The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The black book has been opened . There are 16 numbers for Andrew with palace landlines and 18 for Fergie.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lack-book-including-Jagger-Blair-Branson.html

Why do you need that many phone numbers? As for the people in the book they are probably talking to their lawyers and crisis management teams right now.

I was thinking the same thing. Even for a friend, that many numbers is excessive. You don't need nearly 20 numbers per person, unless Andrew and Sarah are both incredibly prone to smashing phones...
 
Why do you need that many phone numbers?

For famous/rich/high profile people I'd expect a batch of numbers:
* Multiple landlines for multiple residences
* Mobile phone numbers that change to avoid hackers
* Phone numbers of various staff
 
I would also think that if Epstein knew these people over a long period of time, its possible that some of the numbers are no longer in service due to moving, change of cell phone providers, change of employment/business offices and other multiple reasons why people change their phone numbers or acquire new ones.

That must be some hefty "little black book" he had there. :D
 
...
We'll just have to wait and see what develops as far as Andrew is concerned with the ongoing investigation of Epstein's lifestyle. Its my understanding that they're going to be going after anyone that had aided and abetted Epstein in his crimes. Those that were "friends" and perhaps had contact with some of the girls, I believe would have to be sued by the girls themselves in civil court. I believe Andrew would fall into the latter category. He may have to answer some questions or he may not. As I said, we'll see what develops. ?

What would have to happen is that there is evidence found that shows Andrew's involvement with girls that removes any reasonable doubt that it happened. Allegations at this point, made by any of the girls, will be looked at as "he said/did, she said/did" and without evidence, its pure hearsay. Who knows though what Epstein has locked away as "collateral" against his "friends".

I do have to admit that I had to cringe at Epstein's taste in art in his Manhattan townhouse and although it may have been done as a joke or as something silly, I bet Bill Clinton isn't overly amused right now by it. Not one little bit amused. :whistling:

https://nypost.com/2019/08/14/epste...-of-bill-clinton-in-dress-heels-in-townhouse/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What would have to happen is that there is evidence found that shows Andrew's involvement with girls that removes any reasonable doubt that it happened. Allegations at this point, made by any of the girls, will be looked at as "he said/did, she said/did" and without evidence, its pure hearsay. Who knows though what Epstein has locked away as "collateral" against his "friends".

I do have to admit that I had to cringe at Epstein's taste in art in his Manhattan townhouse and although it may have been done as a joke or as something silly, I bet Bill Clinton isn't overly amused right now by it. Not one little bit amused. :whistling:

https://nypost.com/2019/08/14/epste...-of-bill-clinton-in-dress-heels-in-townhouse/
The New York post is a tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch, an Australian who started the whole thing
 
Ahhhh... thanks! Shows you what I know about what NY papers are reputable or not doesn't it. ?
 
This whole Andrew and Epstein connection is major and extremely serious royal scandal that will (sadly) rock the House of Windsor. Although you wouldn’t be able to tell with the lack of outrage. Recently, I’ve seen more outrage and focus on made up bogus things, but not so much on this situation.
 
Last edited:
Allegations, rumors, hearsay and the like do not a scandal make. If evidence is provided that Andrew, indeed, has dirt on his hands, then it will be time to start the outrage and see how it affects the House of Windsor and Andrew himself.

As of now, Andrew has denied all the allegations against him. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. ?
 
Allegations, rumors, hearsay and the like do not a scandal make. If evidence is provided that Andrew, indeed, has dirt on his hands, then it will be time to start the outrage and see how it affects the House of Windsor and Andrew himself.

As of now, Andrew has denied all the allegations against him. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. ?

Yeah, but this is a major situation involving a senior member of the royal family, Osipi. I mean, Breaking News, serious. Much more serious than the stuff folks have been pretending to be outraged about. We’re talking about major sex crimes with girls who were underage at the time and was treated as sex slaves for very powerful people. The lack of outrage and the sounds of crickets on the royal front is appalling. There’s pictures out there, too.
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree with you, Dman, on this. I've seen the picture of Virginia with Andrew and it doesn't in the least show any signs of anything "sleazy" going on there. You can find that kind of pose in a million selfies or photos of people whether royal, celebrity or just ordinary people and even with pets.

