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.
Nobody is twisting any words. You said what you said and the media is broader than just the Daily Fail and lazy gossip news sites. If anything, Prince Andrew gets a pass by the media and we all know why and how.

And can I just say, just because I am not using emoji's in my post, doesn't mean I am attacking anyone here.
 
Empress Merel said:
Nobody is twisting any words. You said what you said and the media is broader than just the Daily Fail and lazy gossip news sites. If anything, Prince Andrew gets a pass by the media and we all know why and how.

And can I just say, just because I am not using emoji's in my post, doesn't mean I am attacking anyone here.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not; but I don't like arguing and hate sounding like the difficult poster in threads - so I'm not attacking anyone either. It wasn't that you weren't using emojis which made me think this, it was more the fact that you said with firm capital letters that Andrew was NOT the victim. I knew that, and was simply stating my reasoning for the original post that prevented this whole thing, and I must admit that perhaps I was a little annoyed at having to explain myself *again* because I have been in a lot of situations where people have been purposefully disagreeing with me or questioning me just to provoke a reaction many times, so it's hard to tell who is and who isn't, not that I'm saying you are doing this, because I can tell now that this wasn't your intention. I was merely responding, in this case, to the previous suggestions that the media was sullying Andrew, as a few posters had already been discussing the topic. I guess I felt somewhat singled out - again, because of past experiences, not that you were to know that, of course. I just felt your original response to me was a bit too stern, hence why I reacted in such a way but I apologise if that wasn't the case. I know some people use capitals to highlight their points, but that wasn't the kind of vibe I was getting, or perhaps I'm just too sensitive.
 
Last edited:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...t-documents-ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein

Prince Andrew was accused in court documents of touching a young woman’s breast at the Manhattan mansion of Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy financier now facing federal sex trafficking charges in New York.

The allegation was contained within a tranche of just unsealed court papers in a defamation case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and media heiress accused of procuring underage girls for Epstein and his social circle of the rich, famous and powerful.

Maxwell was sued by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre in 2015. Giuffre alleged that Maxwell defamed her by claiming she was a liar. Giuffre had also alleged that Epstein coerced her into sexual encounters with Prince Andrew.
 
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-unsealed-documents-name-powerful-men-in-sex-ring
This article also covers the unsealed documents. It references confirmation by one of Epstein’s body guards that victim 1 (whom we already know about) told him of her contact with Andrew. The article also references a second girl’s deposition where she confirms the contact between victim 1 and Andrew and also this second victim testified at the deposition that Andrew groped her. The article does not tell us victim 2’s age.
Victim 1 mentions in her deposition that Andrew likes to suck toes, ironic given the photos of Sarah & her ‘financial advisor.’
 
Last edited:
This. is. foul. I feel sorry for these women who were young girls at the time. Comments on the Fail are deplorable ; posts are arguing the accusers were of age of consent, so no crime. This is going to spill all over the BRF and hit the Yorks first. Heaven help the Windsors if this mess is on video tape....
 
I would really love to see an unredacted copy of Andrew's testimony and reiterate that ten years ago the Prosecution found there was no case to answer.

For those who think I am a blind fab is Andrew I will say I am not.

For those who think I am naive, well twenty years in the military says I am not.

Unfortunately, it is a fact that touching and groping happens both within the workplace and when socialising. OK it also happens in trains, plane's and automobiles. Unpleasant though it be, it continues relatively unabated.

But until Prince Andrew is actually CHARGED with a crime the facts remain the same. Guilt by association is unfair, unpleasant and in some incidences, actionable.

I now believe that Prince Andrew my follow his nephew's example and sue.

I don't want to lose this forum, and am curious as to what can happen. Perhaps one of the moderators could clarify the situation.
 
:previous:
The records released are from a law suit brought by one of the victims against Ms. Maxwell for slander or libel, this was not a criminal charge and no prosecutors were involved. The case was eventually settled out of court.
 
