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

[Tatiana Maria]

Moving right along here, now it seems that, according to Fox News, Virginia Guiffre may have a witness in her corner willing to testify against Andrew.

The plot thickens like a good white sauce. ?

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jeffrey-wpstein-employee-testify-prince-andrew-sexual-assault

Not according to Fox News but according to The Sun's interview with the former employee, which Fox News credits and provides the link to.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15871925/witness-prince-andrew-virginia-roberts-epstein/

 

[Mbruno]

Virginia Giuffre's said that Maxwell and Epstein told her that she had to "do for Prince Andrew what you do for Epstein". She hasn't said that she actually said no to him. And she was over 16, so above the age of consent in the UK, and he probably genuinely wasn't aware of her age. So, however deeply unpleasant is it that a grown man took advantage of a 17-year-old girl - if, indeed, that did happen, and she isn't making it up - no actual crime was committed. But, by saying that he'd never even met her, when it seems clear that he did, he's really dug himself into a hole.

Well, Prince Andrew has not been charged with any crime yet. It is a civil lawsuit only at this point. VG's brief to the court, however, did accuse Andrew of having sex with her without consent and with full knowledge of her age and condition. Those charges are explicitly mentioned in the text if I recall it correctly.

 

[Osipi]

Well, Prince Andrew has not been charged with any crime yet. It is a civil lawsuit only at this point. VG's brief to the court, however, did accuse Andrew of having sex with her without consent and with full knowledge of her age and condition. Those charges are explicitly mentioned in the text if I recall it correctly.

This is just my opinion but from all the years of watching Andrew and following him and reading about him, I do believe wholeheartedly that he has an arrogant and entitled personality and probably would take advantage of what was offered to him by Epstein/Maxwell as a "perk" but no way would I believe that Andrew was capable of physical violence enough to rape a woman. I just don't think he's built that way.

But... what do I know? As I said, it's just my opinion from where I sit.

 

[ladongas]

Isn’t it considered rape if the victim is underage and thereby unable to give assent?

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Isn’t it considered rape if the victim is underage and thereby unable to give assent?

That is true in the U.S. The age of consent in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands is 18, so if Andrew had sex with her, even without physically forcing himself, he would be guilty of rape. However, the age of consent in the UK is 16 so if he didn't physically force her, there are no rape charges.

This raises another issue becuase even if criminal charges are filed against him in the US even if what Virginia Giuffre says is true, I don't think the UK has to extradict him. Moreover, I don't know UK law, but even if she wins a judgment in the US, I'm not sure if she can petition the UK courts to help her collect any funds located in the UK.

 

[rominet09]

The main thing is, whatever the result of all this, he has completely lost his reputation.

 

[Mbruno]

That is true in the U.S. The age of consent in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands is 18, so if Andrew had sex with her, even without physically forcing himself, he would be guilty of rape. However, the age of consent in the UK is 16 so if he didn't physically force her, there are no rape charges.

This raises another issue becuase even if criminal charges are filed against him in the US even if what Virginia Giuffre says is true, I don't think the UK has to extradict him. Moreover, I don't know UK law, but even if she wins a judgment in the US, I'm not sure if she can petition the UK courts to help her collect any funds located in the UK.

I actually had the same doubt. Prince Andrew, I believe, has no assets in the US. How can he be compelled to pay any compensation to VG even if the court rules in her favor? Maybe some lawyer in the forum can explain.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I actually had the same doubt. Prince Andrew, I believe, has no assets in the US. How can he be compelled to pay any compensation to VG even if the court rules in her favor? Maybe some lawyer in the forum can explain.

I'm an international rights lawyer but collecting foreign judgments is not something I have any experience with. There are international trade agreements that allow a citizen in one country to collect on a judgment in another and I believe the US and UK have such an agreement. However, these agreements cannot override local laws. In other words, the US cannot impose its laws on the UK and vice versa. The agreement only allows someone to collect a judgment if the judgment is consistent with the law in both jurisdictions. Therefore, Ms. Guiffre can only petition UK courts for help in collecting Prince Andrew's assets if she could show that she likely would have won if the lawsuit had been brought in the UK.

