The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Duc_et_Pair]

The problem is that the Duke of York is not charged with any complaint. When the Duke would set up a legal team and formally go to battle against Ms Roberts, this probably is exactly what they want: maximum exposure.

Maybe the Duke and his advisors hope that Epstein, Dershowitz c.s. are able to file statement after statement by Ms Roberts and so deconstruct her whole case and/or credibility.

The paternal accuations against Don Juan Carlos (three of which two are dismissed as frauds and one is still running) show how vulnerable public persons are: anyone can state something and then suddenly it is the other who has to deny it categorically but nonetheless already hanged, crucified and burnt by parts of the public.

[Queen Camilla]

That is why Andrew's team should gather the information and be prepared to go on the attack.

If Virginia Roberts and her attorneys are naming Andrew in hope of shaming him into giving up information on Epstein, or if they are just trying to keep the story in the public until her book is completed, Andrew and his team need to be prepared.

They cannot spread lies about people and expect the people will stay silent.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

Andrew’s attorney should:
1. Get a copy of Virginia Roberts’ birth certificate.
2. Get copies of Virginia’s and her father’s employment records from Donald Trump.
3. Get copies of Virginia’s and her father tax records.
4. Get a copy of her school records.

A. What is her actual age?
B. What date of birth is listed on her employment records with Donald Trump?
C. Did she actually work as a masseuse for Donald Trump and if so, when?
D. What does her father’s tax records show about his dependents?
E. Was her income reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)?
(Even if she worked as a masseuse for Donald Trump or a prostitute for Jeffrey Epstein she had income that was taxable and should have been reported to the IRS either under her father’s tax return or her own.)

Her i’s better be dotted and her t’s crossed.

A good attorney would pounce on any discrepancies.

And I am sure that Andrew's legal team will be doing just this sort of thing. He has engaged a prominent QC with plenty of experience in relevant fields and I am sure that all these enquiries are being made as we speak.

But the fact remains that, regardless of what the media is focusing on, and regardless of what Roberts has said, in sworn or unsworn statements, it is Epstein and not Windsor who is in the firing line. Andrew Windsor is not the defendant in any current criminal matter; he is merely a potential witness.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

What damage has all this done to Andrew's reputation? If he sued, he might end up with only nominal damages.

It's not the money he would be after, it's clearing his name to the extent he can. Point is, he DOES have a legal venue.

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

Andrew’s attorney should:
1. Get a copy of Virginia Roberts’ birth certificate.
2. Get copies of Virginia’s and her father’s employment records from Donald Trump.
3. Get copies of Virginia’s and her father tax records.
4. Get a copy of her school records.

A. What is her actual age?
B. What date of birth is listed on her employment records with Donald Trump?
C. Did she actually work as a masseuse for Donald Trump and if so, when?
D. What does her father’s tax records show about his dependents?
E. Was her income reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)?
(Even if she worked as a masseuse for Donald Trump or a prostitute for Jeffrey Epstein she had income that was taxable and should have been reported to the IRS either under her father’s tax return or her own.)

Her i’s better be dotted and her t’s crossed.

A good attorney would pounce on any discrepancies.

This is why he might want to consider suing for defamation - most of this is not public record, her birth certificate for example. If he sues, he can ask for all of this in discovery from her and subpoena docs on his own.

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

Roslyn,
The media is ignoring Epstein and focusing on Prince Andrew. She and her attorneys have gone public about Andrew. They did not leave the complaint as a private court filing. Her attorneys have sent a letter to Andrew demanding he reply under oath.


QUOTE=Lumutqueen;1742793]The refused letter;
@RE_DailyMail: The Fed-Exed letter that Buckingham Palace refused to accept #PrinceAndrew #JeffreyEpstein http://t.co/NIfrAD74jM

The media is ignoring Epstein but the court most certainly is not.

[Queen Camilla]

She and her attorneys are dragging his name in the mud and he should fight fire with fire.

