The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Guilt by association would mean that Andrew was being considered guilting simply due to his friendship with Epstein, because they had crossed paths or been photographed together, or perhaps been business associates-- literally, because he was associated with the man. In this case, Andrew has been directly accused. It is the furthest thing from guilt by association.

This has nothing to do with loving a scandal, pandering to tabloid gossip, or some campaign by the Daily Mail, and everything to do with believing survivors. Those who cannot see this should perhaps begin with themselves when questioning why 90+% of sexual crimes go unreported.

[Madame Verseau]

How did DM get this surveillance tape? Andrew peeking around the door does not help for it is slanted as evidence of a guilty conscience. DM I think is going for a drip, drip , drip strategy to keep Andrew tied to this scandal. This is why I believe BP needs to have a plan in place.

[amaryllus]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

Guilt by association would mean that Andrew was being considered guilting simply due to his friendship with Epstein, because they had crossed paths or been photographed together, or perhaps been business associates-- literally, because he was associated with the man. In this case, Andrew has been directly accused. It is the furthest thing from guilt by association.

This has nothing to do with loving a scandal, pandering to tabloid gossip, or some campaign by the Daily Mail, and everything to do with believing survivors. Those who cannot see this should perhaps begin with themselves when questioning why 90+% of sexual crimes go unreported.

Yes. Even if he never participated He is Guilty of abetting and covering up sex crimes. Unless you are really prepared to say for decades he had know idea what his BFF Epstein was doing with that island and with those girls that is. Perhaps he thought they were playing chess and getting piano lessons from all those men?

If you know crimes are committed and look away you are guilty. That’s some law for you.

[ACO]

Andrew even continuing a friendship with a man convicted of being a pedophile and then being spotted in the home where vileness took place? Nah. They need to answer questions and the police need to really look into this. Right now it just seems like his relationship is being swept under the rug because of who he is. These victims named him. People can't just ignore that.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

Guilt by association would mean that Andrew was being considered guilting simply due to his friendship with Epstein, because they had crossed paths or been photographed together, or perhaps been business associates-- literally, because he was associated with the man. In this case, Andrew has been directly accused. It is the furthest thing from guilt by association.

This has nothing to do with loving a scandal, pandering to tabloid gossip, or some campaign by the Daily Mail, and everything to do with believing survivors. Those who cannot see this should perhaps begin with themselves when questioning why 90+% of sexual crimes go unreported.

Well put! We do have evidence, but a lot of people still accept BP's hearsay denial as having more weight than the direct evidence of the women involved. However people have been known to lie under oath, and the allegations need to be fully investigated and the evidence of all parties needs to be tested by cross-examination. I would think an innocent man - especially one who can afford the very best of legal representation - would want the matter fully litigated.

[Zaira]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

How did DM get this surveillance tape? Andrew peeking around the door does not help for it is slanted as evidence of a guilty conscience. DM I think is going for a drip, drip , drip strategy to keep Andrew tied to this scandal. This is why I believe BP needs to have a plan in place.

IMO, this is just another example of how the media often sits on things until they feel an opportune moment comes. I doubt they just received this video recently.

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Well put! We do have evidence, but a lot of people still accept BP's hearsay denial as having more weight than the direct evidence of the women involved. However people have been known to lie under oath, and the allegations need to be fully investigated and the evidence of all parties needs to be tested by cross-examination. I would think an innocent man - especially one who can afford the very best of legal representation - would want the matter fully litigated.

Indeed. Had these survivors actually had their stories investigated properly as promised originally in '06, '07, before the sweetheart deal, the accusations in and of themselves would be enough for serious liability in a criminal setting. At the very least an investigation.

This is hardly guilt by association as many people have been associated with Epstein but have not been actively named as co-conspirators by survivors nor been seen with Epstein post conviction.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Zaira

This is hardly guilt by association as many people have been associated with Epstein but have not been actively named as co-conspirators by survivors nor been seen with Epstein post conviction.

When was Andrew ever named as a co-conspirator? If I'm remembering right, it was Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) that alleged that she was forced to have sex with Andrew in the UK at the home of Ghislaine Maxwell. Andrew, in this case, is the "client". He didn't traffic Roberts to the UK and he didn't "pay" Roberts to have sex with him and if Roberts states she was "forced" to have sex with Andrew, I don't believe it was Andrew doing the forcing but her "handlers".

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The legal age of consent in the UK is 16 and Virginia was 17 at the time. As a result unless she made it clear sex wasn't wanted there is no crime committed. The police also ask whether a conviction is possible and having sex with a 17 year old who didn't say 'no' isn't going to get a conviction in the UK - as much as many people would like to see it differently.