The US courts may decide (accurately or not) that Prince Andrew had sex with Virginia Guiffre when she was 17 (which is underaged in the New York, Florida and Virgin Islands) and that Prince Andrew should pay money to Ms. Guiffre as compensation The complication is that I don't think (and I am not a UK lawyer) that Virginia Guiffre would have been able file this lawsuit in the UK, because the age of consent in the UK is 16. In that case, I can't see the UK courts enforcing the US judgment.

I hope that makes sense. I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows more about collecting civil judgments.

However, as others have noted, it will look bad if Prince Andrew loses the suit - although it is hard to see how it can get any worse. I truly hope that Ms. Guiffre is telling the truth because it would be an extreme injustice if Andrew is innocent.

 

[Roslyn]

I make no comment about the issue of collecting on any civil judgment in these circumstances, but as for how it could get any worse for Andrew if he loses the suit, it could get way, way worse. If he continues to deny the allegations and gives sworn testimony to that effect, or - maybe worse - admits in evidence that he did have sex with Virginia knowing she had been groomed by Maxwell and Epstein but didn't see anything wrong with it and didn't have any concerns about issues of consent - and he is not accepted as a witness of truth and is found to be liable, he will have absolutely no reputation left and will have to live in hiding or risk being pelted with rotten eggs. And if he is ordered to pay Virginia a substantial amount of money as damages but hides behind British laws and his mummy and refuses to pay anything in satisfaction of the judgment, he will just prove himself to be a despicable cad, and his family could be very seriously damaged too depending on their reaction.

I, too, hope Virginia is telling the truth because a person should not be accused as Andrew has if there is no substance to the claim.

 

[Alison H]

I thought she was claiming assault in London, in which case she'd have been over the age of consent. If she'd been under 16, it would be statutory rape even if she wasn't forced, but she was 17 at the time.


A US court can't force an English (there aren't UK courts as such, as the Scottish system is separate) court to comply with its rulings, but it would look very bad if an English court disregarded an American ruling. Disregarded a ruling in Iran or North Korea would be one thing, but the US is a close ally with a judicial system which is respected here. What I'm not sure about is if damages would be enforceable if the ruling was based on her having been under 18.

 

[Roslyn]

I thought she was claiming assault in London, in which case she'd have been over the age of consent. If she'd been under 16, it would be statutory rape even if she wasn't forced, but she was 17 at the time.


A US court can't force an English (there aren't UK courts as such, as the Scottish system is separate) court to comply with its rulings, but it would look very bad if an English court disregarded an American ruling. Disregarded a ruling in Iran or North Korea would be one thing, but the US is a close ally with a judicial system which is respected here. What I'm not sure about is if damages would be enforceable if the ruling was based on her having been under 18.

The Complaint pleads three occasions: Maxwell's flat in London where the photo was taken, Epstein's New York mansion, and Epstein's private island in the US Virgin Islands.

 

[Claire]

The age of consent in UK, NY and US Virgin Island is all 16 at the time.
So I guess the case has to be made that she was forced into the arrangement. However it is on record the exchange of funds for all of these arrangements.
The question will be asked if you are paid and accept payment for the first times (which weren't Andrew) are you then in employment and accepting your terms of employment. Yes - it is horrible, but prostitutions is an employment. Can a case be made to counter her argument of been trafficked, then?
She has noted that she was fearful to leave and scared for her life. But there seems to have been many opportunities to inform law and border control which wasn't done.