MARG said:
I would really love to see an unredacted copy of Andrew's testimony and reiterate that ten years ago the Prosecution found there was no case to answer.
...
Click to expand...
I don’t think Andrew has ever been deposed or testified, or indeed been questioned by authorities regarding Epstein.
Not sure who you’re talking about w/ ‘no case to answer’?
If Epstein, then there was a case, indeed, 2 cases one state and one federal, the federal case was dismissed in exchange for a plea in the state case, part of that dismissal also protected Epstein’s unnamed potential co-conspirators - which is highly unusual. https://www.thedailybeast.com/lawma...-acosta-over-sex-abuser-jeffrey-epsteins-plea That plea deal is now being investigated. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-...tigation-jeffrey-epstein-s-2008-plea-n1039831 And of course currently a different branch of the U.S. atty.s office (the Feds) is now prosecuting Epstein, hence the resurgence of interest in the story.
If Andrew, as far as I’ve read he was never even investigated for committing a crime, thus nothing would have been referred to prosecutors, thus no prosecutorial finding one way or the other.
The current articles are simply summarizing the 2000 pages of sworn testimony at deposition of various witnesses & the documentary evidence in victim 1’s civil defamation lawsuit against Epstein’s GF - which was settled.
Just as when most of this surfaced a few years ago, Andrew’s name is among many others associated with Epstein, he can’t really deny they were friends, after all they vacationed together in Thailand and Andrew hosted him in the UK and Epstein hosted Andrew on his island and in NY. & Sarah admitted that she’d accepted money from Epstein. Andrew could have, I suppose, sued victim 1 for defamation a couple of years ago when the DM ran a story based on their interview with her, but she had photographic evidence that confirmed part of her version of events, so it would be his word v. her word, & he’d have the burden of proof, so it probably was not worth the risk of bad publicity if he lost the case.
 
Last edited:
HuffPost published an article as soon as the files were released. It was stated in that report that much of Andrew's statement/testimony was redacted. To be redacted, Andrew must have given a sworn affidavit.

As to Sarah, she is in no way part of this case other than expanding on how long they have known each other, as indeed do dozens if not hundreds of people.

Basically, until evidence is produced and Andrew is arrested, this all falls under the heading of salacious gossip
 
MARG said:
HuffPost published an article as soon as the files were released. It was stated in that report that much of Andrew's statement/testimony was redacted. To be redacted, Andrew must have given a sworn affidavit.

As to Sarah, she is in no way part of this case other than expanding on how long they have known each other, as indeed do dozens if not hundreds of people.

Basically, until evidence is produced and Andrew is arrested, this all falls under the heading of salacious gossip
Click to expand...
Actually the HuffPost article https://www.huffpost.com/entry/epst...OOUzq3N45tfDUDo9dxfREEhD_umdhl6S-enc0TV-L7NqF says that much of the bodyguard’s deposition was redacted, here’s the relevant quote:
‘‘Tony Figueroa, Epstein’s former bodyguard who once dated Giuffre, also testified under oath that Giuffre “sounded scared” about what would happen if she said no to sex with Prince Andrew, although much of his testimony on the topic has been redacted.’’
Which I interpret to mean that much of Figueroa’s testimony about the topic of Giuffrie’s telling him about Andrew was redacted.
 
Last edited:
I do remember reading in the British Press that Andrew had never been questioned and was unlikely ever to be questioned or deposed etc even if anything else ever came to light because of Diplomatic Immunity. Though it would be likely he'd retire from public life.
 
Only recently we have seen fantasists destroying the legacies and reputations of former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath, former Field Marshall The Lord Bramall, former vice-president of the European Commission and former Home Secretary The Lord Brittan, the music icon Sir Cliff Richard, the former MP Harvey Proctor and others. All these accusations, despite of millions and millions spent on investigations, were ungrounded.

So let us spare The Duke of York and anyone else until anything is actually proven indeed.
 
Heavs said:
I do remember reading in the British Press that Andrew had never been questioned and was unlikely ever to be questioned or deposed etc even if anything else ever came to light because of Diplomatic Immunity. Though it would be likely he'd retire from public life.
Click to expand...

So far there was no case to answer.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
Only recently we have seen fantasists destroying the legacies and reputations of former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath, former Field Marshall The Lord Bramall, former vice-president of the European Commission and former Home Secretary The Lord Brittan, the music icon Sir Cliff Richard, the former MP Harvey Proctor and others. All these accusations, despite of millions and millions spent on investigations, were ungrounded.

So let us spare The Duke of York and anyone else until anything is actually proven indeed.
Click to expand...

