The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Claire]

okay - another thing that should be noted here - especially when it comes to Mountbatten is that during his time. Homosexuality was considered a crime, amoral and right up there if not worse then pedophilia.
I believe the homosexual aspects of his life as I befriended a man who dated him in the 1950's. That been said - it was made very clear to me that all homosexual men at that time were considered pedophiles and that they were actively after young men. It was just a common representation of gay men at the time and was used in the criminality of it. There are hundreds of repressed gay men in England whose reputation suffered the same - Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing. Gay = Pedophile before attitudes changed.

[Denville]

I agree. I think that years ago, before the change of law, even if in private, the upper classes were relativley tolerant of promiscuity and homosexual relations, the public official attitude would be that a gay man or a woman with several lovers (Like Edwina) were people of low morals. So an intelligence report might well say that the Mountbattens were "bad people" based on their sex lives....

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Denville

Did he? I can't remembe exactly now, but I thought that he ssaid he had no recollection of meeting her.. but that he felt that because having sex is a "positive act" for a man, he coudl absolutely deny a sexual relationship.

Denville is correct. Gawin's post from the last time this claim was discussed is appropriate to post again:

Originally Posted by Gawin

Do you have a source to back that up?

According to the transcript of the BBC interview, he said he didn't *remember* or had no *recollection* of meeting her.

But he denied her allegations (they didn't dance together, have drinks, or have sex).

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


EM: … has made allegations against you. She says she met you in 2001, she says she dined with you, danced with you at Tramp Nightclub in London. She went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell, your friend. Your response?

PA: I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.

EM: You don't remember meeting her?

PA: No.


EM: She says she met you in 2001, she dined with you, she danced with you, you bought her drinks, you were in Tramp Nightclub in London and she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell.

PA: It didn't happen.

EM: Do you remember her?

PA: No, I've no recollection of ever meeting her, I'm almost, in fact I'm convinced that I was never in Tramps with her. There are a number of things that are wrong with that story, one of which is that I don't know where the bar is in Tramps. I don't drink, I don't think I've ever bought a drink in Tramps whenever I was there.

[Alison H]

It was very odd. He was always involved in raising money for hospitals, and he did the TV programme making dreams come true for children ... he was the last person that Joe Public would have suspected of doing anything wrong, which is frightening.

But, to go back to Prince Andrew, if he's found guilty of anything then obviously steps will have to be taken. If he's not, then presumably things will just go on as they are.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Alison H

It was very odd. He was always involved in raising money for hospitals, and he did the TV programme making dreams come true for children ... he was the last person that Joe Public would have suspected of doing anything wrong, which is frightening.

But, to go back to Prince Andrew, if he's found guilty of anything then obviously steps will have to be taken. If he's not, then presumably things will just go on as they are.

Well Andrew's relationship with Epstein was clearly at lest in part to get girls and to make money... so it is different to being friendly with someone who seems on the face of it, to be just a rather vulgar but well meaning person who does a lot of charity work. Saville had loads of rich friends and friends in the media, some of whom seem to have suspected he was not what he seemed.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Denville is correct. Gawin's post from the last time this claim was discussed is appropriate to post again:

When EM returned to asking him about having sex with VR later on in the interview he said,

"I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened", not that he couldn't remember.

It's in the transcript if anyone is interested.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by sophie25

When EM returned to asking him about having sex with VR later on in the interview he said,

"I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened", not that he couldn't remember.

It's in the transcript if anyone is interested.

He said that he could not remember MEETING her. Ie he might have met her and had a photo taken but then he meets loads of people. But he definitely felt sure that he had not had sex with her or bought her drinks.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by sophie25

When EM returned to asking him about having sex with VR later on in the interview he said,

"I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened", not that he couldn't remember.

It's in the transcript if anyone is interested.

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making. I was responding to your post

Originally Posted by sophie25

I know what you mean but in the Newsnight interview he went from saying he couldn't remember to saying it absolutely didn't happen. It can't be both and it was one of many significant contradictions from him.

Although his answers were frequently muddled, they were not necessarily contradictory. He may only have intended his absolute denial to apply to the alleged sexual activity, not the alleged meeting. From the linked transcript:

EM: But you can say categorically that you don't recall meeting Virginia Roberts, dining with her?

PA: Yep.

EM: Dancing with her at Tramp?

PA: Yep.

EM: Or going on to have sex with her…

PA: Yes.

EM: …in a bedroom in a house in Belgravia?

PA: I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened.

EM: Do you recall any kind of sexual contact with Virginia Roberts then or any other time?

PA: None whatsoever.

[tommy100]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64713.32.1.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.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by tommy100

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64713.32.1.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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Osipi

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]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.