The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Granada]

Moonmaiden23. I love your point that gives life to this sad situation. "Andrew was foolish enough to be photographed with her". And with Ghislaine Maxwell no less. IN Ghislaine's London Home.
Why was this 17 year old NOBODY 'hanging out" with a wealthy connected Globe trotting London Socialite AND a Senior British Royal, Prince Andrew The Duke of York ?
Apologies to "nobody's" too. LOL !
And Sophie25, I agree with everything you have said.

[US Royal Watcher]

...

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

There are other potential reasons, first and foremost that the Duke of York's ill-advised 2019 interview (as well as the charges of sex trafficking later filed against his close friend) could bolster the credibility of her recollections. There was at least one YouGov poll indicating that in the aftermath of the Duke's Newsnight interview, the number of Britons who credit Virginia Giuffre's allegations about him had substantially increased compared to 2015.

That is a good point. Andrew's interview was disasterous from a public relations standpoint. However, it did not add any additional evidence to the case. Before and after the interview, this remains a "he said/she said" case.

Ms. Giuffre's attorneys seem to be focusing on the assertion that Andrew can't sweat. Even if that is a lie, it doesn't prove that he assaulted her.

Indeed, she has not accused any former US presidents. As discussed earlier, Ms. Giuffre did file suit against a prominent professor and legal analyst to whom she says she was trafficked (he strongly denies her allegation).

I believe she is suing Dershowitz for defamation rather than sexual assault (I think they are actually suing each other.)

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Not necessarily. Not if, for example, Giuffre was just one of Epstein's girls that Andrew had intimate relations with. Like I've said before, Andrew could have just seen it as a "perk" of being friends with Epstein/Maxwell. Like a box of cigars on the nightstand or a bottle of scotch. This kind of sex doesn't involve the emotions but is just purely physical lust being satiated.

One must never forget the overriding fact that underlines this is that it was a "transactional" act, on her part at least. She was paid. [.....]

Originally Posted by Granada

Moonmaiden23. I love your point that gives life to this sad situation. "Andrew was foolish enough to be photographed with her". And with Ghislaine Maxwell no less. IN Ghislaine's London Home.
Why was this 17 year old NOBODY 'hanging out" with a wealthy connected Globe trotting London Socialite AND a Senior British Royal, Prince Andrew The Duke of York ?
Apologies to "nobody's" too. LOL !
And Sophie25, I agree with everything you have said.

Agreed, what was that happy smiling face doing in a photograph taken in London? Noting that in the UK, she had passed the age of consent, whereas in many if not most states of the USA she was still underage. How did she get a passport? Did her parents happily sign off on it or did she travel under an assumed name? Did she and her fellow victims all have families that did 't care what their daughters were doing, never questioning their daughters jetting around with millionaires that they didn't even know? Surely their international jaunts with millionaires must have raised a flag of interest in what their daughters were doing or where they were doing it?

[Denville]

Yes very possibly most of hte girls either had families who didn't care, or who were easily fooled.

[Alison H]

I don't know how accurate Wikipedia is, but it says that she was living on the streets at 13, and was then taken in by someone who turned out to be a sex trafficker. She was then reunited with her dad. No mention of her mum.

There've been two horrific cases in Northern England of organised gangs grooming and abusing girls. They went for girls from dysfunctional backgrounds, not girls with loving families looking out for them. I suppose Epstein and Maxwell did the same.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by sophie25

I'm sure you would remember a customer you had sex with.

The point is the Duke denied he ever had sex with Ms Roberts.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Granada

Moonmaiden23. I love your point that gives life to this sad situation. "Andrew was foolish enough to be photographed with her". And with Ghislaine Maxwell no less. IN Ghislaine's London Home.
Why was this 17 year old NOBODY 'hanging out" with a wealthy connected Globe trotting London Socialite AND a Senior British Royal, Prince Andrew The Duke of York ?
Apologies to "nobody's" too. LOL !
And Sophie25, I agree with everything you have said.

We'll exactly, if she wasn't there for sexual purposes then why was she there? Random teenagers don't tend to fly around the World with millionaires old enough to be their father and their rich friends just for the sake of it.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Alison H

I don't know how accurate Wikipedia is, but it says that she was living on the streets at 13, and was then taken in by someone who turned out to be a sex trafficker. She was then reunited with her dad. No mention of her mum.

