The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I agree. Because if he did know more, and if the plaintiffs are successful in having the plea bargain set aside and the co-conspirators are fair game again, he could be in real trouble. Still all speculation, of course, but, especially now we know they were in the same place at the same time, I think it's likely he did have sex with her, and I also think it's unlikely that he would be so arrogant and/or stupid as to believe he just got lucky so many times, and if he did know more he'd be foolish to NOT be engaging a darn good lawyer.

I think the same thing as you, that it's likely Andrew did have sex with her. (I didn't think so before, or at least I was less sure.) The real danger in this, IMO, is not that he had sex with her (there's probably no way to prove that he knew she was underage), but that the Palace issued a very specific denial saying that there was no sexual contact between them.

I *think* that Andrew told the Palace the truth and they decided to express the denial this way anyway, believing that no one could ever prove what happened. Not a good idea. This happened in 2001, before cell phone cameras, but still, you never know...

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by rmay286

I think the same thing as you, that it's likely Andrew did have sex with her. (I didn't think so before, or at least I was less sure.) The real danger in this, IMO, is not that he had sex with her (there's probably no way to prove that he knew she was underage), but that the Palace issued a very specific denial saying that there was no sexual contact between them.

I *think* that Andrew told the Palace the truth and they decided to express the denial this way anyway, believing that no one could ever prove what happened. Not a good idea. This happened in 2001, before cell phone cameras, but still, you never know...

Oh, I forgot about that part. In that case I am more inclined to think he might have just gotten massages. Either that or he lied to BP. As stupid as their PR department is I doubt their council is that stupid to put out a knowingly false statement on an issue like this

[Rudolph]

Prince Andrew 'will open Davos speech by addressing sex abuse allegations' - Telegraph

The Duke of York is expected to begin a keynote speech at the World Economic Forum on Thursday by publicly denying allegations he sexually abused a teenager as American lawyers demand he is interviewed under oath.

The Duke is hosting an event for entrepreneurs at the conference in Davos, Switzerland, and is understood to have decided that the ongoing controversy will be an “elephant in the room” if he does not tackle it head-on.

Although he will not make a final decision about his speech until late in the day, Buckingham Palace has invited a TV cameraman, a photographer and a reporter to record what would be his first public comments about the saga since it began at the start of the month.

His appearance comes as Virginia Roberts, who claims the Duke had sex with her when she was 17, filed documents with a Florida court calling for him to be interviewed under oath about their “interactions” in 2001. A letter has been sent to Buckingham Palace making the formal request.

Carolyn Durand ‏@CarolynDurand 25 mins25 minutes ago
Virginia Roberts lawyer sent letter asking Prince Andrew respond under oath to her sex claims. Her lawyers say BP refused letter from FedEx

[hernameispekka]

This is excruciating... Feels like we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop....

[Lumutqueen]

Nobody has confirmed he will actually speak about this in Davos. They claim it in the headline and backtrack in the article!


Unless Andrew is the defendant in a case where Virginia Roberts accuses him directly, there is no way he's going to say anything under oath in an interview. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

[Rudolph]

Swear on oath you're innocent, lawyers for 'sex slave' tell Prince: Andrew under growing pressure to testify after rejecting letter asking for his 'voluntary co-operation' | Daily Mail Online

Prince Andrew was under growing pressure last night to testify on oath about his contacts with alleged underage ‘sex slave’ Virginia Roberts.

She lodged fresh documents at a Florida court saying her lawyers had served an extraordinary letter on the Duke last week requesting he answer questions – but he ‘refused’ to accept it.

Miss Roberts also issued a stinging attack on ‘false and hurtful’ denials of her claims made by Andrew in the tumultuous past three weeks.

She also claimed his police bodyguards left her alone with the Prince the first time he abused her. Buckingham Palace has strenuously rejected claims the Duke had any ‘sexual contact or relationship’ with Miss Roberts.

Last week, Miss Roberts’ lawyers sent by FedEx couriers an unprecedented letter addressed to ‘His Royal Highness The Duke of York’ at Buckingham Palace requesting his ‘voluntary cooperation in answering question about his sexual interactions’ with her.