The difference here is that Andrew did indeed spend a lot of time with Epstein who almost always had a lot of very young girls, who had no apparent connection to him, swanning around his residencies. I't must have been apparent to Andrew what was going on as I'm sure he didn't think the girls were there purely for decoration , in which case, he should have ran a mile. He didn't. Either these girls are telling the truth and Andrew, like a lot of Epstein's other friends, also engaged in sexual activity with them or he did not but whatever he did or didn't do the enviroment around Epstein was unboubtably sleazy so why was Andrew so happy to be in it? The fact that he spent time with and even holidayed with this creep does his character no favours whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
sophie25 said:
The difference here is that Andrew did indeed spend a lot of time with Epstein who almost always had a lot of very young girls, who had no apparent connection to him, swanning around his residencies. I't must have been apparent to Andrew what was going on as I'm sure he didn't think the girls were there purely for decoration , in which case, he should have ran a mile. He didn't. Either these girls are telling the truth and Andrew, like a lot of Epstein's other friends, also engaged in sexual activity with them or he did not but whatever he did or didn't do the enviroment around Epstein was unboubtably sleazy so why was Andrew so happy to be in it? The fact that he spent time with and even holidayed with this creep does his character no favours whatsoever.
Click to expand...

British royals mingle with dudes as Sheikh al Maktoum whom is portrayed as dictatorial towards the female members of his family. British royals accept jewels and other gifts from dudes whom do not hesistate to let people be beheaded, hanged, stoned, whipped or thrown from flats. British royals cuddle and coo with dudes shooting elephants while on safari with a maîtresse or visit arenas in which innocent animals are gruesomely tortured to death. In this light, the accusation that the Duke of York had contacts with a shady figure as Mr Epstein, for so far is pretty mild in comparison with the given examples. Spare Andrew the utter selective hypocrisy.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
British royals mingle with dudes as Sheikh al Maktoum whom is portrayed as dictatorial towards the female members of his family. British royals accept jewels and other gifts from dudes whom do not hesistate to let people be beheaded, hanged, stoned, whipped or thrown from flats. British royals cuddle and coo with dudes shooting elephants while on safari with a maîtresse or visit arenas in which innocent animals are gruesomely tortured to death. In this light, the accusation that the Duke of York had contacts with a shady figure as Mr Epstein, for so far is pretty mild in comparison with the given examples. Spare Andrew the utter selective hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

It's all hypocrisy but this thread is about Andrew and Epstein.

BTW Andrew also has connections with unsavoury politicians around the world too, especially in Kazakhstan, just saying.
 
Last edited:
TortillaChips said:
I think under the circumstances, that was quite restrained language!! :mad::mad::mad:
Click to expand...

:D That’s not what I wanted to post though. I decided against the other stuff. After last time, I wonder why they didn’t keep a better eye on him.
 
Elenath said:
:D That’s not what I wanted to post though. I decided against the other stuff. After last time, I wonder why they didn’t keep a better eye on him.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, the air is blue in my house at the moment!!

That is the $64,000 question - but conspiracy theories starting:

a. guards have been paid off
b. he isn't really dead
c. goodness knows what else in that world

:ohmy:
 
Al_bina said:
What a timely and convenient demise ... One can say that the enlightened western elites tied up loose ends.
Click to expand...

Yep.... :censored:. Watch them single out a semi-famous, but ultimately unimportant person as a scapegoat and the rest being swept under the rug. Just way too many high profile people all over the spectrum were his 'friends' and 'associates' - this was going to happen no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Is anyone surprised? I'm not.

It's clearly very easy to kill yourself in jail while on suicide watch & devoid of all means with which to do it. Everyone knows that...
 
Last edited:
Lilyflo said:
Is anyone surprised? I'm not.
Click to expand...


Well, I am... since the USA has such an experience with high profile convicts and potential witnesses against the Mafia.


Now it is hard to tell, who in the american government is not a member of La Familia. Banana States of America!
 
I'm certainly not surprised by this latest development...
 
For me, the taking of one's own life is never acceptable no matter what the circumstances that lead one into this kind of an action. If it turns out as fact that Epstein committed suicide, this tells me that he knew his gig was up and that there was going to be no "sweetheart" deals, nothing or no one to save him from being prosecuted for his crimes and he took the coward's way out.

All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Jeffrey back together again where he wanted to be. Nor money, or power, or influence or status. He had to face himself and it wasn't a picture of a man he could face up to being.
 
Rudolph said:
God’s judgment
Click to expand...

You're right, Rudolph. Epstein may have avoided judgment by the courts but he still has to face his Creator. I'll let the Creator handle that one. ?
 
Yes Osipi he is facing a greater judgement now than he ever would on this earth.

But I have to say that since Epstein was found with neck injuries in his cell a little while ago I'm not surprised it's ended like this. It only takes a few minutes of inattention by the guards and ....
 
Last edited:
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