How can it be a major situation if we don't have a clue just how majorly involved Andrew even was with Epstein's girls? We just don't know and to my knowledge, up until now, there's not been a shred of concrete evidence or a case levied against Andrew. If any of that ever happens, let me know if I missed it and I'll join you in stating its a major scandal.

The investigation that is ongoing now is looking to perhaps indict co-conspirators and buddies and pals that aided and abetted in the actual sex trafficking charges and there's been no mention that Andrew ever had anything to do with that at all. They're trying to track down those that were at the top of the pyramid in this ring of perversion.

I'll stick to the adage that was misattributed to Jack Webb, star of the old Dragnet series. "Just the facts, ma'am."
 
I have to disagree with you, Dman, on this. I've seen the picture of Virginia with Andrew and it doesn't in the least show any signs of anything "sleazy" going on there. You can find that kind of pose in a million selfies or photos of people whether royal, celebrity or just ordinary people and even with pets.

How can it be a major situation if we don't have a clue just how majorly involved Andrew even was with Epstein's girls? We just don't know and to my knowledge, up until now, there's not been a shred of concrete evidence or a case levied against Andrew. If any of that ever happens, let me know if I missed it and I'll join you in stating its a major scandal.

The investigation that is ongoing now is looking to perhaps indict co-conspirators and buddies and pals that aided and abetted in the actual sex trafficking charges and there's been no mention that Andrew ever had anything to do with that at all. They're trying to track down those that were at the top of the pyramid in this ring of perversion.

I'll stick to the adage that was misattributed to Jack Webb, star of the old Dragnet series. "Just the facts, ma'am."

I’m sure more evidence will come out and the ladies stories need to be heard. The very fact that Andrew is named in the files and is accused of having sex with an underaged girl is pretty big. Also, the man remained friends with Epstein after everything and was publicly seen with him is appalling enough. Again, we’ve seen more outrage over bogus stuff on the royal front than we’ve seen with Andrew’s situation. C’mon now! This is bad, and, by the looks of it, potentially it’s going to get worse.

Then to have The Queen and Andrew in the car showing all their teeth as this story take off and after Epstein’s mysterious death. That totally rubbed me the wrong way.
 
I'm going to hold off being part of an outraged mass of people pointing fingers at Andrew until I see incontrovertible proof that a jury could use to declare Andrew guilty of sex with a minor.

What we "see" isn't always the full picture. The puzzle is still being put together. Until then, it seems like the BRF is keeping calm and carrying on with their lives.
 
Allegations, rumors, hearsay and the like do not a scandal make. If evidence is provided that Andrew, indeed, has dirt on his hands, then it will be time to start the outrage and see how it affects the House of Windsor and Andrew himself.

As of now, Andrew has denied all the allegations against him. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. ?

Do you think he's going to admit to anything??
 
Do you think he's going to admit to anything??

To be absolutely honest, I'd say he'd only admit to anything if he absolutely and positively had to because there is incontrovertible evidence against him that would make denying he was involved sound like Andrew had lost all sense of reality. And no, I don't see Andrew getting off on an temporary insanity plea either. :D
 
Several overly speculative posts have been removed. Let's try and stick to what is known, and focus it on Andrew's connection to the scandal.
 
You were expecting him to admit openly to groping a minor?


Both Charles and Andrew have shown a lover's profile that is typical for the sons of very strong and impressive mothers: they prefer to date older women Charles with Camilla, Andrew with Koo Stark and then Sarah Ferguson. Both have been able to keep their relationships alive with these ladies over decades.

Koo Stark for example said this about Andrew: "Prince Andrew is a dear friend of mine and godfather to my daughter. I’ve only known him to be honourable and honest, with Christian values."
She clearly dismisses all allegations that he was having sex with underaged girls, saying that this is not how he is as a man.

(Source:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-account-affair-defend-sex-slave-claims.html)


And that was after we first heard the same things we are hearing now.

