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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of Jeffery Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts, speak out 2018-
 
Last edited:
jacqui24 said:
I’m sorry, but he was a convicted felon at that point. It was not a misdemeanor. He served little time and allowed to work away because he got special treatment, not because the crime he did plead guilty to is no big deal. They all knew, including Andrew, by that point he pled guilty to soliciting prostitution from girls as young as 14. That was known information, not buried somewhere in the fine print. If that does not disgust people, regardless of anything else in the public domain, I’m not sure much will.

None of his friends should be shocked at the reasons for his arrest. Maybe the fact that he was actually arrested and is actually brought to face charges.
Click to expand...

There are an awful lot of "known" statements in your rebuttal. More than the AG or his Office in Florida since he only pled to 2 cases of soliciting for prostitution. It would appear that the entire State knew and didn't care.

The cases out of SDNY are new even though they cover the same period. I think it is important that we don't muddy the waters with our clairvoyance and wonder why it is that he is not still in prison in Florida. Everyone was busy defaming those who they, in their superior opinion, thought were all sorts of ugly things.

While everyone held court on the front pages and even here on this forum, the sole indicted sex offender slithered away with his reputation largely undamaged because people thought 2 solicitation charges are not too bad.

That proved that very few KNEW anything and most accepted the results of the case as vindication. All TPTB and those who didn't share his proclivities would never believe that a 58 page indictment of child sex trafficking that would result in a 65 year sentence if convicted, could be pled down to 13 months and a sealed case. The charges were so egregious as to not even being eligible for a plea deal. And yet they were.

This time we need to keep our eye on the ball for any anomalous occurrences . . . like what division is handling the N.Y. case?
Mbruno said:
I seriously doubt that charges will be brought against Andrew or Fergie. Their reputation may take a dive though depending on how the press covers the case. Right now, the focus doesn't seem to be on the Yorks.
Click to expand...
 
MARG said:
There are an awful lot of "known" statements in your rebuttal. More than the AG or his Office in Florida since he only pled to 2 cases of soliciting for prostitution. It would appear that the entire State knew and didn't care.

The cases out of SDNY are new even though they cover the same period. I think it is important that we don't muddy the waters with our clairvoyance and wonder why it is that he is not still in prison in Florida. Everyone was busy defaming those who they, in their superior opinion, thought were all sorts of ugly things.

While everyone held court on the front pages and even here on this forum, the sole indicted sex offender slithered away with his reputation largely undamaged because people thought 2 solicitation charges are not too bad.

That proved that very few KNEW anything and most accepted the results of the case as vindication. All TPTB and those who didn't share his proclivities would never believe that a 58 page indictment of child sex trafficking that would result in a 65 year sentence if convicted, could be pled down to 13 months and a sealed case. The charges were so egregious as to not even being eligible for a plea deal. And yet they were.

This time we need to keep our eye on the ball for any anomalous occurrences . . . like what division is handling the N.Y. case?
Click to expand...

There were a lot of knowns in my comment because a lot of it was known. The failure of Florida prosecutors is not an excuse to any of these people. Southern District of Florida and Alex Acosta are facing plenty of scrutiny in the media and are under investigation by the Justice Department. It's not being discussed as much here as Andrew because it's a forum about royal family, not the SD of Florida.

And he only pleaded guilty to two counts of solicitation is said as if it's not that big of a deal. It is a big deal when it's for solicitation of MINORS, which he had to plead to. Not solicitation, but solicitation of minors. The entire state of Florida can be off dreaming, and it wouldn't matter. They aren't friends of Epstein nor are they children of a head of state. Who they keep as friends are their business.

None of this proves these people who chose to associate with him doesn't know his crimes. It proves they didn't care.

His case was eligible for plea deal, all cases are. That's at the discretion of the prosecutors. The charges he pleaded guilty to didn't vindicate anything, in fact it said he was guilty of what he was accused of by these women. It was how the plea agreement was handled that violated a law. Not the plea agreement itself.

It wasn't just something a few knew. Epstein's scandal has been talked about on and off for years. It's public record that he pleaded guilty to solicitation of minors. It was the extent of collusion in how the case was handled that was not clear until the Miami Herald articles.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Utterly outrageous, legally and morally wrong, he was charged with solicitation for prostitution, nothing about children was part of the deal. The solicitation did not and could not use the word 'minor' as I should imagine that would have defeated the machinations that got him that 13mth sentence.

What I am trying to say is that for overseas friends and acquaintances or even within the US, the highly publicised arrest of someone for child trafficking, with many, many victims, pleading guilty and serving 13 mths in jail on two charges of soliciting, and having to register as a sex offender sends a clear message that it was nothing like the outrageous claims in the news and that their friend Jeffery was not a paedophile after all.