The letter offered to interview the prince under oath ‘at a time and place of your choosing’. But her lawyers stated: ‘Federal Express has informed us that the letter has been refused by the recipient.’

The latest documents filed at Palm Beach court house in Florida make plain Miss Roberts’s determination to pursue the Prince – who she said ‘I just called “Andy”.’

[GracieGiraffe]

The most interesting part of that letter from counsel is that they plan on new court filings with some more details.

Andrew is in some serious trouble. It is naive to think he is not. Even if he is immune from suit, the damage to his reputation is all but sealed now, and his refusal to speak up voluntarily will cause a lot of people to believe it is Ms.Roberts who is telling the truth.

Not good, not good at all.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by rmay286

I think the same thing as you, that it's likely Andrew did have sex with her. (I didn't think so before, or at least I was less sure.) The real danger in this, IMO, is not that he had sex with her (there's probably no way to prove that he knew she was underage), but that the Palace issued a very specific denial saying that there was no sexual contact between them.

I *think* that Andrew told the Palace the truth and they decided to express the denial this way anyway, believing that no one could ever prove what happened. Not a good idea. This happened in 2001, before cell phone cameras, but still, you never know...

But is it bad that they may have had sex? I mean, being 17 today is different than being 17 back in the day.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by Dman

But is it bad that they may have had sex? I mean, being 17 today is different than being 17 back in the day.

That is a personal moral debate, and I get your point. But in this case it is bad beyond peoples morals. BP denied any sexual contact. THAT is what will be the worst if it comes out they did....

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Dman

But is it bad that they may have had sex? I mean, being 17 today is different than being 17 back in the day.

Even if it was legal, it's positively predatory for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl, unless they have some feelings for each other, and even then it's questionable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "back in the day", but keep in mind this was in 2001.

[Lumutqueen]

The refused letter;

@RE_DailyMail: The Fed-Exed letter that Buckingham Palace refused to accept #PrinceAndrew #JeffreyEpstein http://t.co/NIfrAD74jM

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by hernameispekka

But the "real" problem now is the extent of his knowledge. Did he just think he got lucky with a young woman or did he know more?

I really believe he thought he got lucky!
Andrew has always had a sense of entitlement; it wouldn't surprise me if he sincerely believed women were queuing up to sleep with him because he's royalty.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

Even if it was legal, it's positively predatory for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl, unless they have some feelings for each other, and even then it's questionable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "back in the day", but keep in mind this was in 2001.

For me it's not the mere fact (if it is a fact, and IMO it probably is) of him, at 40, having sex with a 17 year old girl that is a problem, it is the sleazy circumstances in which it seems to have happened.

Originally Posted by Mirabel

I really believe he thought he got lucky!
Andrew has always had a sense of entitlement; it wouldn't surprise me if he sincerely believed women were queuing up to sleep with him because he's royalty.

In which case he really is stupid. Or was stupid. I wonder if he still thinks the same way?

[Princess of Durham]

She is really playing hardball isn't she? Somehow I have to wonder if this is really all about her "just getting the word out". That may be it, but I still think there are big $ signs in her eyes. If this continues on and it is "proven" that Andrew did have sex with her, (though I will always think it is a she said/he said situation) I'm guessing she is looking at book proposals, interviews, TV and films. In no way do I think this is just some innocent little miss who wants people to know how badly she and others were mistreated by Epstein. She is looking at the big picture .... future financial gains for herself. JMO!!!

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

The refused letter;

@RE_DailyMail: The Fed-Exed letter that Buckingham Palace refused to accept #PrinceAndrew #JeffreyEpstein http://t.co/NIfrAD74jM

I love the little threat in the last paragraph!

The plot thickens.

This letter would certainly explain why Andrew would engage a prominent QC. It's the sort of letter that one would only respond to through one's own lawyers.

I find it interesting that the letter does not say that they want to take a sworn statement from him with a view to him being a witness in proposed proceedings against another person; it is couched in terms which suggest to me that they are gunning for him. But what proceedings are they contemplating? What has he done wrong that could result in civil proceedings against him? I thought that he could only be in the firing line for the Federal charges relating to sex trafficking. Over here any criminal proceedings would be instituted by the Crown prosecutor, not a private individual, so it would be the Crown (giggles, inappropriately) that would be seeking him out to take a statement. What is the procedure in the USA?

