The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Rudolph]

If this was just about some random 17 year old girl Andrew met in a bar and had sex with it wouldn't be as big a deal. Although a 40 year old man having sex with a teenage girl is disgusting IMO.

The reason this story is scandalous is because of the back story and sleaze factor involved.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

If this was just about some random 17 year old girl Andrew met in a bar and had sex with it wouldn't be as big a deal. Although a 40 year old man having sex with a teenage girl is disgusting IMO.

The reason this story is scandalous is because of the back story and sleaze factor involved.

Exactly. If that had been the case it would have been icky at most. Now it's possibly illegal (transporting for sex, conspiration etc). And the amount of important people in this. It gives me the creeps....

[AdmirerUS]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

If this was just about some random 17 year old girl Andrew met in a bar and had sex with it wouldn't be as big a deal. Although a 40 year old man having sex with a teenage girl is disgusting IMO.

The reason this story is scandalous is because of the back story and sleaze factor involved.

Well, for me Rudolf, if it was at all coerced and/or part of a sex for favors strategy it would remain a HUGE deal. It's in fact illegal in states in the US where he did this. If Epstein had offered my 17 year old self to anyone for euphemistic massages, I hope I would have had the brains to kick him hard in the groin and then head to the police.

Underage pimping/underage sex remains acceptable becasue we find it "disgusting" rather than prosecutable. IMHO.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

Well, for me Rudolf, if it was at all coerced and/or part of a sex for favors strategy it would remain a HUGE deal. It's in fact illegal in states in the US where he did this. If Epstein had offered my 17 year old self to anyone for euphemistic massages, I hope I would have had the brains to kick him hard in the groin and then head to the police.

Underage pimping/underage sex remains acceptable becasue we find it "disgusting" rather than prosecutable. IMHO.

I agree. But Rudolph wrote "If this was just about some random 17 year old girl Andrew met in a bar and had sex with" and that would in no way be illegal. Just morally disgusting.

[Lady Nimue]

For me, knowing my wild youth I reserve judgement until all the facts are in.

Where i experience unambiguous outrage, is with the existence of video-tapes.

[Mermaid1962]

The article says that Virginia Roberts believes there are video tapes, not that there definitely are. However, if there are, they will eventually make it into the public domain--whether as part of a court action or as a leak.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

Well, for me Rudolf, if it was at all coerced and/or part of a sex for favors strategy it would remain a HUGE deal. It's in fact illegal in states in the US where he did this. If Epstein had offered my 17 year old self to anyone for euphemistic massages, I hope I would have had the brains to kick him hard in the groin and then head to the police.

Underage pimping/underage sex remains acceptable becasue we find it "disgusting" rather than prosecutable. IMHO.

I think - I hope - what Rudolf is saying is iif[/i] the issue was just that Andrew had had sex with Virginia Roberts when she was 17 then no laws would have been broken, as in the 3 places that she claims to have had sex with Andrew she would have been at or above the legal age of consent at the time.

However, the case isn't that simple. Assuming that they did in fact have sex, Andrew didn't commit statutory rape as Virginia was of the age of consent. However, if Virginia was coerced into having sex with Andrew by either Andrew himself or Jeffrey Epstein then she was taped - I'm not going to claim to know the subtleties of the law on this issue, but I would think that if the sex happened and it happened because Jeffrey Epstein coerced her into having sex with Andrew then at a best, Andrew is at best an unknowing participating in a rape. And that's assuming that Andrew didn't realize that Virginia was being coerced.

It's worse than that though, as Virginia was taken across state and federal lines for the purpose of having sex with much older men. I don't buy into the accusations of kidnapping that have been made in this instance as it seems that Virginia's father was aware of her travels and had consented to them, but taking a person who is under the age of consent in one state into a state where she is of the age of consent then having sex with her doesn't seem all that legal.

Then there's the issue of the fact that Epstein was paying these girls - which doesn't make it any less of a rape, as paying her doesn't mean she's consenting, but it does make it prostitution. If you take a girl below the age of consent out of one state and into another where she's older than the age of consent, then force her to have sex with another man, then pay her, you're a man who is orchestrating the rape and prostitution of a minor. And if you're the guy who has sex with her, even assuming that you didn't know she was a minor who was being coerced and paid you're still an accessory. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how ignorant Andrew was, if he had sex with Virginia he's involved in rape and prostitution.

[Curryong]

This thing is going to go on for months, probably years and is doing the royal family's reputation no good whatsoever. I hope Andrew falls on his sword for the good of 'the Firm' and decides to retire into private life. It's a forlorn hope because Andrew has a thick skin, but at the very least I hope he's not seen representing the Queen anywhere for the next few months.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Curryong

This thing is going to go on for months, probably years and is doing the royal family's reputation no good whatsoever. I hope Andrew falls on his sword for the good of 'the Firm' and decides to retire into private life. It's a forlorn hope because Andrew has a thick skin, but at the very least I hope he's not seen representing the Queen anywhere for the next few months.

What will be interesting is the public appearances and other events we normally see the BRF at in the coming months - going to church at Easter, Queen's birthday, Trouping of the Colour, Ascot, etc, etc.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

For me, knowing my wild youth I reserve judgement until all the facts are in.

Where i experience unambiguous outrage, is with the existence of video-tapes.

Agree with you on both counts. Sex tapes, whether unknowing or staged, are just voyeurism for sale for needy viewers.
Consent Personal sex life is just that, personal.

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

What will be interesting is the public appearances and other events we normally see the BRF at in the coming months - going to church at Easter, Queen's birthday, Trouping of the Colour, Ascot, etc, etc.

It won't be any different TBRF just carry on as usual


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I just saw a piece on TV about video etc. I was in a medical waiting so didn't hear a lot but it will be interesting if it's on the news tonight.
Or if they treat it as a fluff piece for day TV


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

For me, knowing my wild youth I reserve judgement until all the facts are in.

Where i experience unambiguous outrage, is with the existence of video-tapes.

I thought these mythological tapes had materialised and the court action moved from civil to criminal. But now I find they haven't and it isn't, and Curryong is urging Andew to fall on his sword.

Why would or should he. Apart from the posturing and interviews given by those who have bought a civil suit against Jeffery Epstein, it seems to me as though there has been absolutely no credible indictable evidence agains either Mr Dershowitz or Prince Andrew for anything. Essentially things are still as they were when the civil suit was filed in the last week of 2014.

For myself, I find it hard to believe that the FBI is so corrupt as to have video tapes of criminal acts and are suppressing them. It makes no sense to me that any agent of the FBI would not have pounced on these "tapes" and launched a career changing Federal Case against all those that Virginia Roberts says are on them. But this is the same Virginia Roberts who claimed to have been introduced to HM Queen Elizabeth II, so . . . .

[Meadow]

Seriously? The FBI could easly surpress tapes if they had political leaders etc in them you don't find it odd how little coverage this story has had in the US? I don't think it's an accident it isn't being covered people in high places tend to have friends in high places and just about anyone can be bought. I have a feeling we aren't getting the full story some things won't come out ahead of time and will be left for the court they can show there full hand right away and let's not forget there are three other girls whose statements haven't been made public we have no idea what is in them. This story won't be going away anytime soon and I just have a feeling the other shoe is going to drop and it won't be good for anyone.

[Mermaid1962]

Even if the FBI had tapes, would they have to release information about them? Doesn't that come up in discovery, when the lawyers meet to go over the evidence? And that doesn't happen unless there's an arrest and the person's formally arraigned? I can't see the authorities saying they have evidence unless someone's formally charged.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Meadow

Seriously? The FBI could easly surpress tapes if they had political leaders etc in them you don't find it odd how little coverage this story has had in the US? I don't think it's an accident it isn't being covered people in high places tend to have friends in high places and just about anyone can be bought. I have a feeling we aren't getting the full story some things won't come out ahead of time and will be left for the court they can show there full hand right away and let's not forget there are three other girls whose statements haven't been made public we have no idea what is in them. This story won't be going away anytime soon and I just have a feeling the other shoe is going to drop and it won't be good for anyone.

