UK - Prince Andrew accused of underage sexual relationship, 1999-2002 *settled* #2

[Telltale]

A good question.

As to the question of proof of what the former prince knew or did, or didn’t do, I wish that I and the general public did know. And that it had been fully disclosed. But I fear that we do not. And IMO I wouldn’t believe much of what has been stated. Sadly, one side of the case is now deceased.

As to whether or not charges have or have not been brought, without direct knowledge I don’t have an answer one way or the other. It is unfortunate that additional charges have not been brought. Perhaps if no further charges are to be brought…… then the entire case file(s) should be released, unredacted, to the public.

The perspective IMO that consent is not relevant in matters of rape or similar accusations remains. Those matters IMO should not be conflated. IIUC consent is not a relevant factor in cases of rape or related offenses. IANAL. MOO

As much as I hate to throw Andrew any bail.

I remember, when this first broke, a statement from the Met stating that Virginia had not provided them with a statement regarding the incidents that would fall under their justistiction (the incidents in London.)

Considering the age of consent was 16 and it was only in (I believe) 2002 the ago of consent for prostiution was raised to 18. Without a cooperating victim account it would not be possible to prosecute that kind of case. You would need to prove that he was aware or ought to be aware she was coerced (not merely compensated) for sleeping with him.

It feels gross to even type that out tbh, but the nuts and bolts of it is that unless Virginia provided an account to the police in the last decade, there is significant evidentiary issues in prosecuting him under the laws of the time. Even if she did, now she has passed on, Andrew could not face his accusator in criminal court.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1987324288706154914

 

[Legally Bland]

As much as I hate to throw Andrew any bail.

I remember, when this first broke, a statement from the Met stating that Virginia had not provided them with a statement regarding the incidents that would fall under their justistiction (the incidents in London.)

Considering the age of consent was 16 and it was only in (I believe) 2002 the ago of consent for prostiution was raised to 18. Without a cooperating victim account it would not be possible to prosecute that kind of case. You would need to prove that he was aware or ought to be aware she was coerced (not merely compensated) for sleeping with him.

It feels gross to even type that out tbh, but the nuts and bolts of it is that unless Virginia provided an account to the police in the last decade, there is significant evidentiary issues in prosecuting him under the laws of the time. Even if she did, now she has passed on, Andrew could not face his accusator in criminal court.

I'm not sure anyone doubts that a prosecution may have been problematic, but there's a massive gap between allegations and prosecutions: investigation.

You don't know what the evidence is or what the evidentiary issues are unless you investigate.

There are other accusers of Epstein and Maxwell citing abuse in the UK.

Maybe the Met could have been proactive and at least taken statements from people accusing them of crimes in their jurisdiction.

 

[otto]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1987324288706154914

The word "may" tells us all we need to know.

Because the US Congressman has tossed out a sensational headline about Andrew, could this US Congressman explain who may have recruited another "woman" who may have met Andrew who may have been paid by Epstein? It may have happened, and it may not have happened.

It's my opinion that US politicians have been rather loose with truth for some time. Is this the Congressman's truth, or evidence-based truth? Has there been an investigation with that conclusion, or is this piling-on to get people worked up?

 

[otto]

I'm not sure anyone doubts that a prosecution may have been problematic, but there's a massive gap between allegations and prosecutions: investigation.

You don't know what the evidence is or what the evidentiary issues are unless you investigate.

There are other accusers of Epstein and Maxwell citing abuse in the UK.

Maybe the Met could have been proactive and at least taken statements from people accusing them of crimes in their jurisdiction.

Epstein's employees live in the US. His friends live in the US. Maxwell knows more about Epstein than anyone else and she is in the US.

The UK has investigated and taken decisive action.

Let's see the US take action beyond Epstein and Maxwell. Investigators have the names of women who recruited victims from schoolyards. Where are they today? Are they still preying on children? Investigators have the names of Epstein's close associates. Has Congress asked any of them to appear to answer questions?

If not, why not?

Why is Congress spending time pursuing information to validate a book written by a deceased person? The Oversight Committee clearly states that Giuffre's book is the reason for their curiosity.

 

[JDG]

Perhaps they need to cast a wider net and go after their own home grown participants.

As Otto says, they have Maxwell, ask her.

 

[JDG]

*

 

[JDG]

Btw, I very much appreciate the post by Telltale.

Thank you for your post Telltale.