There've been two horrific cases in Northern England of organised gangs grooming and abusing girls. They went for girls from dysfunctional backgrounds, not girls with loving families looking out for them. I suppose Epstein and Maxwell did the same.

I remember there were several interviews with Ms. Giuffre's father indicating that Ms. Giuffre was living with him at the time. He felt it was a wonderful opportunity for Ms. Giuffre because she was learning how to give massages, which ranks as being one of the worst excuses ever.

Maxwell and Epstein actively groomed underaged girls. The girls were paid and I don't think there is any evidence that they were held against their will, unlike other sex trafficking rings. But the girls were vulnerable and easy prey.

However, as has been pointed out, Ms. Giuffre was 17 at the time, which was the age of consent in New York, the Virgin Islands, and London. That is not to say she wasn't victimized but there is reasonable question about whether even if what she says is true, she was sexually assaulted by Andrew.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Denville

yes that is what I said. He claimed that he did not reccollect meeting her. However the picture proves that he did meet her.. and hada photo taken. He may or may not have had sex with her...

Browsing through my pictures I see people standing next to me and I honestly can not remember who they ever were. But I can not deny I have met them as the picture shows they very me standing there indeed, in Málaga, in Budapest, in Porto, in Wroclaw, in London, during my 5 or 6 weekend trips per year pre-corona.

The number of people I meet and am pictured with is dwarfed by the number of people the Duke sees and is pictured with. But he can not say he has never met them: "Look at this picture Sir, here we shook hands at a Garden Party at Buckingham!" The Duke: "Uh oh, eh... How nice to see you, eh... again."

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Browsing through my pictures I see people standing next to me and I honestly can not remember who they ever were. But I can not deny I have met them as the picture shows they very me standing there indeed, in Málaga, in Budapest, in Porto, in Wroclaw, in London, during my 5 or 6 weekend trips per year pre-corona.

The number of people I meet and am pictured with is dwarfed by the number of people the Duke sees and is pictured with. But he can not say he has never met them: "Look at this picture Sir, here we shook hands at a Garden Party at Buckingham!" The Duke: "Uh oh, eh... How nice to see you, eh... again."

Considering that Andrew enjoyed the company of one of the most prolific peodophiles of the modern age ( a friendship he's happy to say he still doesn't regret) I'm amazed you find it so hard to believe that he enjoyed the sexual company of one of the youngsters being procured by that said friend.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

However, as has been pointed out, Ms. Giuffre was 17 at the time, which was the age of consent in New York, the Virgin Islands, and London. That is not to say she wasn't victimized but there is reasonable question about whether even if what she says is true, she was sexually assaulted by Andrew.

The more this is being discussed and with some more background on Virginia's childhood and her father thinking it "was a good idea" for his daughter to "learn massaging" (what father would actually fall for that?), the more my opinion of this whole dog and pony show is that I'd not be surprised if, from the get go, Daddy saw Virginia as a "money maker" and encouraged her (there *are* fathers like this. I know of people that had fathers that saw their kids as money makers). From the get go too, Virginia was in opportunist mode and enjoyed all the perks and benefits of being an "Epstein girl" until the crap hit the fan. Opportunity knocks again and oh yah.... lawsuits are the way to go now. As been said many, many times before, Virginia was never "held hostage" and if Epstein said to "go please X", that's what she did. Willingly.

One thing that will *never* be proven as it's almost impossible to prove is whether or not Andrew ever had sex with her at any time. Andrew sweating at Tramps proves nothing. Andrew posing for a picture with Virginia just means they were in the same room together once upon a time. Unless Epstein actually *did* film the two of them doing the horizontal hokey pokey by CC TV,, it *is* he said/she said.

I seriously think this case is going to be dismissed.

[Granada]

Duc_et_Pair, but this wasn't a "Buckingham Palace Garden Party". It was a private home. This was a " casual " event. As evidenced by their clothing, at Ghislaine Maxwell's own house. Photographic evidence. Irrefutable.
Not some nameless "meet and greet" function that the Royals go thru. Oblivious to who they "shake hands with".

I will come out and say it. I find everything about this disgusting. And that arrogant, entitled and dim Andrew " thought" he could explain away, even justify, his friendship or dealings with Epstein is to say the least inexcusable and baffling. He actually said he had no regrets being 'friends' with Epstein.

Who signed off on the Interview debacle that put everything in motion. With a known sharp and tough interviewer, Emily Maitles, no less.
Did the Queen ? If She did why ? Were the 'Grey Men' kept unaware? Where was Charles?
Or did Andrew covertly pull this off ? Sorry, not buying that.

That Queen Elizabeth, in her last years is dealing with this ongoing public relations disaster for "The Firm " is shameful. And damaging.
Hopefully lessons will be learned.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Considering that Andrew enjoyed the company of one of the most prolific peodophiles of the modern age ( a friendship he's happy to say he still doesn't regret) I'm amazed you find it so hard to believe that he enjoyed the sexual company of one of the youngsters being procured by that said friend.

What our opinions or what we believe do not equate to proof. I MO Andrew is arrogant, vain and full of his own importance but I cannot know with any certainty what if any relationships he has had and that is the bottom line. We all have opinions but we do not have proof. As another poster said it is he said she said. Regardless of the outcome his reputation is gone.

He is not the only public figure to be photographed with Epstein and young women.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Granada

Who signed off on the Interview debacle that put everything in motion. With a known sharp and tough interviewer, Emily Maitles, no less. Did the Queen ? If She did why ? Were the 'Grey Men' kept unaware? Where was Charles? Or did Andrew covertly pull this off ? Sorry, not buying th

I'm sure I'll be corrected if my memory isn't serving me too well right now but.... I seem to recall reading that Andrew was very much advised to keep his trap shut but he felt he knew best and went ahead with the interview anyways. I don't think it ever occurred to him how badly it would make him look and totally shred his reputation. I honestly think arrogance got the better of him and he believed that the masses would believe and take to heart anything that came out of his mouth.

This is what happens to a man that has had decades of minions "under him" that'd buy anything he says "because he's the prince". Welcome to reality, Andrew.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Considering that Andrew enjoyed the company of one of the most prolific peodophiles of the modern age ( a friendship he's happy to say he still doesn't regret) I'm amazed you find it so hard to believe that he enjoyed the sexual company of one of the youngsters being procured by that said friend.

Epstein was scum but he, sadly, was not one of the most prolific pedophiles of the modern age. I work for an international relief agency and have seen tragedies that dwarfs this one. Unfortunately, sex trafficking is a very, very common crime all over the world. There are cases involving pedophiles who buy and sell children as young as 2 years old.

Epstein has received so much attention because he was extremely wealthy and well-connected. He was not only friends with Andrew but he hobnobbed with TV personalities like Katie Couric and George Stephanopoulos. I am not sure if they have ever figured out how he made his money but he was apparently involved in gun smuggling.

He's a horrible person and the world is better off now that he is gone, but he is by no means even close to the worst sex offender today. Societies all over the world need to devote more resources into protecting children.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Granada

Duc_et_Pair, but this wasn't a "Buckingham Palace Garden Party". It was a private home. This was a " casual " event. As evidenced by their clothing, at Ghislaine Maxwell's own house. Photographic evidence. Irrefutable.
Not some nameless "meet and greet" function that the Royals go thru. Oblivious to who they "shake hands with".

I understand what you are saying but Andrew has probably attended thousands of get togethers in private homes over the years. Royal family members are very sought after guests and I am sure that when they attend, there are a lot of requests to be photographed. This picture surfaced years after it was taken. If he didn't have sex with her, I could believe that he doesn't remember. Even if he did, who knows? Andrew is pretty arrogant.

[WillVictoria]

I'm sorry, but the tenor of this discussion feels very "victim blame-y".

Why sue Prince Andrew and not Clinton or Trump? She hasn't claimed those men assulted her. I find it weird people are assuming she chose to persue him over US political figures rather then the simpler explination that she is sueing the man she claims assulted her, and the other two men did not.

This whole age of consent debate is also, I think, missing the forrest for the trees. Virginia was a sex traffic victim. She claims she was coerced to have sex with Andrew by Epstein and Maxwell (who apparently had a history of threatening the girls). She can not consent if she has a metephorical gun to her head. The key assertion here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Virginia claims Andrew knew what was going on. If Andrew knows his friends are trafficing girls and brought one to have sex with him, then it doesn't matter if Virginia was 17 or 70 as Andrew would be knowingly having sex with someone he knew could not consent.

As to why she didn't leave, this all feels like asking a battered woman why they did not leave their abusive partner. This girl came from a rough home life and was mainpulated by people who seemed to offer things a vulnerable teenage runaway would crave: money and feeling she mattered to someone. Other victims describing Ghislaine acting at times like a sisterly figure to help groom the girls. Even vulnerable women in their twenties were victims of Maxwell and Epstein. I can understand how a young woman with no job skills, no money, and no stable family support network would feel trapped into that system.

Did something happen between Giuffre and Prince Andrew? I don't know. However I think there's a way to debate the accusations while being respectful to Giuffre.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by WillVictoria

I'm sorry, but the tenor of this discussion feels very "victim blame-y".

...

This whole age of consent debate is also, I think, missing the forrest for the trees. Virginia was a sex traffic victim. She claims she was coerced to have sex with Andrew by Epstein and Maxwell (who apparently had a history of threatening the girls). She can not consent if she has a metephorical gun to her head. The key assertion here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Virginia claims Andrew knew what was going on. If Andrew knows his friends are trafficing girls and brought one to have sex with him, then it doesn't matter if Virginia was 17 or 70 as Andrew would be knowingly having sex with someone he knew could not consent.

...

Did something happen between Giuffre and Prince Andrew? I don't know. However I think there's a way to debate the accusations while being respectful to Giuffre.

You make some good points but the age of consent is a big issue. If she had been underaged, it wouldn't matter if Andrew knew that Epstein had trafficked her. Since she was over the age of consent, the issue is very much centered on whether he knew she was being trafficked. Ms. Giuffre has never alleged that she told Andrew about her situation so I don't understand why she is so sure Andrew knew about it.

People can be respectful of Ms. Giuffre and still question the truth of her account or the merits of this suit. She was definitely a victim of Epstein and Maxwell. It is a far more open question whether she was Andrew's victim. I haven't seen very much evidence in support of her argument.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Osipi

The more this is being discussed and with some more background on Virginia's childhood and her father thinking it "was a good idea" for his daughter to "learn massaging" (what father would actually fall for that?), the more my opinion of this whole dog and pony show is that I'd not be surprised if, from the get go, Daddy saw Virginia as a "money maker" and encouraged her (there *are* fathers like this. I know of people that had fathers that saw their kids as money makers). From the get go too, Virginia was in opportunist mode and enjoyed all the perks and benefits of being an "Epstein girl" until the crap hit the fan. Opportunity knocks again and oh yah.... lawsuits are the way to go now. As been said many, many times before, Virginia was never "held hostage" and if Epstein said to "go please X", that's what she did. Willingly.

One thing that will *never* be proven as it's almost impossible to prove is whether or not Andrew ever had sex with her at any time. Andrew sweating at Tramps proves nothing. Andrew posing for a picture with Virginia just means they were in the same room together once upon a time. Unless Epstein actually *did* film the two of them doing the horizontal hokey pokey by CC TV,, it *is* he said/she said.

I seriously think this case is going to be dismissed.

Given the way the judges (U.S)have ruled so far toward motions put forth by Andrew's lawyers I don't think the case will be dismissed. In fact I predict there will be a judgment brought against him.

The American justice system seems hostile to royalty in general right now and might decide to make an example out of QEII's unpleasant and unpopular son.

The wind is not blowing in Andrew's direction.

BUT...no matter how long and how hard I have tried to view Virginia sympathetically...I cannot. My admittedly unpopular opinion is that at some point she ceased being a victim and became an opportunist. I think she was a young woman who very much enjoyed the high living perks provided by Epstein and Maxwell even if she didn't necessarily enjoy her...."work".

And once the party was over per se....yes sure. She decided to go after money in high profile civil court cases because well, why not?

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

The American justice system seems hostile to royalty in general right now and might decide to make an example out of QEII's unpleasant and unpopular son.

The wind is not blowing in Andrew's direction.
:

In what way has the American judicial system been generally hostile to royalty lately? Seriously asking.

While I do think there are times when courts use a particular case to make a point….not entirely sure why the court would care to make an example out of Andrew just for being royal.