Staying silent and not fighting back only causes allegations to become truth in millions of gullible minds or billions thanks to the internet.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

It's not the money he would be after, it's clearing his name to the extent he can. Point is, he DOES have a legal venue.

True, but at what cost, and I am not talking about money. I thought he had said he would be taking no action, though who said what about whom is beginning to get all mixed up in my head, which is largely why I am focusing on what has been said in the documents filed in, or issued by, the Court.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

She and her attorneys are dragging his name in the mud and he should fight fire with fire.

Staying silent and not fighting back only causes allegations to become truth in millions of gullible minds or billions thanks to the internet.

I understand what you are saying but there is a reason that the royal family usually does not file defamation suits. A lawsuit can drag on and keep allegations in the news for years.

Regarding whether he had sex with Jane Doe #3, you can choose whom you want to believe. This is a he said/she said situation. The manifests indicate that Andrew and Jane Doe #3 were in the same place at the same time. There is a picture of them together. She probably can't "prove" that they slept together but he can't necessarily "prove" that they didn't.

In addition, there will probably be a lot of testimony about the unsavory "activities" that occurred in the places that Andrew and Jane Doe #3 were together. Andrew probably doesn't want that coming out.

Keep in mind that Andrew has not denied that he tried to influence the prosecutor to give Epstein a lighter sentence. If that happened, there is a paper trail. If he did get involved in the plea bargain, no lawsuit in the world is going to help him clear his name. Reasonable people will suspect he helped Epstein to keep his own activities quiet.

I wouldn't sue if I were him. The best thing to do is to become less visible but continue working for charity. The story will eventually fade away, although it will occasionally flare up again.

[Skippyboo]

The US attorney is a appointed position made by the President. In 2008, the President was George W Bush. Epstein was a big Democratic Party donor. So you would think that if given the opportunity the U.S. Attorney would want him nailed not make a plea.

I don't think a letter of support from Prince Andrew would hold much sway with the Feds.



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

The US attorney is a appointed position made by the President. In 2008, the President was George W Bush. Epstein was a big Democratic Party donor. So you would think that if given the opportunity the U.S. Attorney would want him nailed not make a plea.

I don't think a letter of support from Prince Andrew would hold much sway with the Feds.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I agree with a lot of this although the U.S. Attorneys are generally very reluctant to appear partisan.

I tend to agree with Gracie that the decision not to prosecute more vigorously probably had more to do with the complexities and cost of the prosecution. I don't think a letter from Andrew would have made much difference. But, if there is one, it would look horrible in the court of public opinion.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I agree with a lot of this although the U.S. Attorneys are generally very reluctant to appear partisan.

I tend to agree with Gracie that the decision not to prosecute more vigorously probably had more to do with the complexities and cost of the prosecution. I don't think a letter from Andrew would have made much difference. But, if there is one, it would look horrible in the court of public opinion.

Let's face it, a letter from Andrew meant nothing to the U.S. attorney. But letters and/or a few phone calls from others have.

This evidence will come out, this judge is leaning towards revelation. And even if the prosecutor succeeds on a statute of limitations argument against Roberts, there are two others who want this evidence out, who filed in a more timely manner. Just a matter of time.

The U.S. media is just starting to wake up with the Clinton connection (the conservative bloggers already have. such as P.J. O'Rourke. Once the media picks up on this, this will go on for years in the public eye. Sorry Andy.

I believe BP did in fact deny Andrew's "interference" in a prosecution - will have to go back on the thread.

[Queen Camilla]

The letter* her attorneys had a third party send to Prince Andrew shows that they want to embroil Prince Andrew further in the litigation.

They want a deposition taken without his lawyer present so they can use any information they gain against him or use it in her book. The book will sell more if they include Andrew's deposition. (Note the letter doesn't suggest Andrew should have a lawyer present.) A bit devious on their part.

In the letter, they ask Prince Andrew to describe when the picture was taken and the events that followed.