 

[Moran]

Andrew isn't - how should I say it more delicately - the sharpest knife in the drawer. Then again, I'm terrible at recognizing faces. I have no memory for them. Last year, I failed to recognize an old classmate who hasn't changed this much in the less than 20 years since I last saw her after seeing her every day for 5 years. If you asked me, I could genuinely say I've never met her. However, I wouldn't actually do it because I know I memorize names, not faces. Almost everyone can fool me into not saying I don't know them because it's possible that I do. In this vein, I can really believe Andrew believing that he doesn't know her... initially. Saying so was a terrible idea, though. It sounds ridiculous, which is why I don't say I don't know people who I technically know I *have* met, even if I can't recall their faces.

I can't believe there was a lawyer who told him it was OK to say so.

 

[Mbruno]

The age of consent in UK, NY and US Virgin Island is all 16 at the time.
So I guess the case has to be made that she was forced into the arrangement. However it is on record the exchange of funds for all of these arrangements.

If "it is on record the exchange of funds for all of these arrangements", which honestly I wasn't aware of, then it is even more surprising that Prince Andrew has no recollection of them ever happening.

 

[Claire]

Quick clarification - not from Andrew - from Epstein. Epstein was paying them.

 

[Sandy345]

I make no comment about the issue of collecting on any civil judgment in these circumstances, but as for how it could get any worse for Andrew if he loses the suit, it could get way, way worse. If he continues to deny the allegations and gives sworn testimony to that effect, or - maybe worse - admits in evidence that he did have sex with Virginia knowing she had been groomed by Maxwell and Epstein but didn't see anything wrong with it and didn't have any concerns about issues of consent - and he is not accepted as a witness of truth and is found to be liable, he will have absolutely no reputation left and will have to live in hiding or risk being pelted with rotten eggs. And if he is ordered to pay Virginia a substantial amount of money as damages but hides behind British laws and his mummy and refuses to pay anything in satisfaction of the judgment, he will just prove himself to be a despicable cad, and his family could be very seriously damaged too depending on their reaction.

I, too, hope Virginia is telling the truth because a person should not be accused as Andrew has if there is no substance to the claim.

Andrew should have stayed away from Epstein and Ghislaine in the first place. There was bound to be big trouble for him. If he had been warned about them, he did not take this warning seriously apparently.

 

[Harald]

Prince Andrew's lawyers will naturally try to get the law suit dismissed by arguing that he had diplomatic immunity in 2001 as Special Representative for International Trade and Investment.

 

[Denville]

Andrew isn't - how should I say it more delicately - the sharpest knife in the drawer. Then again, I'm terrible at recognizing faces. I have no memory for them. Last year, I failed to recognize an old classmate who hasn't changed this much in the less than 20 years since I last saw her after seeing her every day for 5 years. If you asked me, I could genuinely say I've never met her. However, I wouldn't actually do it because I know I memorize names, not faces. Almost everyone can fool me into not saying I don't know them because it's possible that I do. In this vein, I can really believe Andrew believing that he doesn't know her... initially. Saying so was a terrible idea, though. It sounds ridiculous, which is why I don't say I don't know people who I technically know I *have* met, even if I can't recall their faces.

I can't believe there was a lawyer who told him it was OK to say so.

It was stupid of Andrew to say Anything... but it IS possible that at least at first, he genuinely had no recollection of her, she was just one pretty girl he might have had a fling with...or met briefly...

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The age of consent in UK, NY and US Virgin Island is all 16 at the time.
So I guess the case has to be made that she was forced into the arrangement. However it is on record the exchange of funds for all of these arrangements.
The question will be asked if you are paid and accept payment for the first times (which weren't Andrew) are you then in employment and accepting your terms of employment. Yes - it is horrible, but prostitutions is an employment. Can a case be made to counter her argument of been trafficked, then?
She has noted that she was fearful to leave and scared for her life. But there seems to have been many opportunities to inform law and border control which wasn't done.

This is the first I have read/heard that these young women were being paid and accepting money from Epstein in exchange for services renfered to himself and his friends.

And I admit that it changes my perception of their situation. There are photos of groups of them whooping it up on the French Riviera with Naomi Campbell among others. Why would it not have been reasonable for Andrew to assume (before Epstein's first arrest) that the group of attractive young women around this man were simply paid hangers on?