Therefore, with all this in mind, Andrew may or may not have done the "deed" but that is perhaps a lapse in judgement on his part that happens the world over with many, many people getting themselves into messes they shouldn't get themselves into but when we think about it, Andrew was and still is single so he can't even be accused of "cheating". According to New Scotland Yard (MPS), no crime was committed on Andrew's part whatsoever.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

How could we respect HRH the Duke of York for his Epstein Friendship and Sarah for Epstein paying her Debts.
How could we see this Duke wearing a Poppy on November 11 and Remembrance Day?
The Firm lost its Glory because of these 2.

It seems that Andrew and Sarah are merely two of hundreds of people in Epstein's social diary. Contacts that he skillfully nurtured so very successfully. Names that cover the spectrum of high society and political power. Names that included two US Presidents, one currently serving, Nobel Laureates and royals from Europe who included Prince Andrew. Just think, a man like that moving in the halls of power, of society, friend to the great and the good, just like Jimmy Saville, who would think so many honest decent people could be fooled?

Saville and Epstein were masters of the art of the con. How many times does a neighbour say "I never would have imagined, he seemed like the ideal neighbour, sponsored the kids, hell, he was even at a barbecue at my place last week". I just can't believe he's a murderer/serial killer/rapist/paedophile". He seemed so nice.

As to Remembrance Day? Much as it may be inconvenient to your picture of righteous anger, Andrew earned his medals in the theatre of war. He has as much right as any other Veteran and more than any other royal who has not served, to stand there.

Roslyn says we "do have evidence" to which I can only say, that feeling, believing, is not enough. Evidence of a crime is the only standard by which a person can be charged in a court of law. When Prince Andrew is charged with a crime and convicted by a jury of his peers, then I will say he is guilty of that which he was convicted. Neither you nor I have the right to decide the criminal guilt or innocence of a man or woman unless we are sitting on a jury in said court.

We are each at liberty to discuss the issue, to pronounce our opinions, but when we start pronouncing criminal guilt, dispensing with the inconvenience of the rule of law, we need to stop and look at who we are and where we stand. Here on this forum, the utmost civility was maintained by the simple expedient of those who made a contentious personal decision about a person or a subjet, prefixing it by that marvellous maxim: IMO - In my opinion.

Those of us that enjoy the rights of a democratic society and are comfortable and safe in the knowledge that we cannot be imprisoned at the whim of some person and kept there with no legal representation nor even expectation of getting a day in court, know this: as soon as you endorse the abrogation of the rule of law, that is the day your democracy begins to die and with it, your rights.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by Osipi

According to New Scotland Yard (MPS), no crime was committed on Andrew's part whatsoever.

Osipi, I missed this announcement from MPS, and it would be very helpful in the context of this thread. Would you be able to provide it please?

[Zaira]

Originally Posted by Osipi

When was Andrew ever named as a co-conspirator? If I'm remembering right, it was Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) that alleged that she was forced to have sex with Andrew in the UK at the home of Ghislaine Maxwell. Andrew, in this case, is the "client". He didn't traffic Roberts to the UK and he didn't "pay" Roberts to have sex with him and if Roberts states she was "forced" to have sex with Andrew, I don't believe it was Andrew doing the forcing but her "handlers".



Therefore, with all this in mind, Andrew may or may not have done the "deed" but that is perhaps a lapse in judgement on his part that happens the world over with many, many people getting themselves into messes they shouldn't get themselves into but when we think about it, Andrew was and still is single so he can't even be accused of "cheating". According to New Scotland Yard (MPS), no crime was committed on Andrew's part whatsoever.

By co-conspirator I simply mean named as one of her abusers/someone who Epstein procured girls for. Its also worth pointing out that an additional woman also named Andrew. That was revealed in the latest court documents that were unsealed, although she was in her early 20s.

In addition, ignorance of the law is not a defense in any system. Andrew cannot claim that because laws around consent are different in the UK, his alleged US crimes/abuse is thus ok. He would still be liable. AFAIK, Virginia's claims are about his actions in the US and US territories, not just in London.

And MPS did not clear Andrew of anything. They simply said that no investigation was underway as no crime report had been filed in their jurisdiction to investigate.

The least thing anyone is concerned about is whether or not Andrew cheated or was single.

And again, Andrew was NOT just a name in a contact book. Epstein and Andrew spent substantial time together. Epstein was invited to the private homes of the royals, threw parties for Andrew, and was considered a close friend. Almost every other contact Epstein had stopped associating with him after his conviction. Andrew did not, and in fact his ex-wife (who he still lives with and is close to) took money from him. In addition, not every Epstein contact has been named as an abuser. But Andrew has.