My impression is that we might not know all there is about Andrew's acquaintance with Epstein, but we know enough of his official relationships to see that he has none of the "typical" character traits of pedophile.
To meet young ladies at a billionaire's home is something that happens in a lot of houses as money and a certain lifestyle including fast cars, yachts and travels is something a lot of young girls crave and they flock to those who give them access. That doesn't mean all guests in that house had to sleep with these girls. And honestly: the difference between 17 and 19 is not sooo big as to immediately spot it, especially when the girls are dressed like the daughters of the house or grown-ups.



So it's nothing new but the rechewing of an old "scandal" that never really was one by the tabloids.

 
Unfortunately, this is the problem that victims of sexual assault always have, and why it is so risky to come forward at all. As women, or children, their word is very seldom enough to convince some people that they have been assaulted. A powerful man always has more credibility in some people's eyes than any number of women, and men who prey on women and children depend on that to get away with it.

I have no idea what Andrew's involvement with Epstein consisted of, but the fact that he's a member of the BRF doesn't automatically give him a pass, as far as I am concerned, and I am hoping that if he is culpable, he isn't protected from consequences just because he is a royal.

Edited to add:

Just so it is clear where I am coming from, a long time ago I volunteered at a sexual assault crisis center, and have also worked with children who have been sexually assaulted. A recurring theme is the lack of belief they encounter, the questioning of their motives, and the fact that many people seem to have a hard time accepting that the public face a predator shows is not the face that is shown to his victims. "But he seemed like such a nice guy!"
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, this is the problem that victims of sexual assault always have, and why it is so risky to come forward at all. As women, or children, their word is very seldom enough to convince some people that they have been assaulted. A powerful man always has more credibility in some people's eyes than any number of women, and men who prey on women and children depend on that to get away with it.

I have no idea what Andrew's involvement with Epstein consisted of, but the fact that he's a member of the BRF doesn't automatically give him a pass, as far as I am concerned, and I am hoping that if he is culpable, he isn't protected from consequences just because he is a royal.

That’s true indeed. I respect due process, but, in cases like this, powerful people with money and high connections usually get the upper hand. This whole thing is extremely devastating and I hope these women get every piece of Justice they deserve.
 
Last edited:
No he doesn't get an automatic pass, but he doesn't get an automatic "guilty" either.

We still know no more than we did a decade ago. Should he be changed, convicted and sentenced I will be as irate and disgusted as anyone else.

Andrew was convicted and vilified in the court of public opinion and on the forums a decade ago. Forgive me if I fail the pearl clutching this time round. I'll pass on the pubic lynching and wait for a criminal court case.
 
All speculation but my two cents:

I think its unlikely Andrew had sex with anyone underage, or tbh sex with anyone at such a party/gathering. He is clearly stupid but I don't think he is that stupid. I would assume at the time that infamous pic was taken Andrew was (hopefully unaware) of Epstein's predilection for underage girls. In the 2000s Andrew apparently invited Esptein to Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral as well as regular visits to his own house. Charles is said to have been unhappy with Andrew throwing the doors of the royal residences to Andrew's seedy friends.

He did meet Epstein (in 2011) even after his 2008 conviction for "procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18". That should have been an absolute flashing screeching alarm to never go near him again, to completely cut him self off from Epstein an build the strongest tallest wall to keep anything Epstein related away. What does Andrew do - goes off and meets him in a public park in NY. IMO once the 2008 conviction is out there enough is enough, any further interaction/link with Epstein is immoral at the very least.

Not only that but around 2010/11 Epstein apparently was asked by Andrew to help pay of some of Sarah's debts to prevent her from being declared bankrupt. Epstein paid her former PA £15,000. Because of course you would go and ask a convicted sex offender for money wouldn't you.

If Andrew was close enough to Epstein to visit him after his 2008 conviction they are obviously much closer than acquaintances. I know plenty of people, many I would even call friends, who after such a conviction I would have no issue never speaking to never mind see again.