Virginia Roberts own words stated she asked Prince Andrew to pose with her so she could show her mother she met royalty. She stated they did not have sex that day.

Virginia Roberts' lawyers are clearly baiting Andrew to see if he would bit. Smart move sending the letter back unopened.

*Lumutqueen posted on page 47. I reposted on page 55.

[sndral]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

Let's face it, a letter from Andrew meant nothing to the U.S. attorney. But letters and/or a few phone calls from others have.

This evidence will come out, this judge is leaning towards revelation. And even if the prosecutor succeeds on a statute of limitations argument against Roberts, there are two others who want this evidence out, who filed in a more timely manner. Just a matter of time.

The U.S. media is just starting to wake up with the Clinton connection (the conservative bloggers already have. such as P.J. O'Rourke. Once the media picks up on this, this will go on for years in the public eye. Sorry Andy.

I believe BP did in fact deny Andrew's "interference" in a prosecution - will have to go back on the thread.

Yes, I expect the whole 'Clinton connection' and thus the story and Andrew's role in it all will stay in the news here in the U.S. as long as Bill's wife Hillary is perceived as a presidential candidate in the next election. And even though Jane Doe 3 has specifically denied having sex with Bill Clinton, given his history there will be those who believe that even if he didn't do anything with her he probably did with other Jane Does.

[Princess of Durham]

Originally Posted by sndral

Yes, I expect the whole 'Clinton connection' and thus the story and Andrew's role in it all will stay in the news here in the U.S. as long as Bill's wife Hillary is perceived as a presidential candidate in the next election. And even though Jane Doe 3 has specifically denied having sex with Bill Clinton, given his history there will be those who believe that even if he didn't do anything with her he probably did with other Jane Does.

Interesting that you bring up the possibility of Hilary Clinton's possible presidential candidacy ... there may all sorts of political reasons being brought into play with this issue. I'm not a conspiracy theorist however, stranger things/reasons have come into play in the past. After all Monica Lewinsky has also reared her head recently. Who knows what the real interest is in this. Politics is a nasty business and those involved don't really care who gets thrown into the mix. I hope it is not that because it would be another case of these women being used by more powerful people.

[ladongas]

Karl Rove, anyone?

[Meadow]

If Andrew goes after her simply brings this matter to even more scrutiny. It also would look very bad going after a victim of sexual slavery. Andrew can not prove he didn't have sex with her and she would go on record in a lot more detail then we have now. It would open up an even bigger can of worms. She has proven he was around in places she was, the picture and yes I think Andrews name is being dropped to get maximum coverage. How can you blame her? It seems pretty clear people wanted this swept quietly under the carpet now the public know about it, it's going to be harder to do any backroom deals. The Judge knows he is being watched and really the plea deal was a farce the fact the victims weren't asked about it etc seems to point to some wrong doing on their part. Even if Jane Doe 3 and 4 don't get included we still have 1 and 2 and so far we haven't read any of their claims. What if they come out claiming to have slept with Andrew too? Andrew went to parties and vacations with Epstein over a number of years who said other girls didn't massage him? You lay down with dogs you get up with fleas Andrew has no one to blame but himself. He has very bad taste in friends and it isn't just Epstein. He needs to keep a low profile and I don't remember BP saying a word about Andrew supporting or not supporting Epstein in his plea deal. They have been very careful with what they have said and the Judge is leaning towards making all the papers of the deal public he may not have had much influence but supporting a man charged with those sorts of charges and knowing there were 40 victims shows not just a lack of judgement but Andrews morales come into question. If he thinks what Epstein did was ok it will simply make people wonder if these claims are true. It's going to be a long year for Andrew as it seems more and more will come out but in dribs and drabs.