I am perplexed that people really continue to chose this hill to die on. And please innocent until proven guilty/due process pertains to the courts and the literal deprivation of physical freedom, not to public opinion. Who you are friends with (or continue to associate with once wrong doing comes out) and what people credibly accuse you of should and will have an impact on your social standing. Perhaps Andrew is completely innocent. Fine. But his continued association with Epstein beggars belief.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

Osipi, I missed this announcement from MPS, and it would be very helpful in the context of this thread. Would you be able to provide it please?

Thanks to Dman who originally posted this and with the information provided by Iluvbertie, its pretty evident that the MPS deemed the allegations submitted to them not enough to open a full investigation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKJdMMUg5JI

Also, this article posted by Madame Verseau explains more

https://www.channel4.com/news/exclus...e-andrew-photo

Without a case to prosecute in a UK court, Andrew remains "accused" with "allegations". These do not constitute evidence of wrongdoings.

Originally Posted by Zaira

By co-conspirator I simply mean named as one of her abusers/someone who Epstein procured girls for. Its also worth pointing out that an additional woman also named Andrew. That was revealed in the latest court documents that were unsealed, although she was in her early 20s.

In addition, ignorance of the law is not a defense in any system. Andrew cannot claim that because laws around consent are different in the UK, his alleged US crimes/abuse is thus ok. He would still be liable. AFAIK, Virginia's claims are about his actions in the US and US territories, not just in London.

And MPS did not clear Andrew of anything. They simply said that no investigation was underway as no crime report had been filed in their jurisdiction to investigate.

The least thing anyone is concerned about is whether or not Andrew cheated or was single.

And again, Andrew was NOT just a name in a contact book. Epstein and Andrew spent substantial time together. Epstein was invited to the private homes of the royals, threw parties for Andrew, and was considered a close friend. Almost every other contact Epstein had stopped associating with him after his conviction. Andrew did not, and in fact his ex-wife (who he still lives with and is close to) took money from him. In addition, not every Epstein contact has been named as an abuser. But Andrew has.

I am perplexed that people really continue to chose this hill to die on. And please save us all the grand speeches on innocence and all that. That pertains to the courts, not to public opinion. Who you are friends with and what people credibly accuse you of should and will have an impact on your social standing.

I'm just one person looking at all this from the outside and do not claim to actually know exactly what Andrew's involvement with Epstein included and I'm most certainly not in any position to deem what Andrew should or shouldn't do right now or join the firing squad aimed at him. Perhaps more real, concrete evidence will amass as these girls take their stories and cases to court against Epstein's estate and we'll have more credible information on Andrew's actual involvement in things. Until then, I'm not going to pass judgment on the man. The big word to me and remains the big word is "credible".

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Thanks to Dman who originally posted this and with the information provided by Iluvbertie, its pretty evident that the MPS deemed the allegations submitted to them not enough to open a full investigation.


Without a case to prosecute in a UK court, Andrew remains "accused" with "allegations". These do not constitute evidence of wrongdoings.

Thank you, Osipi. I did see that. I was wondering if you could provide the statement from MPS stating that no crime whatsoever was committed by Andrew. Declining to open an investigation does not in any way imply that that an individual committed to no crime.

For example, a police force may decline to open an investigation, or to publicly acknowledge it has done so because: it interferes with or jeopardizes an ongoing investigation; it has already conducted an investigation that has secured the evidence needed to proceed with prosecution once an unrelated investigation from a partner organization is complete; for reasons of security, it is unable to acknowledge an investigation; the complaining witness has refused to cooperate, but may do so in the future; etc.

Because of this, I thought you were referring to other information when you made the very bold claim that "according to MPS, no crime was committed on Andrew's part whatsoever." In fact, as far as we know, MPS could make no such a claim, because they have not opened an investigation that we are aware of at this time.

Dealing to investigate or prosecute is not in any sense equivalent to an organization stating that an individual has not committed a crime.

[Madame Verseau]

An opinion piece in DM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ered-them.html

I have yet to see one that gives Andrew a full throated defense. The bad part is it can spill over to the BRF as a whole. If another poll comes out asking about Andrew and the BRF regarding the Epstein case will the institution be seen favorably overall? Should the House of Windsor worry that if found guilty in the court of public opinion there would be calls to end it all after the current queen's reign? For what I've seen in the history the royal family will do what needs to be done to protect the house. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor comes to mind. This horror is not on the same level as the Abdication Crisis but it is significant enough to cause long term damage if not dealt with properly.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

Thank you, Osipi. I did see that. I was wondering if you could provide the statement from MPS stating that no crime whatsoever was committed by Andrew. Declining to open an investigation does not in any way imply that that an individual committed to no crime.

