The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I am still shocked that he is flat out denying having had sex with VG or having any recollection of that fact when there seems to be material evidence to the contrary. The easiest way out for a defendant in this case would have been to say that they had consensual sex and that he was not aware that she was a minor under US law or a sex trafficking victim, which would be a plausible version of the events and would have to be disproven by the plaintiff.



The fact that he chose to deny everything altogether means that either he is indeed innocent and VG is lying, or he is being badly advised or was overconfident about being above the law. Honestly I don't think he expected to be sued in the US as, being a British prince, he grew up with the Crown immunity mentality, even though it applies technically only to the Queen and not to her children.

I tend to think that he thought he was above the law.

[Osipi]

No matter what happens from here on out, Andrew's reputation is totally destroyed and his credibility gone forever. Even without being found guilty of a crime or having to pay out restitution in the civil case, nothing is ever going to restore his good name again in the court of public opinion.

He brought a lot of this on himself just by doing that disastrous interview. He'd have been better off just keeping his mouth shut.

[Sandy345]

The thing is the young woman was apparently associated with Ghislaine Maxwell who stands next to the couple grinning. And he visited the notorious Epstein. I think it was known what was going on with Epstein and Maxwell. He is on record as visiting Epstein and certainly there is a lot of evidence to prove that.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Sandy345

The thing is the young woman was apparently associated with Ghislaine Maxwell who stands next to the couple grinning. And he visited the notorious Epstein. I think it was known what was going on with Epstein and Maxwell. He is on record as visiting Epstein and certainly there is a lot of evidence to prove that.

It didn't help matters either when Andrew is on record defending his friendship with Epstein on quite a few occasions including his nuclear interview.

https://www.businessinsider.com/prin...ty-fair-2019-8

Moving right along here, now it seems that, according to Fox News, Virginia Guiffre may have a witness in her corner willing to testify against Andrew.

The plot thickens like a good white sauce.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...sexual-assault

[Alison H]

Virginia Giuffre's said that Maxwell and Epstein told her that she had to "do for Prince Andrew what you do for Epstein". She hasn't said that she actually said no to him. And she was over 16, so above the age of consent in the UK, and he probably genuinely wasn't aware of her age. So, however deeply unpleasant is it that a grown man took advantage of a 17-year-old girl - if, indeed, that did happen, and she isn't making it up - no actual crime was committed. But, by saying that he'd never even met her, when it seems clear that he did, he's really dug himself into a hole.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Virginia Giuffre's said that Maxwell and Epstein told her that she had to "do for Prince Andrew what you do for Epstein". She hasn't said that she actually said no to him. And she was over 16, so above the age of consent in the UK, and he probably genuinely wasn't aware of her age. So, however deeply unpleasant is it that a grown man took advantage of a 17-year-old girl - if, indeed, that did happen, and she isn't making it up - no actual crime was committed. But, by saying that he'd never even met her, when it seems clear that he did, he's really dug himself into a hole.

Unfortunately for Andrew, the age of consent is 18 in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands. If he was intimate with her in those places before she turned 17, he committed a crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in the US, neither is claiming that he thought she was older.

Originally Posted by Osipi

Moving right along here, now it seems that, according to Fox News, Virginia Guiffre may have a witness in her corner willing to testify against Andrew.

This is not new. I have seen this guy interviewed before now. My question about him and any one else who worked for Epstein, is why didn't he step forward earlier. Seems to me he violated laws requiring adults to report child abuse.

It's easy to focus on the rich and famous and if Andrew is guilty, he deserves what he gets, but a lot of people enabled Epstein. Pilots, servants, etc., saw far more than anyone who occasionally partied with Epstein. It is reprehensible that none of them spoke up earlier.

[Gawin]

I should point out that Andrew never stated he never met Virginia Roberts.

He said he had "no recollection of ever meeting" her, which isn't the same thing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50449339

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Virginia Giuffre's said that Maxwell and Epstein told her that she had to "do for Prince Andrew what you do for Epstein". She hasn't said that she actually said no to him. And she was over 16, so above the age of consent in the UK, and he probably genuinely wasn't aware of her age. So, however deeply unpleasant is it that a grown man took advantage of a 17-year-old girl - if, indeed, that did happen, and she isn't making it up - no actual crime was committed. But, by saying that he'd never even met her, when it seems clear that he did, he's really dug himself into a hole.

Exactly. I don't know who was advising him but it would have been far better had he admitted the situation but stressed that he had no idea of the background to it ie that she was trafficked. This whole angle of him denying that he even met her dosn't wash with anyone and makes him look ridiculous.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Gawin

I should point out that Andrew never stated he never met Virginia Roberts.

He said he had "no recollection of ever meeting" her, which isn't the same thing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50449339

Thanks, I meant to bring that up earlier. I think it would be worse if he said he knew her. Andrew meets hundreds of people every year and there are a lot of pictures with him and other people. If he had said he remembered her the question would be why he remembered if he hadn't had some sort of sustantive relationship.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Exactly. I don't know who was advising him but it would have been far better had he admitted the situation but stressed that he had no idea of the background to it ie that she was trafficked. This whole angle of him denying that he even met her dosn't wash with anyone and makes him look ridiculous.

I agree that Andrew has made a mess of this, but he has never denied even meeting her. He said he doesn't *remember" meeting her. This is an important distinction, especially from a legal point of view. See my previous post.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Moving right along here, now it seems that, according to Fox News, Virginia Guiffre may have a witness in her corner willing to testify against Andrew.