[royal rob]

Yes Meadow it will be a long year and it will never ever go away. I'm sure he would have hoped he had heard the last of his friendship with Epstein years ago but these things never really finish.
I hope other members of the RF learn from this and choice their friends more wisely , thinking of Harry here.
It would be hard to get friends that you could trust but a couple of really decent friends are better than a dozen of hanger-ons only to happy to let people take nude photos etc
Really hope we never have a royal go down this path again


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Roslyn]

I can't see Royals who are included to get up to mischief suddenly stopping the sort of behaviour that has been going on, among some members of the Royal Family, for centuries. The only difference is modern technology. Today we have camera phones and powerful zoom lenses and remote recording devices and phone tapping that can catch them, and the internet and social media with which to instantly broadcast images of the Royals misbehaving across the globe. And this sort of technology is in the hands of millions of ordinary people, not just big corporations or the government. Can you imagine the sorts of things Edward VII, or Edward VIII or his brother Prince George, Duke of Kent, or Dickie Mountbatten, might have been caught doing if that sort of technology had been available in their day?

The British Royals are only human, and not necessarily particularly intelligent or smart humans. When it comes to their personal lives they are just as likely to have foibles and urges as anyone else, and just as likely to yield to them, or stuff up generally, but today they can't rely on the protections that they had in the past to keep those indiscretions secret. They don't have the power they once did, and they are not revered by most people merely because they are Royal. They are vulnerable, and in fact more vulnerable than the rest of us because the public expects a higher standard of behaviour from them so when they fall, they fall from a greater height.

[Princess of Durham]

I am sure that Andrew's lawyers are going about their business. At the same time so is Alan Dershowitz and he will get down an dirty.So IMO, Andrew should just lay low and see what transpires and NOT respond to Roberts or her lawyers. I say let Dershowitz take care of them, he will be no holds barred and may do a lot of discrediting so that Andrew and his lawyers may not have to get openly involved with.

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I can't see Royals who are included to get up to mischief suddenly stopping the sort of behaviour that has been going on, among some members of the Royal Family, for centuries. The only difference is modern technology. Today we have camera phones and powerful zoom lenses and remote recording devices and phone tapping that can catch them, and the internet and social media with which to instantly broadcast images of the Royals misbehaving across the globe. And this sort of technology is in the hands of millions of ordinary people, not just big corporations or the government. Can you imagine the sorts of things Edward VII, or Edward VIII or his brother Prince George, Duke of Kent, or Dickie Mountbatten, might have been caught doing if that sort of technology had been available in their day?

The British Royals are only human, and not necessarily particularly intelligent or smart humans. When it comes to their personal lives they are just as likely to have foibles and urges as anyone else, and just as likely to yield to them, or stuff up generally, but today they can't rely on the protections that they had in the past to keep those indiscretions secret. They don't have the power they once did, and they are not revered by most people merely because they are Royal. They are vulnerable, and in fact more vulnerable than the rest of us because the public expects a higher standard of behaviour from them so when they fall, they fall from a greater height.

You say we expect a higher standard of behavior then the general public ??? Sorry but I wouldn't expect Andrews behavior from anyone so no more because he's royal but yes we will know more about it.
All the more reason to watch what you do if your royal.
Do I feel sorry for them ? No




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[tommy100]

Prince Andrew's Ex Fergie Duchess of York could prove alibi over sex slave orgy claims | Royal | News | Daily Express

While Prince Andrew has denied any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts, his former wife could hold the key to rebutting one of his accuser's most lurid allegations.

Roberts has claimed she had sex three times with Andrew in 2001, including during a group sex session with eight other girls at Jeffrey Epstein's home in the Virgin Islands.

Fights logs from billionaire paedophile show that Roberts was flown to the Virgin Islands in Easter 2001.

Around the same time Andrew was holidaying with Fergie and daughters Beatrice and Eugenie in the Bahamas, a 90-minute flight away.

Buckingham Palace has refused to give any details of Andrew's movements over that period, leading to speculation that he may have jetted over to the Virgin Islands.

Yet if Fergie could prove her husband was with her the entire time it would shatter a key plank of Roberts's allegations.


This just makes me thing Andrew must have been with Epstein and Roberts at the time or, surely by now, Fergie would have said it couldn't be true?!?