 

[otto]

Telegraph

I cannot find confirmation that Giuffre filed a formal statement or complaint against Andrew in the UK. I see references to TV information, civil suit and liaising with other police forces, but no confirmation that Giuffre filed a formal complaint with London Police.

"The Metropolitan Police has reviewed a document released in August 2021 as part of the civil action in the US. They also reviewed information passed to them by the media in June 2021.​

​

In both instances, the police said in October that the review was complete and no further action would be taken.​

...​

​

Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested by the FBI in July 2020 and held in jail until her trial. In December 2021, she was found guilty of recruiting and trafficking underage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein.​

​

Maxwell was found guilty on five of the six charges she faced - including the most serious - of sex trafficking a minor.​

​

She was found not guilty of one count - enticement of a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts."​

What are the accusations against Prince Andrew?

Here's what you need to know about the sex abuse claims being pursued by Virginia Giuffre in the US.

www.bbc.com

"In August it was reported that Andrew was considered a “person of interest” in the investigation into Epstein and Maxwell.​

​

The phrase “person of interest” is used by law enforcement to refer to someone who has not been arrested or formally accused of any crime, but can refer to someone who may have information that would assist the investigation."​

Met police drop investigation into Prince Andrew in Virginia Giuffre case

Officers made decision after reportedly talking to Giuffre and a review of documents

www.theguardian.com

"The Sunday Times reported this week that London police had spoken to Giuffre regarding her allegations.​

​

"The Metropolitan Police Service continues to liaise with other law enforcement agencies who lead the investigation into matters related to Jeffrey Epstein," the police said in their statement."​

UK police: no further action over Prince Andrew, Epstein allegations

British police said on Monday they would be taking no further action after conducting a review of evidence relating to sex crime allegations against Queen Elizabeth's son, Prince Andrew, and the late U.S. financier Jeffrey Epstein.

www.reuters.com

"Last night it remained unclear whether the Met had taken a formal statement from Giuffre, who now lives in Australia. “We would not confirm who we may or may not have spoken to,” the force said in a statement."​

October 2021

Met officers quiz Prince Andrew’s sex accuser Virginia Giuffre

Scotland Yard has spoken to the woman who claims she was raped and sexually assaulted by the Duke of York on three occasions when she was 17.Officers are unders

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[otto]

With all due respect to Telltale I think I'll rely on the word of Channel 4 that VG made a complaint in 2015 to the Met.

View attachment 624123

10K views · 1.6K reactions | A police investigation should have taken place when Virginia Roberts Giuffre first made a complaint about Prince Andrew in 2015, the former chief prosecutor at the Crown Prosecution Service, Nazir Afzal, tells Channel 4 N

A police investigation should have taken place when Virginia Roberts Giuffre first made a complaint about Prince Andrew in 2015, the former chief prosecutor at the Crown Prosecution Service, Nazir...

www.facebook.com

This article mentions 2015 and Channel 4, but it is not reported that Giuffre filed a formal complaint with London Police.

2019

Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein: what you need to know

The relationship between the Queen’s second son and the late wealthy sex offender may have been closer than previously realised

www.theguardian.com

 

[Telltale]

In fairness to me. I was speaking on an article I read 5/6 years ago. I believe at one point there was a statement of the sort but I may be remembering wrong.

If Virginia was a co-operating witness willing to give evidence, it would be harder to defend not even opening an investigation, even if most offending was in the US. Andrew is a British national and at least once instance occured on British soil. They should at least expand upon their reasoning.

I would not judge her for going after the money and not wanting to pursue criminal prosecution. On its face, proving a sex crime that old is incredibly difficult. If it even got to trial, it would be a gruelling and defamatory experience for her in full view of the public.

I will add that making a complaint and supporting prosecution are two different things. Many crimes are reported to the police without the victim being then (or later withdrawing) support for prosecution or declining to give a statement.

 

[Legally Bland]

This article mentions 2015 and Channel 4, but it is not reported that Giuffre filed a formal complaint with London Police.

2019

Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein: what you need to know

The relationship between the Queen’s second son and the late wealthy sex offender may have been closer than previously realised

www.theguardian.com

Here's part of a transcript from a Channel 4 News item which was complained about by Maxwell. It looks like it was 2016 when VG personally complained.

