The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by royal rob

Mmm think your right didn't think of that. Just saw her running around the place wanting people to curtesy. But I think your right


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

For all we know, Epstein could have been her inspiration for starting Not For Sale. 'Nuff bout Fergie though.

I do think this whole thing has opened up a big can of snakes and they're all out to bite. I really don't know that I'd say Andrew was innocent or guilty or did or didn't. Its his private life. He can screw that up all he wants but he's got to know that it will come back to bite him in his public life.

I don't think he'll ever really get his credibility back.

[Queen Camilla]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

This one's interesting. It's from February 2011, and has Roberts saying she is "Jane Doe 102" and says that "There is no suggestion that there was any sexual contact between Virginia and Andrew, or that Andrew knew that Epstein paid her to have sex with his friends". Prince Andrew and girl, 17, who sex offender friend flew to Britain to meet him | Daily Mail Online

A different version from what she is now telling, including:

2011: part-time job as a changing room assistant at Donald Trump’s country club, Mar-a-Lago.
2014: A masseuse at Donald Trump’s country club, Mar-a-Lago.

She met Andrew for the third and final time on Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little Saint James. Virginia was never under the British legal age of consent when she met Andrew. She was 17 during the first two encounters and 18 at the third.

She also states he was training her as a prostitute not a sex slave.

Basically, I was training to be a prostitute for him and his friends who shared his interest in young girls,’ she says: ‘After about two years, he started to ask me to “entertain” his friends.’

Why did she return? She was living with her father and her father drove her to Epstein's house. She should have called the police then and there when she first has sex with Epstein.

Afterwards, she was given two $100 bills and told to return the next day.

[sndral]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

Well, that's one way to see it, but might Fergie have proved too observant?

Are we talking about the same Sarah Ferguson? She's never struck me as particularly observant. More likely he saw no value in knowing her - she had no money, no power and wasn't famous. Her modus operandi is to fawn and gush compliments and Epstein probably saw through the facade and had no interest in letting her freeload on his dime.

The new information that I found interesting:
The statements by the unnamed famous actress - that's 2 victims speaking to the press, will more victims find the courage to speak and will they only name Epstein? If they do speak and don't name Andrew that actually makes it better for him.
The employee's statement that Andrew got daily massages when there.
The manager couple's confirmation of all of the unclothed girls running around & their confirmation that young girls were run into the island without going through customs and that underage girls made it through customs as employees of a modeling agency (corroborating Jane Doe 3's statement.)
The investigators' belief that prosecutors caved to political pressure. Frankly I'm not sure how much influence Andrew would have, others yes - but an aging increasingly marginalized playboy Prince influencing a prosecution in Florida?
What a sordid mess for a member of the Royal family to be caught up in.

[royal rob]

Remember Andrew said he never had sex with that woman NOT I thought she was older so "if" and to me it's still a big "if" there is a photo or video of them he was lying no matter what her age


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[royal rob]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/la...-10010332.html

They are not giving up


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

This one's interesting. It's from February 2011, and has Roberts saying she is "Jane Doe 102" and says that "There is no suggestion that there was any sexual contact between Virginia and Andrew, or that Andrew knew that Epstein paid her to have sex with his friends". Prince Andrew and girl, 17, who sex offender friend flew to Britain to meet him | Daily Mail Online

Well the plot thickens, doesn't it? I seem to recall docs filed about the same time in court which mentions "royalty" being one of the patrons of these girls. Let's see.

Originally Posted by Winnie

I believe the media, politicians, entertainers and multi-millionaires all seem to want this "story" gone. Today there is no Woodward & Bernstein with enough backbone and courage to get to the bottom, no matter what it is, and bring to the public. I don't believe any one judge will have the courage to go against such pressure. Most proof has been eliminated or squashed and deals made behind closed doors. Greed and power at its finest. IMO, nothing will ever properly come to light. All will continue on as they always did. Rank has its privileges.

I think it's outrageous that this is how it's gone down. Utterly outrageous.

[AfricanAUSSIE]

That must be for publicity's sake. Surely they don't expect anything but a hopeful crack in the armour to appear.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by royal rob

Lawyers' second bid to make Prince Andrew testify under oath has failed - UK - News - London Evening Standard

They are not giving up


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I am starting to think that for an innocent man it would have been more sensible to have cooperated with Roberts' attorneys, and under that cooperation agreement they would have had a lot of leverage to set the parameters of the questions. When and if a deposition is ordered by a court, Andrew has far less control of the scope. I think he does need to explain the circumstances surrounding that photo, for example. Right now we have people under oath damning him bit by bit, and nothing from him under oath.

While it remains to be seen what he did, and whether it was criminal, I'm virtually positive there are details of Andrew's relationship with Epstein he would rather not be revealed to the public. Or his mother.

[royal rob]

I agree but don't think it will happen
I think he's been told to just carry on and it will all go away , and it will die down but will pop every now and then.
I've given up thinking these men will be bought to justice. All too powerful
I think the media have lost the will to go find a story and fight to have it known and fight for justice.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

I am starting to think that for an innocent man it would have been more sensible to have cooperated with Roberts' attorneys, and under that cooperation agreement they would have had a lot of leverage to set the parameters of the questions. [...]