I sure do agree with you. FBI has suppressed a few big stories in the past {for the good of the country} and will continue to do so if instructed by political leaders and their moneyed friends. Gullible to think differently. No one is going to rock this boat as they will be destroyed. Big money politics, in all countries, is an evil thing as they want the power to control.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

Even if the FBI had tapes, would they have to release information about them? Doesn't that come up in discovery, when the lawyers meet to go over the evidence? And that doesn't happen unless there's an arrest and the person's formally arraigned? I can't see the authorities saying they have evidence unless someone's formally charged.

My thoughts as well....

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

Even if the FBI had tapes, would they have to release information about them? Doesn't that come up in discovery, when the lawyers meet to go over the evidence? And that doesn't happen unless there's an arrest and the person's formally arraigned? I can't see the authorities saying they have evidence unless someone's formally charged.

And nobody is going to be formally charged when the FBI itself is withholding the evidence required for a charge to be laid.

That is the ultimate vindication for Virginia Roberts. Nobody can prove her wrong . . . except the ultimate and mind-numbingly bureaucratic entity that surrounds HM Queen Elizabeth II. Whoever thought we would be giving them high fives!

Let's look at the flip side of this totally unsurprising and totally expected allegation, namely that the FBI have tapes showing underage girls being sexually abused. But what about the innocent? Are only pretty teenagers, now women, allowed to be innocent?

Is it right that an innocent man is made to fight for his innocent status, never being able to actually regain his reputation because he can't fight against something that doesn't exist, namely video tapes the FBI say don't exist.

That is not proof that they do not exist but proof that the FBI is utterly corrupt, beyond redemption, amoral, rotten to the core of it's bureaucratic heart and bereft of any redeeming features. Have I got that right?

Why is that not a national scandal? Where are the well funded lobbyists taking the fight to Washington? Because if the FBI is so pervasively sexually depraved as to withhold evidence of criminal sexual activities, it is not just a case concerning Jane Doe 3. The cancer of depravity must surely have rendered the FBI as a federal crimefighting entity, nationally criminal in it's own right. A blot on the integrity of every law abiding officer of the law in the USA.

And yet in the press . . . . nothing?

I don't know about anyone else, but I am finding this more than a little difficult to swallow. That there is not one honest man or woman left in that national treasure and world renouned bastion of crimefighting, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[Lady Nimue]

No one knows what's going on right now. An investigation could be underway as we speak. Whether or not the media is picking up on it is another matter. The two don't go hand-in-glove. Just saying.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

No one knows what's going on right now. An investigation could be underway as we speak. Whether or not the media is picking up on it is another matter. The two don't go hand-in-glove. Just saying.

Very true. I have no problem that investigative details isn't released (however, could any be used if Epsteins plea-deal isn't overturned?) because them releasing it would be wrong in so many ways. What bothers me is the pressing silence in the media........ Gives me icky feelings....

[Mermaid1962]

Right, and this is why conspiracy theories flourish. I could be wrong in this particular case, but it seems as though the rich and powerful are sometimes at a disadvantage. Not only are they accused of horrendous things, which people tend to believe without knowing them (because the wealthy and powerful are always evil), but it's assumed that they will use that wealth and power to cover up their misdeeds. The conspiracy-minded thinks is that if there's no evidence, it has been covered up--when in fact, there could be no evidence because there's no misdeed to begin with.

Originally Posted by MARG

Is it right that an innocent man is made to fight for his innocent status, never being able to actually regain his reputation because he can't fight against something that doesn't exist, namely video tapes the FBI say don't exist.