Most ordinary people cannot conceive of corruption of Justice on that level. Most lawyers, prosecutors, DA's etc. can't figure it out either.
 
With Epstein arrested and jailed and facing new counts of criminal offenses in NY and with the information of the previous legal machinations unsealed and revealed, I can only hope for an exception to a statement that is generally taken as true.

I sincerely hope that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will *not* set Epstein free.

Repercussions are bound to happen as ties to Jeffrey Epstein become public knowledge. Its already happened to Leslie Wexner, a long time friend and client. I'm sure that there's going to be a lot more fall out as the pyramid that Epstein is the capstone of, crumbles.

https://observer.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-friend-victoria-secret-leslie-wexner-lost-53m/
 
MARG said:
:previous: Utterly outrageous, legally and morally wrong, he was charged with solicitation for prostitution, nothing about children was part of the deal. The solicitation did not and could not use the word 'minor' as I should imagine that would have defeated the machinations that got him that 13mth sentence.

What I am trying to say is that for overseas friends and acquaintances or even within the US, the highly publicised arrest of someone for child trafficking, with many, many victims, pleading guilty and serving 13 mths in jail on two charges of soliciting, and having to register as a sex offender sends a clear message that it was nothing like the outrageous claims in the news and that their friend Jeffery was not a paedophile after all.

Most ordinary people cannot conceive of corruption of Justice on that level. Most lawyers, prosecutors, DA's etc. can't figure it out either.
Click to expand...

This is what Miami Herald printed:

Despite substantial physical evidence and multiple witnesses backing up the girls’ stories, the secret deal allowed Epstein to enter guilty pleas to two felony prostitution charges. Epstein admitted to committing only one offense against one underage girl, who was labeled a prostitute, even though she was 14, which is well under the age of consent — 18 in Florida.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...

While under federal law, it’s impossible to label a 14 year old a prostitute. He did plead guilty to solicitation of a 14 year old under state law. Regardless of his pleas deal, the public knew back then that he’s a pedophile that got a deal that shouldn’t have been given in the first place. It was talked about here. So please, let’s not argue over the could they not have known. They knew because we all knew.
 
This was always going to be a PR nightmare, Andrew being friends with him before he was was convicted is fair enough, they can say he simply didn't know about it, had no idea of what went on behind closed doors etc. But, Andrew remaining friends with him after he was convicted is impossible to defend.
 
Madame Verseau said:
More coverage of this horror is coming out from the British press. This is going to be rough for the BRF

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ein-threw-party-honor-Prince-Andrew-2010.html

Labor Sec'y Costa resigned today because of the scandal.
Click to expand...

Is there anything new in that article? I ask because it was reported years ago that Andrew attended that party & was seen with Epstein after he'd been registered as a sex offender. There was a big hoo-hah & that resulted in Andrew 'not being required' to do the international trade role he had (can't remember the exact title of the job).
 
:previous:

The only things new in the DM article are details on Epstein's new arrest/charges from this week, and a comment from a BP spokesperson made today that says "the Duke of York has not visited any home of Mr Epstein or met with him since December 2010 when the photograph in Central Park was taken."

All the other information on the party has already been reported (guests, location, timing, held in Andrew's honour).
 
sophie25 said:
Why was Andrew still hanging out with him after he had been convicted of such disgusting crimes?
Click to expand...
Probably because he didn't believe 99% of what is in the tabloids. It's all very well looking back with the aid of 20/20 vision but the details of the plea deal were not made public and pleading guilty of 2 charges of solicitation and 13 months in the County Jail is a "you're sailing close to the wind".

The fact the great and good went to a dinner party he held while spending 16 hours" a day at work and 8 hours in "jail", 6 days a week would lead most ordinary people not living in Florida and not "knowing" anything except what was it the papers to believe that all that trafficking stuff was not true. How could it be, he would have been in jail for the rest of his life, not holding dinner parties on work release.

As to Andrew specifically, both he and his brother's lives were destroyed by tabloid interference and the vast majority of the UK don't believe the tabloids about the Royal Family because they are nothing if not creative. They would never cut people on the strength of the DM, et al. It would have to be something they experienced.
 
I DON'T THINK Andrew's INFORMATION CAME FROM THE TABLOIDS. hE KNOW, AS tRUMP KNOW WHAT ePOSTEIN IS AND WAS





I don't think Andrew got his information from the "Tabloids". He and Trump knew what Epstein is and was. They just have been part of the scene, and money and power cover everything.