Why would an innocent man cooperate with a case in which his name his dropped but where no any complaint was laid down towards him? It is the same as King Juan Carlos not meeting requests for paternity tests: when Elvis was still alive there were plenty of women around whom claimed to have Elvis' "love baby". Imagine that in all these cases Elvis had to cooperate. No way, that is not how Justice works. You claim something, you have to prove it. It is not that Andrew has to defend himself in Court.

[Queen Camilla]

Virginia Roberts 2011 version seems to say she was Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend for 2 years. She expected a life with him sharing his wealth but after 2 years Epstein considered her too old and started asking her to 'pleasure' his rich and famous friends. She went along with this until she met her future husband and walked away from that lifestyle at age 19.

[Roslyn]

I want to see her affidavit filed in the civil proceedings to see whether and how her account varies from the recent affidavit. If she has given different accounts under oath she will be given hell in the witness box, and rightly so. Epstein will have her affidavit from the civil proceedings against him.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Why would an innocent man cooperate with a case in which his name his dropped but where no any complaint was laid down towards him? It is the same as King Juan Carlos not meeting requests for paternity tests: when Elvis was still alive there were plenty of women around whom claimed to have Elvis' "love baby". Imagine that in all these cases Elvis had to cooperate. No way, that is not how Justice works. You claim something, you have to prove it. It is not that Andrew has to defend himself in Court.

The BRF's position depends chiefly upon their reputation - in the court of public opinion Andrew damns himself and possibly his family if he does not come clean.

As for paternity - which is off topic - what man shouldn't cooperate in a paternity proceeding? Is there no moral obligation to acknowledge one's children, and if they are not one's children, then there is closure for everyone?

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

The BRF's position depends chiefly upon their reputation - in the court of public opinion Andrew damns himself and possibly his family if he does not come clean.



As for paternity - which is off topic - what man shouldn't cooperate in a paternity proceeding? Is there no moral obligation to acknowledge one's children, and if they are not one's children, then there is closure for everyone?

And if he hasn't had sex with her he's got nothing to worry about. There won't be any photos etc.



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Zonk]

All posts that reference a sex tape involving Andrew in addition to the legitimacy of the National Enquirer have been deleted.

Please note the following TRF rule

• Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources. The moderators reserve the right to delete posts containing the more fanciful types of gossip and speculation, whether they originate in gossip magazines and websites or are simply fabricated.

Any and all additional posts will be deleted without notice.

Any questions and/or concerns should be addressed to a member of the TRF moderation team via PM.

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

[...]

As for paternity - which is off topic - what man shouldn't cooperate in a paternity proceeding? Is there no moral obligation to acknowledge one's children, and if they are not one's children, then there is closure for everyone?

No one and "moral obligation" does not exist in justice. After all the other parties are also "morally obliged' to tell the truth and not to make fantasy claims. There is also something as autonomy and self-determination. It is not that because Mrs A, Mr B and Mrs C claim to be children of Mr X, that Mr X has to cooperate in case 1, in case 2 and in case 3.

Mrs A, Mr B and Mrs C will have to come up with credible information, which will be assessed first. In the Spanish case the claims of Mrs A and Mr B were already dismissed because lack of substance, lack of factual information, lack of coherence. The case Mrs C is under review and awaiting a formal answer from Mr X.

Remember, there are LOTS of frauds. Ms Anna Anderson claiming to be Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova... Mr Karl Wilhelm Naundorff claiming that he was the son of Louis XVI. There is even a grave for him in Delft, the Netherlands. Only in 1998 it became clear that his DNA had no any match at all with the Habsburgs (the family of "his mother" Marie-Antoinette) and the Bourbons (the family of "his father' Louis XVI).

Look at the tombstone of this proven fraud:

Ici Repose

LOUIS XVII

Charles Louis Duc de Normandie
Roi de France & de Navarre

Né à Versailles le 27 Mars 1785
Décédé à Delft, le 10 Août 1845

Morale of the story: frauds, imposters, swindlers, etc. are of all times. Royals, including Prince Andrew, have every reason to be suspicious about every claim. The cases of Grand Duchess Anastasia (proven fraud) and Louis XVII (proven fraud) show that it is easy to makebelieve the public, even so far that a total stranger was given a tombstone with someone else's name...

[royal rob]

Wow I'm lost whose A again and what did D have to with it.
It's bit like whose on 1st base no whose on second


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Ceallach]

Charles is reportedly not supportive enough of Andrew during his troubled times.

Prince Charles and what he really thinks about Prince Andrew's 'sex slave' scandal | Daily Mail Online

[Curryong]

Even if the Daily Fail has indulged in some accurate reporting for once, why should Charles be supportive of Andrew in his predicament? He has more things to worry about than Andrew's messes, including William's tendency to spend most of his spare time with the non-royal half of his family.

[MARG]

We don't know that Charles is not supporting his brother. After all, we only have the word of Ricky and Geoffy of the Daily Fail fame on which to base this assertion. I think I'll wait and see.