If the person who bought them knew they were stolen, he's in the wrong. If he didn't know, he's innocent of any crime. If Andrew knew Virginia was being trafficked, he committed a crime, but if he genuinely thought she was a willing 17 year-old girl, his actions were creepy, age-inappropriate, but not criminally wrong.

Actually I don't notice the US media focusing that much on Andrew at all. Or the whole sorry mess since Epstein died.


More than Andrew I would like to see Ghislaine arrested. SHE was the one I think who procured these girls.


As for Virginia if I were trafficked I'd be malicious too towards those who I felt had abused me. She seems to put Andrew in this category. She's the victim, not Andrew.


It isn't just Andrew - there were all those hangers on who saw all this and did nothing. I don't believe they weren't aware - I think they turned a blind eye.


While they're not guilty of anything but bad judgement I don't feel too sorry for them having their names drug all through the papers.


So if all of this happened to Beatrice and Eugenie would you still be fine with it?

[LadyRaven]

Second and final thing , I am from Wash Dc. Here outside of politicians lawyers are rock stars here and famous ones and infamous ones are well known. The attorney for Andrews accuser is David Boies. He is famous for a variety of ethics violations I will not go over here. The New York Times last December about a potential video tapes featuring Epstein famous and wealthy johns. This lawyer and another lawyer planned to try to get these tapes to extort these men into paying settlements. So much for true justice it would have been valuable evidence if it was real. The accuser stood by David on her Twitter account like it was nothing. For me just the choice of lawyer alone would have been enough for me to sideeye given his history. Might as well choose Michael avenatti while they were at it

[JessRulz]

Several posts have been deleted. We are not hosting any victim blaming here, nor are we happy to have overt speculation in regards to this case. Please keep to facts.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde

So if all of this happened to Beatrice and Eugenie would you still be fine with it?

Oh dear - I'm not fine with it at all. I think Epstein was a sick, sleazy person and I believe he really abused various women. Anyone who collaborated with him to traffic these women should receive justice.

But there seems to be this disproportionate focus on Andrew. Why Andrew and not Alan Dershowitz, who Virginia Guiffre also accused of having sex with her? If I look at Virginia's tweets, there is no #Dershowitz...most of the tweets hashtag Andrew and Ghislaine. Why "tick tock Andy" but not similar tweets to other men?

What about all the other men who supposedly were at Epstein's mansion?

[ACO]

Well now we got another press conference. At this point I would just tell the feds what I knew because honestly if you have zero to hide then why not? This is never going away.