I find it interesting that BP's statement on the scandal is "It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.” What a remarkably specific statement, so he didn't have sexual contact with Roberts, but did he with someone else? Why such a specific denial.

Even if Andrew didn't engage in sex with underage girls, I do think he has plenty to answer for and be ashamed of. I hope Philip did arrive early at Balmoral to chase Sarah away and give Andrew a right royal dressing down. I certainly think he is more likely to be tough on him than HM, Philip also perhaps has the benefit of being away from the royals more, staying at Wood Farm perhaps has helped him see this more from out point of view rather than that of "inside the bunker". I hope when Charles becomes King he kicks Andrew into shape, making it clear to follow the rules or accept the consequences.
 
Unfortunately, this is the problem that victims of sexual assault always have, and why it is so risky to come forward at all. As women, or children, their word is very seldom enough to convince some people that they have been assaulted. A powerful man always has more credibility in some people's eyes than any number of women, and men who prey on women and children depend on that to get away with it.

I have no idea what Andrew's involvement with Epstein consisted of, but the fact that he's a member of the BRF doesn't automatically give him a pass, as far as I am concerned, and I am hoping that if he is culpable, he isn't protected from consequences just because he is a royal.

Edited to add:

Just so it is clear where I am coming from, a long time ago I volunteered at a sexual assault crisis center, and have also worked with children who have been sexually assaulted. A recurring theme is the lack of belief they encounter, the questioning of their motives, and the fact that many people seem to have a hard time accepting that the public face a predator shows is not the face that is shown to his victims. "But he seemed like such a nice guy!"

Agreed Ista. I know this first hand, and also from working with survivors of sexual violence myself as a volunteer. Andrew has been accused by two women now who were in their teens when they said the abuse happened. It doesn't matter if he has daughters, it doesn't matter if he treats his exes or the other women in his life well. It. Doesn't.Matter. None of these things make you less likely to be an abuser. Andrew was more than mere "acquaintances" with Epstein. They were close friends, as a good deal of the reporting has born out. And Andrew was both dumb enough and close enough to him to spend time with his after the conviction came out regardless of the accusations. I believe the two survivors who have come forward, but even if I did not, there is no universe where one can credibly claim that Andrew had no idea of Epstein's....preferences and predation. We have photographic evidence of him with one of his accusers clearly showing that no matter what happened, underage girls were around when he was with Epstein.

I have actively avoided a lot of royal watching spaces recently because the excuses trotted out for Andrew have made me physically ill. It shows that there is still a lot of work to do to get people to understand sexual violence and to commit to holding perpetrators accountable.
 
Last edited:
All speculation but my two cents:

I think its unlikely Andrew had sex with anyone underage, or tbh sex with anyone at such a party/gathering. He is clearly stupid but I don't think he is that stupid. I
He did meet Epstein (in 2011) even after his 2008 conviction for "procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18". That should have been an absolute flashing screeching alarm to never go near him again, to completely cut him self off from Epstein an build the strongest tallest wall to keep anything Epstein related away. What does Andrew do - goes off and meets him in a public park in NY. IMO once the 2008 conviction is out there enough is enough, any further interaction/link with Epstein is immoral at the very least.

Not only that but around 2010/11 Epstein apparently was asked by Andrew to help pay of some of Sarah's debts to prevent her from being declared bankrupt. Epstein paid her former PA £15,000. Because of course you would go and ask a convicted sex offender for money wouldn't you.

If Andrew was close enough to Epstein to visit him after his 2008 conviction they are obviously much closer than acquaintances. I know plenty of people, many I would even call friends, who after such a conviction I would have no issue never speaking to never mind see again.

I find it interesting that BP's statement on the scandal is "It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.” What a remarkably specific statement, so he didn't have sexual contact with Roberts, but did he with someone else? Why such a specific denial.

Even if Andrew didn't engage in sex with underage girls, I do think he has plenty to answer for and be ashamed of. I hope Philip did arrive early at Balmoral to chase Sarah away and give Andrew a right royal dressing down. I certainly think he is more likely to be tough on him than HM, Philip also perhaps has the benefit of being away from the royals more, staying at Wood Farm perhaps has helped him see this more from out point of view rather than that of "inside the bunker". I hope when Charles becomes King he kicks Andrew into shape, making it clear to follow the rules or accept the consequences.