The plot thickens like a good white sauce.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...sexual-assault

Not according to Fox News but according to The Sun's interview with the former employee, which Fox News credits and provides the link to.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/158719...berts-epstein/

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Virginia Giuffre's said that Maxwell and Epstein told her that she had to "do for Prince Andrew what you do for Epstein". She hasn't said that she actually said no to him. And she was over 16, so above the age of consent in the UK, and he probably genuinely wasn't aware of her age. So, however deeply unpleasant is it that a grown man took advantage of a 17-year-old girl - if, indeed, that did happen, and she isn't making it up - no actual crime was committed. But, by saying that he'd never even met her, when it seems clear that he did, he's really dug himself into a hole.

Well, Prince Andrew has not been charged with any crime yet. It is a civil lawsuit only at this point. VG's brief to the court, however, did accuse Andrew of having sex with her without consent and with full knowledge of her age and condition. Those charges are explicitly mentioned in the text if I recall it correctly.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Well, Prince Andrew has not been charged with any crime yet. It is a civil lawsuit only at this point. VG's brief to the court, however, did accuse Andrew of having sex with her without consent and with full knowledge of her age and condition. Those charges are explicitly mentioned in the text if I recall it correctly.

This is just my opinion but from all the years of watching Andrew and following him and reading about him, I do believe wholeheartedly that he has an arrogant and entitled personality and probably would take advantage of what was offered to him by Epstein/Maxwell as a "perk" but no way would I believe that Andrew was capable of physical violence enough to rape a woman. I just don't think he's built that way.

But... what do I know? As I said, it's just my opinion from where I sit.

[ladongas]

Isn’t it considered rape if the victim is underage and thereby unable to give assent?

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by ladongas

Isn’t it considered rape if the victim is underage and thereby unable to give assent?

That is true in the U.S. The age of consent in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands is 18, so if Andrew had sex with her, even without physically forcing himself, he would be guilty of rape. However, the age of consent in the UK is 16 so if he didn't physically force her, there are no rape charges.

This raises another issue becuase even if criminal charges are filed against him in the US even if what Virginia Giuffre says is true, I don't think the UK has to extradict him. Moreover, I don't know UK law, but even if she wins a judgment in the US, I'm not sure if she can petition the UK courts to help her collect any funds located in the UK.

[rominet09]

The main thing is, whatever the result of all this, he has completely lost his reputation.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

That is true in the U.S. The age of consent in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands is 18, so if Andrew had sex with her, even without physically forcing himself, he would be guilty of rape. However, the age of consent in the UK is 16 so if he didn't physically force her, there are no rape charges.

This raises another issue becuase even if criminal charges are filed against him in the US even if what Virginia Giuffre says is true, I don't think the UK has to extradict him. Moreover, I don't know UK law, but even if she wins a judgment in the US, I'm not sure if she can petition the UK courts to help her collect any funds located in the UK.

I actually had the same doubt. Prince Andrew, I believe, has no assets in the US. How can he be compelled to pay any compensation to VG even if the court rules in her favor? Maybe some lawyer in the forum can explain.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I actually had the same doubt. Prince Andrew, I believe, has no assets in the US. How can he be compelled to pay any compensation to VG even if the court rules in her favor? Maybe some lawyer in the forum can explain.

I'm an international rights lawyer but collecting foreign judgments is not something I have any experience with. There are international trade agreements that allow a citizen in one country to collect on a judgment in another and I believe the US and UK have such an agreement. However, these agreements cannot override local laws. In other words, the US cannot impose its laws on the UK and vice versa. The agreement only allows someone to collect a judgment if the judgment is consistent with the law in both jurisdictions. Therefore, Ms. Guiffre can only petition UK courts for help in collecting Prince Andrew's assets if she could show that she likely would have won if the lawsuit had been brought in the UK.

The US courts may decide (accurately or not) that Prince Andrew had sex with Virginia Guiffre when she was 17 (which is underaged in the New York, Florida and Virgin Islands) and that Prince Andrew should pay money to Ms. Guiffre as compensation The complication is that I don't think (and I am not a UK lawyer) that Virginia Guiffre would have been able file this lawsuit in the UK, because the age of consent in the UK is 16. In that case, I can't see the UK courts enforcing the US judgment.

I hope that makes sense. I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows more about collecting civil judgments.

However, as others have noted, it will look bad if Prince Andrew loses the suit - although it is hard to see how it can get any worse. I truly hope that Ms. Guiffre is telling the truth because it would be an extreme injustice if Andrew is innocent.

[Roslyn]

I make no comment about the issue of collecting on any civil judgment in these circumstances, but as for how it could get any worse for Andrew if he loses the suit, it could get way, way worse. If he continues to deny the allegations and gives sworn testimony to that effect, or - maybe worse - admits in evidence that he did have sex with Virginia knowing she had been groomed by Maxwell and Epstein but didn't see anything wrong with it and didn't have any concerns about issues of consent - and he is not accepted as a witness of truth and is found to be liable, he will have absolutely no reputation left and will have to live in hiding or risk being pelted with rotten eggs. And if he is ordered to pay Virginia a substantial amount of money as damages but hides behind British laws and his mummy and refuses to pay anything in satisfaction of the judgment, he will just prove himself to be a despicable cad, and his family could be very seriously damaged too depending on their reaction.

I, too, hope Virginia is telling the truth because a person should not be accused as Andrew has if there is no substance to the claim.

[Alison H]

I thought she was claiming assault in London, in which case she'd have been over the age of consent. If she'd been under 16, it would be statutory rape even if she wasn't forced, but she was 17 at the time.


A US court can't force an English (there aren't UK courts as such, as the Scottish system is separate) court to comply with its rulings, but it would look very bad if an English court disregarded an American ruling. Disregarded a ruling in Iran or North Korea would be one thing, but the US is a close ally with a judicial system which is respected here. What I'm not sure about is if damages would be enforceable if the ruling was based on her having been under 18.