For example, a police force may decline to open an investigation, or to publicly acknowledge it has done so because: it interferes with or jeopardizes an ongoing investigation; it has already conducted an investigation that has secured the evidence needed to proceed with prosecution once an unrelated investigation from a partner organization is complete; for reasons of security, it is unable to acknowledge an investigation; the complaining witness has refused to cooperate, but may do so in the future; etc.

Because of this, I thought you were referring to other information when you made the very bold claim that "according to MPS, no crime was committed on Andrew's part whatsoever." In fact, as far as we know, MPS could make no such a claim, because they have not opened an investigation that we are aware of at this time.

Dealing to investigate or prosecute is not in any sense equivalent to an organization stating that an individual has not committed a crime.

I also listed the information that Iluvbertie posted in relation to sex crimes in the UK. As Roberts, at the time of the UK incident put to the MPS, was 17 and of legal age to consent to sex and didn't say "no" to Andrew but rather stated that her "handlers" forced her to have sex with Andrew, to me, that indicates that Andrew did *not* commit a crime in the UK.

As to any allegations in in the US or elsewhere, the credible facts have still to be made public. Perhaps, as I've said, more evidence will come to light as these cases are prosecuted in civil courts. At this time, there is no evidence that Andrew has actually committed any kind of a criminal offense. We'll see.

A lot of what you state makes a lot of sense also and present various reasons why we may not have the full picture but actually pieces of a huge puzzle right now. I do hope the entire truth comes out regarding Epstein and his perverted lifestyle and preferences and the victims are heard loudly and clearly.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Thanks for clarifying, Osipi! As always, it's a pleasure to dialogue with you and the others on this thread.

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

The latest from the Daily Mail. Not a good headline.

EXCLUSIVE: Prince Andrew is pictured inside paedophile Jeffrey Epstein's £63million mansion of depravity nine years ago... so how did he miss signs of the billionaire's sexual deviance?

Ouch! Prince Andrew is now in Big Trouble! The house, the girls, the Epstein - all in the vid, to make him look guilty.

And it just hardens my feeling, that he is guilty - That brings me to the question: Does Prince Andrew enjoy any legal immunity? Did he travel to New York on a diplomatic passport? And what is his legal status in the UK?

[Iluvbertie]

We know Andrew visited Epstein's house in 2010 - the time of this video - because there has been a photo of him with walking with Epstein in the public domain since 2011. No one is saying he didn't visit Epstein. Visiting him, talking to him isn't PROOF of wrongdoing - poor judgement but not necessarily criminal behaviour.

[Osipi]

'm just going to throw this in for good measure as, to me, the situation that may have put me into a whole lot of hot water years ago reminds me of what is going on now with Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein's association over the years.

Back in the early 90s, I lived in Florida and being a computer geek, got myself active on some of the local militia based message boards. It was a hobby at the time and I learned quite a bit about the US Constitution because of it. I moved back to Michigan in early April of 1995. To play six degrees of separation, I was also friends with a man that shared a residence with another friend of mine for economic reasons. It just so happened one of the friend's brother was close to and bodyguard for Timothy McVeigh, a member of the anti-government paramilitary militias in Michigan. McVeigh, as we all know was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings on April 19, 1995. The Feds raided McVeigh's home which was in Wheatland Township, Michigan which is also a place where I had previously attended a blue grass festival there for years.

Now, investigators looking into each and every possibility and even maybe far fetched inklings may have seen red flags when it came to me. I was on a militia board in Florida, moved back to Michigan days before the OK bombing and had associates and friends with possible connections. Was I in any way involved with McVeigh and the OK bombings? Definitely not but I can see where putting unrelated things together can and would point to the possibility that I was.

Sorry for the long, drawn out story here but it shows a reason just why I am *not* going to throw Andrew under a bus and castigate him for something that we don't have the real, full picture on.

BTW: the man that was my friend (not the one with the brother) is now my hubby of almost 22 years. Life does take some real twists and turns in unusual ways sometimes.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

We know Andrew visited Epstein's house in 2010 - the time of this video - because there has been a photo of him with walking with Epstein in the public domain since 2011. No one is saying he didn't visit Epstein. Visiting him, talking to him isn't PROOF of wrongdoing - poor judgement but not necessarily criminal behaviour.

Sure but at this point the man was a known pedophile and here is Andrew in his home with a girl who looks barely legal. I just... gross. He might not have done anything criminal (we shall see) but I find it very unlikely he wasn't aware of anything. His friend's activities were hardly a secret.

[Lumutqueen]

Standard Sunday papers, let’s re-hash something we already knew so it looks like new news and get everyone outraged when in fact it’s not.

Before anyone jumps on me, I’m not denying that Andrew being associated with Epstein was anything other than wrong. But ASFAIK being stupid isn’t a crime.