I don't believe he had sex with underage girls.. but he knew that Epstein did procure underage girls.... and he went on seeing him. He should have distanced himself... I think that ANdrew does hang around with people who are rich.. because he likes money. But someone who is convicted of such a horrible crime is not a fit associate for a royal
 
Rena M. here in the forums had this photo in her post:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...roversy-2010-2019-a-30333-92.html#post2245757

And I can not make it going away. It looks like this here, Mr. Burns from the Simspons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mr_Burns.png

Prince Andrew back then met the already convicted sex offender Epstein like a friend:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/173D/production/_107794950_025261369.jpg

And now Prince Andrew mimics the bad/evil Mr. Burns from the Simpsons Show at the same time, Mr. Epstein dies an untimely death? What is going on there? This behaviour is at least as teenager-esque wannabe-mighty, as one could expect, considered what is claimed about Prince Andrew: That he is very much into Teenagers. That much, that he fell into a trap.

Randy Andy...
 
Both Charles and Andrew have shown a lover's profile that is typical for the sons of very strong and impressive mothers: they prefer to date older women
You can't call Sarah older woman! She is the same age as Andrew.
It is also important to remember that during his marriage to Sarah, Andrew was never at home and Sarah was driven to having affairs. The couple saw each other for a mere 40 days a year for the first five years.
 
Rena M. here in the forums had this photo in her post:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...roversy-2010-2019-a-30333-92.html#post2245757

And I can not make it going away. It looks like this here, Mr. Burns from the Simspons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mr_Burns.png

Prince Andrew back then met the already convicted sex offender Epstein like a friend:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/173D/production/_107794950_025261369.jpg

And now Prince Andrew mimics the bad/evil Mr. Burns from the Simpsons Show at the same time, Mr. Epstein dies an untimely death? What is going on there? This behaviour is at least as teenager-esque wannabe-mighty, as one could expect, considered what is claimed about Prince Andrew: That he is very much into Teenagers. That much, that he fell into a trap.

Randy Andy...

That is an awful lot of speculation and projection. I really doubt that Andrew was smiling about Epstein's death especially while going to church with his mother!
 
What people believe about the guilt or innocence of anyone accused is irrelevant IMO because none of us here has all the facts. Justice is served when all evidence is presented honestly without fear of death threats or the repercussions of powerful people. This case is already a mess of corruption and it's going to become even messier as more people come forward with accusations, witness reports, background information and more evidence as it's discovered in Epstein's homes.

Particular scrutiny should be paid to those people who continued to associate with Epstein after he was a convicted sex offender. Why would anyone do that? Huge questions need to be raised about this, particularly re: Prince Andrew who was working on behalf of British business at the time.

My main focus overall is wanting to see a transparent & rigorous investigation resulting in justice for all concerned. However, based on previous corrupt practice that has protected the wealthy & powerful, I'm not entirely confident this will happen.
 
Andrew should not have dragged his mother into the story just in order to excuse himself and in doing so he implicates himself. If innocent, he wouldnt feel the need to rush up to Balmoral to escape the consequences of consosring with shady people. In the limousine, he conceals his history behind his mother's overwheming glory. The queen is implicated indirectly in justifying unethical behaviour.
 
Andrew should not have dragged his mother into the story just in order to excuse himself and in doing so he implicates himself. If innocent, he wouldnt feel the need to rush up to Balmoral to escape the consequences of consosring with shady people. In the limousine, he conceals his history behind his mother's overwheming glory. The queen is implicated indirectly in justifying unethical behaviour.

What!

Andrew did not "drag his mother into the story." Andrew was visiting Balmoral-exactly the same as he is every other year-to spend his daughter's birthday with his family, including his mother. He escorted his mother to church - as he often does other times he visits Balmoral. Nothing nefarious, or unusual here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom