The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[MARG]

XC and Moonmaiden I think you have both made excellent points. I believe one or two more public supporters will show their hands, unlike those sniping at "comments from a friend" and such, believing it is actually the BRF and blowing steam.

By now the newspapers are mostly fish-n-chip wrapper, there's only a few trying to scratch up some semblance of scandal. All of the truely ghastly things have been said, people have speculated in the most disgusting of ways. But, I think people will remember the nature of those who have participated in this lynching. It will be interesting to see what happens from here on out.

[Meadow]

That makes it sound like they have been friends and only now is he working out it's a bad idea? So not all that helpful to Andrew really. The story is dying down I'm guessing we won't hear more until the case hit's court cause I don't think these two Jane Doe's will accept out of court settlements. If they did they would off taken up Epsteins offer years ago and be living the life of riley without their names etc being splashed on the front pages of newspapers.

[MARG]

I think we need to think for ourselves and remember that there have been official statements over this furore direct from BP. It's worth remembering that:

A source close to the Duke told the Sunday Telegraph:

has always got to be suspect, especially since BP has been willing to make official statements this time.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Scotland Yard urged to probe Prince Andrew's bodyguards over sex scandal - Telegraph

Members of the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee have called on Scotland Yard to look into how much the Duke’s protection officers might have witnessed at Epstein’s parties.

Dai Davies, a former head of the royal protection unit, told the Daily Mail that the bodyguards might be able to corroborate Prince Andrew's account that he never had sexual relations with his accuser.

But he added: “I would have expected Prince Andrew to have been severely warned on the dangers of liaising with Epstein.”

[royal rob]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Campbell.html


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Rudolph]

Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY

Scotland Yard urged to probe Prince Andrew's bodyguards over sex scandal - Telegraph

Not good Andrew

[MARG]

What are they going to investigate. He has been charged with nothing either criminal or civil in the US, merely named in a Civil Suit against Epstein.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by MARG

What are they going to investigate. He has been charged with nothing either criminal or civil in the US, merely named in a Civil Suit against Epstein.

I'm not sure exactly, but in the U.S. if you transport a person under 18 across state lines for the purpose of having sex with them, regardless of the age of consent, it's a violation of federal law. If he did this more than twice, it likely comes under our racketeering statutes (he likely can never be charged with any of this because of Epstein's plea agreement protecting "co-conspirators"). These are very grave offenses in the U.S. I would think that the people of Great Britain would have a legitimate interest in investigating this matter - I'd like to know if a member of my royal family were involved in such an act(s)

This is just a guess on my part, and is in now way a opinion on the veracity of Andrew or his accuser(s). I'm not sure where the calls for investigation come from and what they want to investigate. Frankly, I believe that at least half the people who have taken an interest in this matter don't understand the legal proceedings themselves - which I think are a little tricky to work out (not to mention the British reporting on the matter does not help to clear it up or explain it).

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by MARG

What are they going to investigate. He has been charged with nothing either criminal or civil in the US, merely named in a Civil Suit against Epstein.

My reading of the article is that the are going to investigate the RPOs - not Andrew - to find out if they knew anything and if they can corroborate Andrew's story.

[royal rob]

I think its if his bodyguards saw underage girls being used for sex then they should have reported it. It's more to clear them of any wrong doing I think


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by royal rob

I think its if his bodyguards saw underage girls being used for sex then they should have reported it. It's more to clear them of any wrong doing I think


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

True, It's probably an internal investigation of the officers.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

I'm not sure exactly, but in the U.S. if you transport a person under 18 across state lines for the purpose of having sex with them, regardless of the age of consent, it's a violation of federal law. If he did this more than twice, it likely comes under our racketeering statutes (he likely can never be charged with any of this because of Epstein's plea agreement protecting "co-conspirators"). These are very grave offenses in the U.S. I would think that the people of Great Britain would have a legitimate interest in investigating this matter - I'd like to know if a member of my royal family were involved in such an act(s)

I haven't been able to find the first two plaintiffs' initiating process, but I understand from paragraph 4 of the judgment of 26 September 2011 that the plaintiffs' object is to have the non-prosecution agreement invalidated. If it's invalidated, wouldn't that catch the component that protected "co-conspirators"? Though there might be a limitation period that would apply.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I haven't been able to find the first two plaintiffs' initiating process, but I understand from paragraph 4 of the judgment of 26 September 2011 that the plaintiffs' object is to have the non-prosecution agreement invalidated. If it's invalidated, wouldn't that catch the component that protected "co-conspirators"? Though there might be a limitation period that would apply.