I know I risk a rhetorical beating for saying this but I find it hard to believe that Virginia and many of the others were not free to leave. Why could they not have approached an embassy or law enforcement for help? Anyone of them could simply gotten on an airplane and gotten away.

Which is exactly what Ms. Roberts eventually did. When she was in Australia and met a new boyfriend who eventually became her husband Giuffre, she simply picked up the phone and told Epstein and Ghislaine that she would not be returning.

With the exception of the cases of the very young girls of 14, I honestly don't understand. And I have tried.

 

[sophie25]

It's been mentioned that Andrew didn't deny knowing Virginia but said he didn't recall her. That's true but then he contradicted himself later on in the interview. Emily Maitlis reemed off every detail of what VR's said about their night in London together to which Andrew said "It didn't happen" and he said that about every accusation put to him. Now he either dosn't recall the event or he does. To categorically say it didn't happen when you previously said you don't remember if it did is a big contradiction. No wonder his lawyers don't want him talking to her legal team they would pull him apart.

 

[Curryong]

When did Virginia first begin to work for Epstein/Ghislaine? If she was only 15 or 16 when it all started it would be only too easy, I would imagine, to cajole and persuade vulnerable and rather lost young girls into working for them. They could emphasise the cash benefits, the travel, supposedly glamorous lifestyle and hook these teenagers in.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

It's been mentioned that Andrew didn't deny knowing Virginia but said he didn't recall her. That's true but then he contradicted himself later on in the interview. Emily Maitlis reemed off every detail of what VR's said about their night in London together to which Andrew said "It didn't happen" and he said that about every accusation put to him. Now he either dosn't recall the event or he does. To categorically say it didn't happen when you previously said you don't remember if it did is a big contradiction. No wonder his lawyers don't want him talking to her legal team they would pull him apart.

Is the DoY an arrogant, stupid, entitled jerk? Yes. He always has been apparently.

Is he capable of any sort of violence against women, of which rape is the ultimate manifestation? Did he personally force himself on Ms. Roberts knowing that she was unwilling and disgusted by him?

No. I simply don't believe that.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The age of consent in UK, NY and US Virgin Island is all 16 at the time.
So I guess the case has to be made that she was forced into the arrangement. However it is on record the exchange of funds for all of these arrangements.
The question will be asked if you are paid and accept payment for the first times (which weren't Andrew) are you then in employment and accepting your terms of employment. Yes - it is horrible, but prostitutions is an employment. Can a case be made to counter her argument of been trafficked, then?
She has noted that she was fearful to leave and scared for her life. But there seems to have been many opportunities to inform law and border control which wasn't done.

I'm sure you are correct about the age of consent (i haven't researched the history of current statutes) which makes this whole situation more confusing. She was a 17 year old Florida resident when she was first procured in Florida.

The age of consent in Florida was 18. Epstein violated U.S. Federal law by transporting her to other jurisdictions, even if the age of consent was 16 in those jurisdictions. I am not an expert on criminal law but I think that the Mann Act only applies to the person who actually transported the child for the purpose of prostitution.

If this is correct, that would explain the change from "Andrew was nice to me" to "Andrew forcibly raped me". I don't know Prince Andrew but rapists usually assault more than one person. It would seem that if Prince Andrew were inclined to forcibly assault women, there would be allegations from other women.

It's hard to feel sorry for him but there is no way he can ever clear his name. This reaffirms that famous people need to be very careful of their associations.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

When did Virginia first begin to work for Epstein/Ghislaine? If she was only 15 or 16 when it all started it would be only too easy, I would imagine, to cajole and persuade vulnerable and rather lost young girls into working for them. They could emphasise the cash benefits, the travel, supposedly glamorous lifestyle and hook these teenagers in.

I think she was 17 but it still would have been very easy to lure her with cash and the glamourous lifestyle that Epstein was offering.

 

[sophie25]

Is the DoY an arrogant, stupid, entitled jerk? Yes. He always has been apparently.