Despite the high-profile scandal, all of this seemingly escaped the attention of the police here at Scotland Yard, until 2015 when a British child abuse campaigner filed a formal complaint claiming that Epstein and Maxwell had trafficked a woman to the UK for sex. The complaint was based on the court testimony of Virginia Roberts, who was just 17 when she said she was pressured by Epstein to have sex with Prince Andrew in London. But astonishingly, as Channel 4 News previously revealed, the Specialist Crime and Operations Section that handled the complaint decided not to investigate. We can also reveal that Virginia herself made a complaint directly in 2016. She offered additional evidence, and even suggested potential witnesses. But once again the police failed to investigate. The Met have never acknowledged that this happened. When we put it to them in writing in 2019, they simply ignored the questions. In a statement the Met told us they were ‘not the appropriate authority’ to investigate and that any investigation would be ‘largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK’. In November 2016, they said, a decision was made ‘not to proceed to a full criminal investigation’. And that was the end of it”.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/about-ofcom/bulletins/broadcast-bulletins/2022/issue-452/complaint-by-leverets-made-on-behalf-of-ms-ghislaine-maxwell-about-channel-4-news-channel-4-15-june-2021?v=328017

BBM.

(Link double checked and working.)

 

[JDG]

In fairness to me. I was speaking on an article I read 5/6 years ago. I believe at one point there was a statement of the sort but I may be remembering wrong.

If Virginia was a co-operating witness willing to give evidence, it would be harder to defend not even opening an investigation, even if most offending was in the US. Andrew is a British national and at least once instance occured on British soil. They should at least expand upon their reasoning.

I would not judge her for going after the money and not wanting to pursue criminal prosecution. On its face, proving a sex crime that old is incredibly difficult. If it even got to trial, it would be a gruelling and defamatory experience for her in full view of the public.

I will add that making a complaint and supporting prosecution are two different things. Many crimes are reported to the police without the victim being then (or later withdrawing) support for prosecution or declining to give a statement.

IMO, the investigations did not get off the ground in the UK because VG was of legal age to consent. She was 17, nearly 18 at the time of the alleged intimacy with Prince Andrew.

 

[JDG]

Here's part of a transcript from a Channel 4 News item which was complained about by Maxwell. It looks like it was 2016 when VG personally complained.

Despite the high-profile scandal, all of this seemingly escaped the attention of the police here at Scotland Yard, until 2015 when a British child abuse campaigner filed a formal complaint claiming that Epstein and Maxwell had trafficked a woman to the UK for sex. The complaint was based on the court testimony of Virginia Roberts, who was just 17 when she said she was pressured by Epstein to have sex with Prince Andrew in London. But astonishingly, as Channel 4 News previously revealed, the Specialist Crime and Operations Section that handled the complaint decided not to investigate. We can also reveal that Virginia herself made a complaint directly in 2016. She offered additional evidence, and even suggested potential witnesses. But once again the police failed to investigate. The Met have never acknowledged that this happened. When we put it to them in writing in 2019, they simply ignored the questions. In a statement the Met told us they were ‘not the appropriate authority’ to investigate and that any investigation would be ‘largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK’. In November 2016, they said, a decision was made ‘not to proceed to a full criminal investigation’. And that was the end of it”.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/about-ofcom/bulletins/broadcast-bulletins/2022/issue-452/complaint-by-leverets-made-on-behalf-of-ms-ghislaine-maxwell-about-channel-4-news-channel-4-15-june-2021?v=328017

BBM.

(Link double checked and working.)

Same response as above to this post.

 

[Legally Bland]

IMO, the investigations did not get off the ground in the UK because VG was of legal age to consent. She was 17, nearly 18 at the time of the alleged intimacy with Prince Andrew.

I think I'll have to respectfully disagree with you, I think the context of whether VG was able to consent is all important. She was literally travelling with a convicted (at the time the complaint was made) child sex offender. It really should have set some alarm bells ringing. At the bare minimum they should have investigated Epstein. IMO.

 

[otto]

Here's part of a transcript from a Channel 4 News item which was complained about by Maxwell. It looks like it was 2016 when VG personally complained.