I
 
MARG said:
As to Andrew specifically, both he and his brother's lives were destroyed by tabloid interference and the vast majority of the UK don't believe the tabloids about the Royal Family because they are nothing if not creative. They would never cut people on the strength of the DM, et al. It would have to be something they experienced.
Click to expand...

Its also very possible (at least to me) that any connection between Epstein and Andrew were more along the lines of being business buddies rather than actually participating and condoning Epstein's behavior even if Andrew was aware of the full extent of Epstein's dealings. Its possible to attend parties and mingle with the great and the good and even be friendly with those that are in attendance of such parties without being involved in the "dark side" of what Epstein was up to. Andrew was UK's trade envoy representative since 2001 and part and parcel of that job, in my mind, is to schmooze. Many business deals are agreed to and signed outside of an office and on a golf course or a party.

With the "sweetheart" deal that was sealed and even the victims were not made aware of its content, most likely those that knew Epstein figured justice had been served, Epstein did his time (in a very, very cushy way) and it was what it seemed to be.

It was mentioned previously in this thread that Labor Secretary Acosta is stepping down from his role due to the Epstein scandal. Acosta was instrumental in the non-prosecution agreement drafted for Epstein (the sweetheart deal) which was ruled by a federal judge to be illegal earlier this year. Acosta defended his deal but with the new charges being filed in NY and Acosta's involvement in the Florida case becoming widespread news, he will be stepping down from his role as labor secretary. Not because of his involvement with any going ons with the victims, themselves.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/10/labor-secretary-acosta-epstein-plea-deal

One more thing I've read is that Andrew was not named whatsoever in any of the current indictments that are pending against Jeffrey Epstein. Until that happens and there is incontrovertible proof that Andrew was mixed up with underage women, I'm not going to pass judgment on Andrew at all. One thing that has struck me though is that his ex-wife and daughters have stood firm behind Andrew and will continue to do so.
 
One thing, the BRF definitely isn't alone in getting hit with the fallout from this. Both of the major political parties in the United States definitely want this to go away, as both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have also come under fire for their ties to Epstein (in fact, there have been accusations (corroborated by witnesses in Trump's case) made over the years that Clinton and Trump were clients of Epstein's child exploitation services).
 
One thing I think we need to keep in mind though that, at this time, involvement by anyone other than Epstein (who is facing these charges) is that they're all allegations at this time. Clinton is alleged to have flown on "The Lolita Express". Trump is alleged to host a party for him and Epstein and a gaggle of girls. Andrew is alleged to have close ties to Epstein. The only real incontrovertible evidence in any of the above is that there is a photograph of Andrew with his arm around a young woman. He's also been photographed with his arms around his daughters so that really doesn't *prove* anything.

Until others are named in the lawsuit and summoned or indicted, we need to be careful of pointing fingers at those that are *alleged* to have ties to Epstein's schemes.
 
Osipi said:
One thing I think we need to keep in mind though that, at this time, involvement by anyone other than Epstein (who is facing these charges) is that they're all allegations at this time. Clinton is alleged to have flown on "The Lolita Express". Trump is alleged to host a party for him and Epstein and a gaggle of girls. Andrew is alleged to have close ties to Epstein. The only real incontrovertible evidence in any of the above is that there is a photograph of Andrew with his arm around a young woman. He's also been photographed with his arms around his daughters so that really doesn't *prove* anything.

Until others are named in the lawsuit and summoned or indicted, we need to be careful of pointing fingers at those that are *alleged* to have ties to Epstein's schemes.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I am shocked by the lengths people go to excuse royals, especially royal men.
 
Zaira said:
Sometimes I am shocked by the lengths people go to excuse royals, especially royal men.
Click to expand...

For me, its simply an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of thing. ?
 
Last edited:
What you have pointed out, Troy, is factual evidence that a complaint was filed against both Epstein and Trump in a court of law. Not gossip or tabloid fodder but actually a legal case.

My eyes aren't as good as they used to was and have a hard time reading the .pdf file and legal jargon is not my best talent but am I right in stating from what I've read that the lawsuit was dropped and closed?

Its stuff like this that is going to come out that really will do damage to a person's reputation no matter who he/she is. The facts. As Epstein's pyramid collapses, I do believe that more and more facts are going to be brought into the light of day and made public knowledge.

I'd suggest that anyone really interested in following all this read the legal document that Troy has posted for us. Some of those allegations in that case are very, very scary and heinous to say the least.
 
During Prince Andrew's long association with Epstein prior to his conviction, it's possible he didn't know the criminal activities he was engaged in. However, I'm surprised that some posters think Prince Andrew might have found out about Epstein's conviction, prison sentence & registration as a sex offender via the tabloids and therefore not believed these things were true. I am quite sure these events were reported by serious & reliable media and there is no way Prince Andrew could have been ignorant of them when he agreed in 2011 to attend a party at Epstein's house & converse with him in Central Park.
 
