The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Ceallach]

Jeffrey Epstein 'sex slave' Virginia Roberts was a 'money-hungry sex kitten', ex friends claim | Daily Mail Online

[Mermaid1962]

If the DM story is true, Ms. Roberts was procuring other girls for Epstein as well as prostituting herself. Whether she was a genuine victim or not, I'm not sure that excuses her bringing other girls into the 'racket'.

[Curryong]

Virginia Roberts may have a very dodgy past, or it may be Epstein's lawyers dragging her name through the mud in indirect ways. We just don't know. I do think she suffered from extremely poor parenting to have fallen into Epstein's mess in the beginning.

However, none of this excuses Andrew, IF he did do this, from associating and having sex with a girl of 17 when he was over 40. (I'm not talking about it in the legal sense here, but a moral one.) I certainly don't think that Virginia was overcome by Andrew's charm or rank, or that she wanted to sleep with him. It was, IMO, orchestrated by Epstein and Virginia did what she was told.

The best point was made many posts back. Would Andrew like it if a man of over 40 took advantage of his teenage daughters? The answer, IMO, is blindingly obvious.

The Queen is extremely old now. Soon Andrew will be without her protection and Charles, who is not close to his brother, is unlikely to shield Andrew from any more excesses. Nor is Andrew likely, IMO, to remain in the front rank of the royal family in Charles's reign or William's.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Curryong

The best point was made many posts back. Would Andrew like it if a man of over 40 took advantage of his teenage daughters? The answer, IMO, is blindingly obvious.

No, the best question is why do you believe what Andrew behaved in a manner that is at total odds with his treatment of other women, both inside and outside the bedroom?

The second question is why you believe what this woman alleged, over what Andrew denied?

[royal rob]

My opinion of Andrew comes from him continuing a friendship with a man who had been jailed for sex crimes against underage girls.
There is no doubt about this it happened. No he said she said



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by royal rob

My opinion of Andrew comes from him continuing a friendship with a man who had been jailed for sex crimes against underage girls.
There is no doubt about this it happened. No he said she said



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Of course it is 'he said' 'she said' unless you were actually in the bedroom with them when it happened.

You have NO proof.

We have her word against his and that is all.

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Of course it is 'he said' 'she said' unless you were actually in the bedroom with them when it happened.

You have NO proof.

We have her word against his and that is all.

I'm saying his friendship with Epstein is a not a she said he said thing.
And because he had a friendship with someone like that that colours anything else he says or does IMO


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by MARG

No, the best question is why do you believe what Andrew behaved in a manner that is at total odds with his treatment of other women, both inside and outside the bedroom?

The second question is why you believe what this woman alleged, over what Andrew denied?

How do you know how he treats women in the bedroom, apart from Sarah and Koo rushing to his side? Is this the sum total of his sexual experience? And if you read Virginia's account, he did not treat her badly, apart from having sex with her when she was a teenager. There are also plenty of men who treat some women one way and some quite another.

I can pose the same question to you - why do you believe Andrew over Virginia?

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Of course it is 'he said' 'she said' unless you were actually in the bedroom with them when it happened.

You have NO proof.

We have her word against his and that is all.

Her word is under oath. That's proof.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

Her word is under oath. That's proof.

No. That is not proof. That is testimony under oath.... People sadly lie, it shouldn't be news... (Not saying she's lying, just that testimony is not proof)

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by hernameispekka

No. That is not proof. That is testimony under oath.... People sadly lie, it shouldn't be news... (Not saying she's lying, just that testimony is not proof)

Actually I don't think she's gone under oath yet, my bad

But yes, unrefuted testimony under oath is proof - it's all you need to prove a case.

We also have the airline records indicating that she was in the places she said she was.

And we have Andrew, who will refuse to go under oath.

In the court of public opinion, he looks pretty bad.

[royal rob]

I will go back to his continuing friendship with Epstein that says all I have to know to form an opinion about him. He well and truly knew what Epstein had done but still thought he was ok to be friends with and borrow money from


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

Actually I don't think she's gone under oath yet, my bad

But yes, unrefuted testimony under oath is proof - it's all you need to prove a case.

We also have the airline records indicating that she was in the places she said she was.

And we have Andrew, who will refuse to go under oath.

In the court of public opinion, he looks pretty bad.