I have not seen that judgment, but yes, I think you're right - likely it would invalidate the non-prosecution agreement.

I have no idea what the statute of limitations is - in a case like this there might be a tolling of the statute while that non-prosecution agreement was in place. I'm guessing they would not go through all this trouble of having the agreement invalidated only to have a statute of limitations bar.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by royal rob

I think its if his bodyguards saw underage girls being used for sex then they should have reported it. It's more to clear them of any wrong doing I think


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The girl who is bringing this allegation was NOT underage in any of the jurisdictions in which she alleges that she slept with Andrew. She was at least 17 at the time and the age of consent in each jurisdiction at the time was either 16 or 17 (USVI has since raised the age but it was 16 until 2002).

Unless the RPOs actually checked the ages of the girls they wouldn't have any real idea of whether they were 'of age' or not at the time. Very few people, if any, can look at a girl and say for absolute certainty - she is 16 but she is 17.

[royal rob]

I didn't say that girl in particular. But if they witnessed anything at the many parties Andrew attended. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

"Calls are made for an investigation into how much Prince Andrew's bodyguards witnessed at parties thrown by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein

Scotland Yard has come under pressure to investigate whether Prince Andrew’s bodyguards witnessed any criminal activity during his visits to the home of a convicted sex offender.

Protection officers who accompanied the Duke to Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion in Florida, where he is alleged to have partied with naked young women, have been accused of turning a blind eye."


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

" Any criminal activity "


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Zonk]

I am not a lawyer despite the fact that the age of consent varies between states it is illegal to transport some across state lines for the purpose of money for sex. Please note the Mann Act

Per wikipedia,

In its original form made it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose". Its primary stated intent was to address prostitution, "immorality", and human trafficking particularly where it was trafficking for the purposes of prostitution. This is one of several acts of protective legislation aimed at moral reform during the progressive era. Its ambiguous language of "immorality" meant it could be used to criminalize consensual sexual behavior between adults.[1] It was amended by Congress in 1978 and again in 1986 to apply to transport for the purpose of prostitution or illegal sexual acts.

Mann Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The girl who is bringing this allegation was NOT underage in any of the jurisdictions in which she alleges that she slept with Andrew. She was at least 17 at the time and the age of consent in each jurisdiction at the time was either 16 or 17 (USVI has since raised the age but it was 16 until 2002).

Unless the RPOs actually checked the ages of the girls they wouldn't have any real idea of whether they were 'of age' or not at the time. Very few people, if any, can look at a girl and say for absolute certainty - she is 16 but she is 17.

I see what you are saying and to be honest, it is difficult to tell how old any young woman is especially nowadays when there is so much makeup, etc. coming into the mix.

I would say that Andrew wouldn't have given it a thought as "who get's their under age daughters, passports, and allows them to move, around not just the US, but internationally, with someone they don't know, doing who knows what. Any normal parent of minor would have to have known that someone else was picking up the tab for their travel, accomodation, clothes, etc. and wonder why?

Any normal person would have thought they were well out of school or even college, and I can't help think that the RPO's would have thought the same.

[royal rob]

Don't think Andrew would have been using his "brain " at all.
It's very naive to think these sort of parties don't happen and that royals aren't involved.
Whatever happened or didn't happened. Andrew was at pool party's with nude young women even if not under aged ... Not a good look IMO and not the sort of person I would want to know


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Dman]

Prince Andrew urged to scrap Davos trip amid sex claim case-
Prince Andrew should not attend a UK reception at the World Economic Forum, a former Home Office minister has said-
BBC News - Prince Andrew urged to scrap Davos trip amid sex claim case

[tommy100]

Whilst I understand why the age of the girls are important from a legal standpoint to me it says a lot about Andrew if he was willing to hang out with girls who were possibly 17 or 18 or even 19. Whilst it might not be illegal and even if there was no sex involved, to me, it's still poor behaviour and wrong.