Despite the high-profile scandal, all of this seemingly escaped the attention of the police here at Scotland Yard, until 2015 when a British child abuse campaigner filed a formal complaint claiming that Epstein and Maxwell had trafficked a woman to the UK for sex. The complaint was based on the court testimony of Virginia Roberts, who was just 17 when she said she was pressured by Epstein to have sex with Prince Andrew in London. But astonishingly, as Channel 4 News previously revealed, the Specialist Crime and Operations Section that handled the complaint decided not to investigate. We can also reveal that Virginia herself made a complaint directly in 2016. She offered additional evidence, and even suggested potential witnesses. But once again the police failed to investigate. The Met have never acknowledged that this happened. When we put it to them in writing in 2019, they simply ignored the questions. In a statement the Met told us they were ‘not the appropriate authority’ to investigate and that any investigation would be ‘largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK’. In November 2016, they said, a decision was made ‘not to proceed to a full criminal investigation’. And that was the end of it”.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/about-ofcom/bulletins/broadcast-bulletins/2022/issue-452/complaint-by-leverets-made-on-behalf-of-ms-ghislaine-maxwell-about-channel-4-news-channel-4-15-june-2021?v=328017

BBM.

(Link double checked and working.)

It sounds like the issue was filing against Epstein and Maxwell in London rather than against Andrew.

Everything I've read says that the London Police believed the culprits to be Epstein and Maxwell, and London had no jurisdiction since Epstein, Maxwell, their employees, and the trafficking, occurred out of the US.

We need police statements to confirm or deny that there were formal complaints, who the complaint was made against, and who had jurisdiction.

 

[Legally Bland]

It sounds like the issue was filing against Epstein and Maxwell in London rather than against Andrew.

Everything I've read says that the London Police believed the culprits to be Epstein and Maxwell, and London had no jurisdiction since Epstein, Maxwell, their employees, and the trafficking, occurred out of the US.

We need police statements to confirm or deny that there were formal complaints, who the complaint was made against, and who had jurisdiction.

I can't be bothered to format this time, so may look a bit weird:

Mr Guru-Murphy: “Because just on Prince Andrew the police did confirm that a
complaint had been looked into, but then it wasn’t taken any
further. Does it worry you at all that this is still the focus of
enquiries in the United States but not here where the matter is
supposed to have taken place?
Dame Cressida Dick: No. The locus and focus of any investigation in relation to Jeffrey
Epstein for example is clearly in America. And, you know, if the
Americans need our assistance at any stage, then we will give
them that”.
The programme returned to footage of Ms Newman’s interview with Mr Afzal:
Mr Afzal: “What we’ve always needed is a proper investigation. We
cannot outsource our investigation to the FBI or the
American Attorney’s Office. We have crimes allegedly
committed here in London that ought to be prosecuted here in
London or at least be investigated here in London. And on the
basis of what I’ve read there is more than a reasonable suspicion
that crimes have occurred. These are very serious allegations.
There is no time limit in the United Kingdom in relation to
serious offences. So, there is no legal bar here at all.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/about-ofcom/bulletins/broadcast-bulletins/2022/issue-452/complaint-by-leverets-made-on-behalf-of-ms-ghislaine-maxwell-about-channel-4-news-channel-4-15-june-2021?v=328017

BBM.

 

[otto]

IMO, the investigations did not get off the ground in the UK because VG was of legal age to consent. She was 17, nearly 18 at the time of the alleged intimacy with Prince Andrew.

That's an important point, as is the unfolding of the story from paid sex with her bosses client, to rape.

This article, based on an interview with Giuffre, describes a shopping trip for new clothes, getting ready for dinner in her own bedroom at Maxwell's house, flying to several exotic locations, gifted $15k, having dinner, going dancing, and asking to take a photo with Andrew to show her mother.

Giuffre does not say that she wanted a photo to prove anything about Andrew, only that she wanted to show her mother that she had met Andrew. I find it confusing, and I do wonder whether these is evidence to support a rape claim.

“It Was Catastrophic”: Inside Prince Andrew’s Misguided Bid to Explain Away Epstein

In the wake of Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest and apparent suicide, Prince Andrew moved from the fringe of a swirling underage-sex scandal toward its white-hot center. His clumsy attempt to clear his name, in a no-holds-barred interview with BBC ‘Newsnight,’ set the stage for his royal demotion—and...

www.vanityfair.com

 

[otto]

I don't know what to think about the night that Epstein, Maxwell, Andrew and Giuffre had dinner and dancing in London. I do trust that the UK Police are better able to investigate than the US Oversight Committee who, per their letter to Andrew, are basing their interest on Giuffre's book.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Could someone please define what is termed ‘alleged intimacy’ in this thread?

My understanding is that there were allegations of rape, trafficking, and other offenses. And prosecutions were made relating to that.

It seems IMO improper to refer to ‘intimacy’ in this case, and serves to diminish the findings in the GM case as that was prosecuted. It also IMO is inaccurate relating to the now deceased VG.

MOO