Originally Posted by Princess of Durham

She is really playing hardball isn't she? Somehow I have to wonder if this is really all about her "just getting the word out". That may be it, but I still think there are big $ signs in her eyes. If this continues on and it is "proven" that Andrew did have sex with her, (though I will always think it is a she said/he said situation) I'm guessing she is looking at book proposals, interviews, TV and films. In no way do I think this is just some innocent little miss who wants people to know how badly she and others were mistreated by Epstein. She is looking at the big picture .... future financial gains for herself. JMO!!!

It seems that if the women are successful in proving their rights in the current case against the US Attroney under the Crime Victims legislation, they would be entitled to "restitution", and I think "restitution" might include money. I don't know how much though.

[tommy100]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

The most interesting part of that letter from counsel is that they plan on new court filings with some more details.

Andrew is in some serious trouble. It is naive to think he is not. Even if he is immune from suit, the damage to his reputation is all but sealed now, and his refusal to speak up voluntarily will cause a lot of people to believe it is Ms.Roberts who is telling the truth.

Not good, not good at all.

To be honest I can't see how he could get away with claiming immunity as he wasn't meeting Epstein as a representative of the British Government but as a private individual. It would be hard for anyone to argue he should get immunity for what he does as a private individual.
Remember (and I know the circumstances are massively different and don't involve another country) that Princess Anne didn't get immunity when she was taken to court over her dog attacking someone.

[cepe]

IMO she is not a "sex slave" (source: British tabloid media) as she received payment for sex (her admission according to UK media).

Her father has retracted statement re "meeting the Queen".

She is promoting her book.

AS I understand it, she was not part of the original case against Epstein but has been asked to be included in the case against the defendant's lawyers (in the case against Epstein) to pleaded too lenient a sentence. Happy to have this challenged if my understanding is wrong.

She has come out of left field and I ask why wasn't she there re the original charge to start with?

It's a mess but even though it is a mess - Andrew has not been charge, has denied allegations and therefore is innocent till PROVEN guilty.

EDIT: Clarity: Andrew is not claiming immunity (he couldn't anyway) - he is saying the allegations are wrong. She is already writing her book!

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I love the little threat in the last paragraph!

The plot thickens.

This letter would certainly explain why Andrew would engage a prominent QC. It's the sort of letter that one would only respond to through one's own lawyers.

I find it interesting that the letter does not say that they want to take a sworn statement from him with a view to him being a witness in proposed proceedings against another person; it is couched in terms which suggest to me that they are gunning for him. But what proceedings are they contemplating? What has he done wrong that could result in civil proceedings against him? I thought that he could only be in the firing line for the Federal charges relating to sex trafficking. Over here any criminal proceedings would be instituted by the Crown prosecutor, not a private individual, so it would be the Crown (giggles, inappropriately) that would be seeking him out to take a statement. What is the procedure in the USA?

Only a prosecutor could bring criminal charges - but if the evidence is clear and they decline, it puts them in a bad light, particularly if we are talking about the sex trafficking of underage girls by Masters of the Universe.

Civil suit - I'm not sure if she can bring a civil suit based on any convictions, if any other civil causes of action are not time-barred, or if the court could even obtain jurisdiction over Andrew.

You're right, the letter is meant to box him into a corner in the he said-she said fight. He can't very well go under oath when it's unclear he might face criminal charges in the future - no lawyer will let him do that. It makes him look extremely bad in the public eye even though there's no way he can do it now, and it makes him look even worse now that the flight logs have been made public.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I'm not defending Andrews behavior, but this thread is starting to look like the comments section in the mail.

[Princess of Durham]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

It seems that if the women are successful in proving their rights in the current case against the US Attroney under the Crime Victims legislation, they would be entitled to "restitution", and I think "restitution" might include money. I don't know how much though.

Ah, there you have it! I think it is more that "might" include money. I think these women are out for big bucks to last them a life time. Let's be honest putting Epstein or god forbid Andrew behind bars will really do nothing for them. It's the $$$$$$$$$ that are the point here, I think.