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

[Osipi]

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.

Also, this article posted by Madame Verseau explains more

https://www.channel4.com/news/exclu...ex-trafficking-of-girl-in-prince-andrew-photo

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

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]

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/...bing-questions-time-Andrew-answered-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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Denville]

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.

stupid? I'd say very wrong. He knew that Epstein was grooming and procuring girls and he continued to associate with him. Condoning his activities and approaching him, I gather for money to Help Fergie...

 

[Hallo girl]

stupid? I'd say very wrong. He knew that Epstein was grooming and procuring girls and he continued to associate with him. Condoning his activities and approaching him, I gather for money to Help Fergie...

Other than the photograph of Andrew and Epstein which appeared to be taken outside, what other evidence is there that Andrew continued to meet him after the accusations first came to light.

 

[ACO]

How about the video of him in his home released yesterday? He was convicted and served jailed years prior. The odd excuses for Andrew’s continued friendship with this pedophile is bizarre. There are serious questions to how this man continued a relationship with him knowing his disgusting past.

 

[Hallo girl]

How about the video of him in his home released yesterday? He was convicted and served jailed years prior. The odd excuses for Andrew’s continued friendship with this pedophile is bizarre. There are serious questions to how this man continued a relationship with him knowing his disgusting past.

Is there clear evidence of when this was filmed.

 

[carlota]

this all happened before the 'me too' movement which makes me suspect many people thought epstein (with his connections, his money, his reputation) would never be condenmed. after me too, there was a change in the situation with respect to sexual abuse in the high spheres of society and many 'reputable' people went down as a result. it was highly unthinkable in the times when andrew and epstein had a friendship/relation.

i wonder what will happen with all this. will andrew get convicted in a way or another? will he have to testify?

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Other than the photograph of Andrew and Epstein which appeared to be taken outside, what other evidence is there that Andrew continued to meet him after the accusations first came to light.

What evidence, other than a photograph of two people together, are you hoping to see that two people were together?

 

[Hallo girl]

What evidence, other than a photograph of two people together, are you hoping to see that two people were together?

I should have obviously made myself clearer. I was referring to the date. Is there clear evidence that they continued to meet after the first case came to light

 

[ACO]

Is there clear evidence of when this was filmed.

The video is apparently from 2010. Seems to be verified. No one disputing it. That would make it two years after he was conflicted the first time.

 

[Lilyflo]

I should have obviously made myself clearer. I was referring to the date. Is there clear evidence that they continued to meet after the first case came to light

Yes, Epstein was convicted of sex offences in 2008 & Andrew was photographed with Epstein in New York in December 2010. Buckingham Palace has since issued a statement saying that Prince Andrew hadn't visited Epstein's home or met up with him since December 2010. So the story that Andrew stayed at Epstein's house in December 2010 holds up.

 

[Denville]

Other than the photograph of Andrew and Epstein which appeared to be taken outside, what other evidence is there that Andrew continued to meet him after the accusations first came to light.

How many photos do you need?

 

[tommy100]

In reality the video shows nothing new, we knew Andrew visited Epstein in Dec 2010 and this video just shows us that on tape rather than just the picture we saw of them walking in the park. The only new thing that I've got from this is confirmation that Andrew stayed at Epstein's house rather than just visiting.

The video looks bad but doesn't show anything new but personally I could never imagine being friends with, never mind staying at the home of, a convicted sex offender (the really bad thing is that this was after Epstein had been in prison for trying to procure under 18s for prostitution). Plus, of course the DM wants to make the point that Andrew looked a bit sheepish closing the door and was saying bye to a youngish looking lady, that leaves plenty for its readers to make their own speculations about.

The video makes the point that Andrew was very close to Epstein, closer perhaps that we thought at first, closer than just attending the same parties and being social acquaintances. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are more videos, pictures or evidence of Andrew's links with Epstein that the media will slowly drip feed out. No wonder Andrew's hiding in Spain.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I should have obviously made myself clearer. I was referring to the date. Is there clear evidence that they continued to meet after the first case came to light

Thank you for clarifying, that makes sense. Yes, Buckingham Palace confirmed that the photo in question was taken after the first case in question while apologizing for Andrew's poor judgement in being with Epstein and claiming that the photograph was taken during the one time they met after the first case claim to light. I am having trouble locating the statement now for your reference because of course, with all of the new information, my search results are yielding hundreds of stories from the past week rather than stories from several years ago; but even a thorough search of this thread, or some deeper internet searches, will provide that original story and statement if it is of particular interest to you.

Now, whether one chooses to believe that the one time they happened to meet during that time frame just happened to be photographed is up to one's own judgement.

 

[Rudolph]

The Duke of York last night reacted for the first time to the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.

Speaking after new footage emerged of the 59-year-old royal staying in the disgraced financier’s flat in 2010, the Duke said he was “appalled” by recent reports.

In a statement released to The Daily Telegraph, a Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes. His Royal Highness deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent.”

Read more: Duke of York "appalled" by Epstein sex allegations

 

[ACO]

He was so "appalled" he was hanging out with him 2 years after he was convicted for child prostitution and was a known sex offender? Whatever you say Duke.

 

[Troy Thompson]

An opinion piece in DM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...bing-questions-time-Andrew-answered-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.

The House of Windsor probably should worry. It's not rational to blame Andrew's association with Epstein and implication in accusations on monarchy (after all, Donald Trump (Jane Doe v. Epstein and Trump), Bill Richardson (Virginia Roberts Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell), an unnamed foreign president (Virginia Roberts Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell), unnamed foreign presidents in the plural (Jane Does v. United States), and George Mitchell have been accused of sexually assaulting minors who were provided to them by Epstein, and Bill Clinton was uncomfortably close to Epstein too), but people are rarely rational about these sorts of things. At any rate, if there is even the appearance that Buckingham Palace is protecting Andrew from the accusation that he assaulted Virginia Roberts Giuffre, that could be the beginning of the end of the British Monarchy.

 

[Dman]

Read more: Duke of York "appalled" by Epstein sex allegations

I was born in the day, but not yesterday. Try again, Andrew!

 

[Madame Verseau]

Someone must have told Andrew to say something because the stories are coming back to back. But really this statement did nothing to assuage concerns. I think they pushed Andrew because the Sun had a story about the FBI raid of Epstein's New Mexico ranch; in it there was a statement in court documents that Andrew was at that ranch. Andrew needs to volunteer to give testimony to the feds just to stop the PR bleeding.

 

[Osipi]

Someone must have told Andrew to say something because the stories are coming back to back. But really this statement did nothing to assuage concerns. I think they pushed Andrew because the Sun had a story about the FBI raid of Epstein's New Mexico ranch; in it there was a statement in court documents that Andrew was at that ranch. Andrew needs to volunteer to give testimony to the feds just to stop the PR bleeding.

Right now, I imagine that Andrew has his own legal eagles advising him on just what actions to take or not take. These lawyers are probably some of the best that can be had and they're *not* going to be talking to the press or to the public and maintain client confidentiality to the nth degree.

With this in mind, I don't think Andrew is just shrugging all this off and may be very, very worried about what might come to light (if there is something to be worried about in the first place). If there's one thing that can torture a person no matter where he goes, its his own conscience.

We'll see what develops.

 

[tommy100]

He was so "appalled" he was hanging out with him 2 years after he was convicted for child prostitution and was a known sex offender? Whatever you say Duke.

Yes, the words seem very hallow as we all know he has been forced into saying something because he got caught out rather than because he genuinely is appalled. If he was so appalled he wouldn't have carried on seeing Epstein, never mind stay at his house, after his first conviction.

Without knowing the exact details of everyones interactions with Epstein I'm pretty willing to give anyone pre his 1st conviction a pass and assume they didn't know what he did in private. But IMO anyone who continued to socialise with him after that first conviction has shown poor judgement and has no excuse.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Another opinion piece in DM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...ew-came-clean-friendship-Jeffrey-Epstein.html

DM also has another story of Andrew and Epstein hanging out at Balmoral- while the queen was in residence. Throw in Epstein's invitation to the joint milestone birthdays of Andrew, Margaret, Anne and William and the BRF is being tainted by this mess.