Is he capable of any sort of violence against women, of which rape is the ultimate manifestation? Did he personally force himself on Ms. Roberts knowing that she was unwilling and disgusted by him?

No. I simply don't believe that.

I agree with you, VR said in an interview I saw that he was actually quite gentlemanly with her and there was no question of physical violence BUT he must have been aware that the situation was odd. This random teenager travelling around with Epstein. Even the dimest of people would surely wonder if this young girl was being coerced in some way into doing what she was doing and if there was even the slightest doubt he shouldn't have had sex with her. Andrew would have to have been the least curious person on Earth not to have enquired about who she was and why she was there.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I agree with you, VR said in an interview I saw that he was actually quite gentlemanly with her and there was no question of physical violence BUT he must have been aware that the situation was odd. This random teenager travelling around with Epstein. Even the dimest of people would surely wonder if this young girl was being coerced in some way into doing what she was doing and if there was even the slightest doubt he shouldn't have had sex with her. Andrew would have to have been the least curious person on Earth not to have enquired about who she was and why she was there.

Agreed. But to be fair, this is more than an issue of morality. If Andrew had sex with with a girl that young, he is a horrible man. But this civil suit and the attempts to drag him into the criminal case take this to another level.

 

[Claire]

yep - I agree. And point of argument I feel the say about celebrities who date/ marry models/actresses of 18 when they are in their 40's and 50's.

A friend of mine noted that if we take Epstein and Andrew out of this - say this is a business man who has traffic a number of girls (over age of consent) from another country into the US and they were been paid to have sex with his friends. Would those girls be allowed to sue the people they had sex with or the man who coerced her into it and was paying her? The clientele can only be charged with a misdemeanor of patronizing a prostitutes and if the prostitute is underage, a felony.

Afraid to say that I wonder if Andrew's best defense might be to say that the accuser was willing and knowingly, a prostitute. She was accepting money - well above what would be expected to be received for an untrained mossier. And depending on her time with Epstein she might have long known what was going on.

 

[Sandy345]

I think she was 17 but it still would have been very easy to lure her with cash and the glamourous lifestyle that Epstein was offering.

There also was the fear factor. I think Epstein and Maxwell would perhaps warn the young women if they "talked" or tried to leave. I saw some documentaries about them and they were very ruthless in their dealings. I don't think they gave these young women much cash lest they have enough money to try to escape. Probably an "allowance" of sorts.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

There also was the fear factor. I think Epstein and Maxwell would perhaps warn the young women if they "talked" or tried to leave. I saw some documentaries about them and they were very ruthless in their dealings. I don't think they gave these young women much cash lest they have enough money to try to escape. Probably an "allowance" of sorts.

I'm sure threats were made after the girls were sucked in but I've read that Epstein often gave them hundreds of dollars. Many of these girls didn't have very much so it was a lot of money. I don't think any of the girls lived with Epstein. They went home after being assaulted and were not physically forced to return but they had been groomed, intimidated and may have felt they had no choice.

Afraid to say that I wonder if Andrew's best defense might be to say that the accuser was willing and knowingly, a prostitute. She was accepting money - well above what would be expected to be received for an untrained mossier. And depending on her time with Epstein she might have long known what was going on.

It depends on the goal. if the goal were to avoid a judgment, that would be his best defense but it would make his reputation worse - if there were possible. If the goal is to make this go away, his best bet would be to settle without admitting wrong doing.

If he is innocent and believes that he has to make a stand, he could fight it but will lose in the court of public opinion, no matter what the deciion is.

 

[victor1319]

A friend of mine noted that if we take Epstein and Andrew out of this - say this is a business man who has traffic a number of girls (over age of consent) from another country into the US

I am afraid "age of consent" and "age from where selling sex is legal" are two different things! This is one of the points in the Prince Andrew case: Were the girls paid, by whom and did Prince Andrew knew of such dealings?

There is no such thing like an "underage belle du jour"! It is illegal!