Roberts swore an affidavit on 19th January this year: http://radaronline.com/wp-content/up...291-signed.pdf

Unless the situation in the US Federal Court is very different from our legal system, the only thing her affidavit is proof of is that she said what she said in it. It is not proof of the truth of what she said. There has not been a hearing. The parties' cases have not been presented. Evidence has not been tendered. Witnesses have not been cross-examined and the evidence has not been tested. There has been no decision by a jury or judicial officer.

At the moment Roberts is still seeking to be joined in the proceedings commenced by Jane Does 1 and 2, and they are seeking to have Epstein's plea bargain set aside. Her affidavit was filed in those proceedings. If she is joined to the proceedings with Jane Does 1 and 2 (and perhaps even if she is not) and her affidavit is read, I am sure she will be required for cross-examination to test her evidence, and she will be cross-examined till the cows come home. I think others sought to intervene to oppose the motion and if they are represented she might be cross-examined by a number of lawyers. By the end of the cross-examination she might be a quivering mess and so confused that she won't be able to tell you what day it is. She swore an affidavit in the civil proceedings against Epstein a few years ago and if she has made inconsistent statements in that affidavit, she will be attacked on that basis, too.

The objective of the cross-examiners would be to discredit her and have the judge form the view that her evidence is so unreliable that her allegations should not be accepted unless corroborated by independent evidence. This is where the other Jane Does come in, and the protection officers and anyone else who was there when the two of them were there, particularly the other girls and men who were at the orgy.

Evidence that Andrew was at the same place Roberts was when she alleges they were alone together would be useful, but with the possible exception of the orgy the only one who can verify that she had sex with Andrew is Andrew himself, and I can't imagine him giving evidence. He's not going to want to go on oath about something so sordid anyway, and especially not to help a woman who is trying to punish his friend Jeffrey. The primary target is Epstein. Andrew is not involved in the litigation at all except as a potential witness.

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Originally Posted by royal rob

I'm saying his friendship with Epstein is a not a she said he said thing.
And because he had a friendship with someone like that that colours anything else he says or does IMO


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I agree! And from what I read, so does his brother Charles.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

There are many reasons why I don't like Andrew, his friendship with Epstein after he was arrested, the craziness with Sarah, his arrogant behavior and that he thinks he is better than others because he is a prince etc.
He is stupid and naive, but I doubt that he had sex with Virginia.

I've heard from very reliable sources that Charles and Andrew have a good relationship with each other and that the Queen doesn't have a favourite, she is equally fond of all her children.

The balcony appearance during the jubilee was the Queen's idea, it was about the monarchy's future.

[GracieGiraffe]

I am thinking of proof as a synonym for "evidence," as it is at times used. Of course nothing has been proven - but to say there is no proof, i.e., evidence there is.

Virginia's taking the stand is another reason her attorneys are looking for evidence of these encounters, hoping that the FBI has the tapes she's talking about - then the case does not rest on her testimony.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

I am thinking of proof as a synonym for "evidence," as it is at times used. Of course nothing has been proven - but to say there is no proof, i.e., evidence there is.

Virginia's taking the stand is another reason her attorneys are looking for evidence of these encounters, hoping that the FBI has the tapes she's talking about - then the case does not rest on her testimony.

OK. Makes sense.

I hope that videotapes and/or photographs turn up. If Epstein took them, I reckon they're still around somewhere, squirreled away in the air-conditioning duct, or maybe in a safety-deposit box. He doesn't strike me as someone who would destroy that sort of stuff if he had it.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

I am thinking of proof as a synonym for "evidence," as it is at times used. Of course nothing has been proven - but to say there is no proof, i.e., evidence there is.

Virginia's taking the stand is another reason her attorneys are looking for evidence of these encounters, hoping that the FBI has the tapes she's talking about - then the case does not rest on her testimony.

The proof is 'her word.'

Andrew therefore has equal proof - his word - that nothing happened.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by hernameispekka

No. That is not proof. That is testimony under oath.... People sadly lie, it shouldn't be news... (Not saying she's lying, just that testimony is not proof)

I agree. Watch Judge Judy. All those folks solemnly swearing to tell the truth, and the truth only, so help them God...

Sure....

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I agree. Watch Judge Judy. All those folks solemnly swearing to tell the truth, and the truth only, so help them God...

Sure....

Actually I'd love to see Andrew in Judge Judy's court room. She sorts things out Haha


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[royal rob]

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/au...s-money-2015-3

Interesting !!!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community