Osipi said:
What you have pointed out, Troy, is factual evidence that a complaint was filed against both Epstein and Trump in a court of law. Not gossip or tabloid fodder but actually a legal case.

My eyes aren't as good as they used to was and have a hard time reading the .pdf file and legal jargon is not my best talent but am I right in stating from what I've read that the lawsuit was dropped and closed?

Its stuff like this that is going to come out that really will do damage to a person's reputation no matter who he/she is. The facts. As Epstein's pyramid collapses, I do believe that more and more facts are going to be brought into the light of day and made public knowledge.

I'd suggest that anyone really interested in following all this read the legal document that Troy has posted for us. Some of those allegations in that case are very, very scary and heinous to say the least.
Click to expand...
Granted, that lawsuit was dropped shortly after the 2016 United States presidential election. The question of why the lawsuit was dropped is open to interpretation. One such interpretation could be that the entire lawsuit was a partisan hit job meant to derail Trump's presidential campaign, though, the thing that makes me less likely to support that interpretation is that, given Bill Clinton's connection to Epstein, bringing Epstein into the 2016 presidential campaign would have done nearly as much damage to Hillary Clinton as it would have done to Donald Trump (and I suspect this is why the Clinton campaign never even acknowledged that Trump was being sued, let alone make it a campaign issue).

As for the other interpretation... Well, it does say in the affidavit that Trump and Epstein both threatened this Jane Doe, telling her that they were wealthy and powerful men and, if she talked, they could make her disappear. There was also a point before the election when this Jane Doe was slated to give a press conference, but backed out at the last moment, her attorney stating that she had received threats. Considering all of this, I don't find myself experiencing any disbelief at the thought that the suit was dropped out of fear—if someone tells you that they're this wealthy and powerful individual who can have you killed if you talk, that's enough of a disincentive for most people to be willing to talk; but then, if you start to indicate your willingness to talk and suddenly this person now is about to have the resources of the executive branch of the government of the world's sole remaining superpower at his disposal... Yeah, I'd probably be scared out of my wits at that point...
 
Zaira said:
Sometimes I am shocked by the lengths people go to excuse royals, especially royal men.
Click to expand...


Or by the length people are going to accuse royals.... It's a game on both sides and as long as we don't know more about that scandal it is very difficult to take sides when it comes to Andrew.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong here but after doing a bit of digging and searching, I've found out that as the legal case in this discussion was filed in SDNY and then dropped before a jury trial and the case was never presented, there is a good chance that these charges could be filed again as part of the recent case pending against Jeffrey Epstein as it wouldn't be double jeopardy.

It will be interesting to see if this happens. Perhaps even, this is a reason and a concrete backing for even filing new complaints in SDNY. Let me reiterate that I'm *not* literate in legalities and court documents and just presenting my ideas that come to mind and use search engines a lot. :D

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-case-be-reopened-if-it-never-made-it-to-cour-188855.html

Kataryn said:
Or by the length people are going to accuse royals.... It's a game on both sides and as long as we don't know more about that scandal it is very difficult to take sides when it comes to Andrew.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether Andrew was ever involved in "the dark side" of things or not, just by association his reputation has and will take quite a hit. We just don't know and we're not Andrew's judge or jury. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt as innocent until proven guilty. I'm sure that there will be many more factual bits and pieces that will come out when Epstein is taken to trial as we've seen with the documents that were filed in court against both Epstein and Trump that never made it into court at all and then the situation resolved (in Epstein's favor) with the "sweetheart deal".
 
Last edited:
James Bond was not involved...

I did read a bit about this. And it is all so cheap and primitive and disgusting.


Here some pictures from the island in question:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-12/epstein-has-secret-steel-safe-limits-room-pedo-island


Never would one think, that this happens in broad daylight: A frequent flying plane dubbed "Lolita Express" and everybody knows, what is going on.


Prince Andrew - and we don't know how deep his involvement was - should have known better, the British secret services should have known and warned him!
 
I think Osipi is advising a very sensible approach. Guilt by association is hardly due process. Your reply seems to cover more royal men than than Prince Andrew, if you have a legitimate source please share.

The worse that can happen is someone won't agree with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -
6 7 8
Replies
223
Views
14K
Curryong
C
L
  • Locked
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003
3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
28K
Alexandria
A
J
  • Locked
Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik, Current Events 1: May 2003 - November 2006
17 18 19
Replies
564
Views
100K
norwegianne
norwegianne

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom