UK - Prince Andrew accused of underage sexual relationship, 1999 - 2002

[Kristin Esq.]

At the time, Giuffre was 17-18 years old, had a boyfriend and was living a normal social life for her age. Was it her father's responsibility to govern her life at that age?

Maybe not responsibility, but a parent may feel the need to step in. Look at what India Oxenberg's mom did for her when she was in the NXIVM cult.

 

[otto]

If Prince Andrew was not at Maxwell's house on the day in question, when was he there?

 

[Cool Cats]

I Reported this post to see if it's OK to post these types of articles.

After Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking conviction, the spotlight turns to Epstein accuser's sexual abuse lawsuit against Prince Andrew

Andrew has rejected all of Giuffre's claims and denied ever meeting her. His lawyers have also fought bitterly against her lawsuit, arguing that a 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre shields him from liability, and that Giuffre has no jurisdiction to sue.

That legal battle is about to heat up: around the time the Maxwell verdict was read Wednesday evening, two federal judges ordered that the 2009 settlement be unsealed around January 3. On January 4, both sides will present oral arguments on whether to dismiss Giuffre's lawsuit.

Advocates for Epstein's victims have expressed confidence that Andrew will face legal consequences just as Maxwell did.

"He should be quaking in his boots," attorney Lisa Bloom, who represents eight Epstein victims, told The Daily Mail. "[The Maxwell verdict] shows that a jury is willing to come back with a guilty verdict even if the accusers are not perfect, as no human being is."

Though Giuffre was not called to testify during Maxwell's trial, Prince Andrew was mentioned by name in court — a Maxwell accuser identified only as "Jane" and Epstein pilot Larry Visoski both testified that they had seen the Duke of York travel on the financier's private jet.

Prince Andrew also has made statements that could be used against him if the Giuffre lawsuit proceeds. In a widely seen BBC interview in 2019, he described having a close friendship with Maxwell and said their relationship is how he became acquainted with Epstein.

 

[otto]

Prince Andrew makes 'unprecedented' request for all witness testimony in sex abuse case to be kept secret | Calgary Herald

Lawyers for the Duke’s accuser, Virginia Giuffre, said there was “no logic or authority for such a provision.”

Before challenging the court’s jurisdiction, the Duke had been due to send proposed dates and locations for his own deposition by Monday this week.

He had already asked for a three-week extension to respond to discovery requests “in light of the holidays and COVID.”

McCawley expressed frustration with the latest attempt to delay proceedings on an issue that could have been raised sooner.

She said they had asked three times for the Duke to select a date for his own deposition yet he had never responded.

McCawley also noted that as part of the discovery process, the Duke’s lawyers had already asked for proof that Giuffre was a citizen of Colorado and that they were due to respond with the relevant documents by Jan 14, as previously agreed.

Ms McCawley told Mr Brettler that they “will be able to establish” that the New York federal court had jurisdiction.

But she said that even if not, Ms Giuffre “would simply refile her claims” in New York state court, warning: “The parties in this action will need to resolve this dispute one way or another.”

From the same link - thank you

"McCawley also noted that as part of the discovery process, the Duke’s lawyers had already asked for proof that Giuffre was a citizen of Colorado and that they were due to respond with the relevant documents by Jan 14, as previously agreed.
...

In a joint order on Wednesday, U.S. District Court judges ordered that a 2009 settlement agreement between the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and Giuffre, which bears directly on Giuffre’s civil lawsuit against the prince, be released.

The agreement will be released on or about Jan. 3, 2022."​

 

[escape2sc]

I want to keep an open mind, and to recognize that Royals are held to a higher standard. Stepping down since the start of the scandal suggests that he is on standby pending the outcome of the legal action. If he cannot clear his name, but is in fact innocent, that sucks.

Virginia's accusations against Andrew became public knowledge in 2011 when the Mail on Sunday paid her for her account and photo. It was during her defamation case against Epstein and Maxwell in April 2015, when Virginia's accusations first made in official court documents and those were made public in 2019. Virginia's allegations against Andrew have been frequently reported on in the UK since 2011- in every article about Epstein, Maxwell, Virginia, the U.S. prosecutor made a statement, Duchess Sarah borrowing money from Epstein scandal or when Andrew's "friends" would make statements such as the photo of Andrew and Virginia is fake because Andrew's fingers are not that fat (which is really sad if his only defense was his friend's saying he didn't have fat fingers)

Andrew continued to be a "working" royal until the day after his disastrous interview in November 2019. So Andrew remained a working royal for 8 years after the allegations first became public - hardly on standby pending the outcome.

 

[otto]

Virginia's accusations against Andrew became public knowledge in 2011 when the Mail on Sunday paid her for her account and photo. It was during her defamation case against Epstein and Maxwell in April 2015, when Virginia's accusations first made in official court documents and those were made public in 2019. Virginia's allegations against Andrew have been frequently reported on in the UK since 2011- in every article about Epstein, Maxwell, Virginia, the U.S. prosecutor made a statement, Duchess Sarah borrowing money from Epstein scandal or when Andrew's "friends" would make statements such as the photo of Andrew and Virginia is fake because Andrew's fingers are not that fat (which is really sad if his only defense was his friend's saying he didn't have fat fingers)

Andrew continued to be a "working" royal until the day after his disastrous interview in November 2019. So Andrew remained a working royal for 8 years after the allegations first became public - hardly on standby pending the outcome.

I'm only aware of the public scandal, not the history. When this became a public scandal, in the last couple of years, Prince Andrew stepped aside.

I do understand that Giuffre put forward many names around the time that she and Epstein made a financial settlement.

 

[escape2sc]

I'm only aware of the public scandal, not the history. When this became a public scandal, in the last couple of years, Prince Andrew stepped aside.

I do understand that Giuffre put forward many names around the time that she and Epstein made a financial settlement.

My post was giving you the timeline for how long this has been a public scandal . The first article in the Daily Mail was Feb. 26, 2011
Prince Andrew and girl, 17, who sex offender friend flew to Britain to meet him | Daily Mail Online

 

[otto]

My post was giving you the timeline for how long this has been a public scandal . The first article in the Daily Mail was Feb. 26, 2011
Prince Andrew and girl, 17, who sex offender friend flew to Britain to meet him | Daily Mail Online

In 2011, Virginia Roberts-Giuffre portrayed herself as a 15 years old when she met Epstein. Work records forced her to admit that she was 17 years old. Ten years after she moved to Australia, she misrepresented her age when she met Epstein. She lived in Australia in 2001 and in 2011. In 2o21, she claims to live in Colorado.

"However, an unusual part of the agreement was that Epstein’s alleged victims were allowed to bring civil proceedings against him.

He has so far made 17 out-of-court settlements, and some cases are ongoing. One of these girls was to have been a key witness for the prosecution had the case gone to trial. She was just 15 years old when she was drawn into Epstein’s exploitative world in 1998.

In her civil writ against him, under the pseudonym Jane Doe 102’ she alleged that her duties included being ‘sexually exploited by Epstein’s adult male peers including royalty’.
...

Her real name is Virginia Roberts and she now lives in Australia
​

Prince Andrew and girl, 17, who sex offender friend flew to Britain to meet him | Daily Mail Online

This information - introducing Prince Andrew as a pedophile - is false but it sets the tone of Prince Andrew as being attracted to 15 year olds.

"Virginia got a part-time job as a changing room assistant –which is where, soon after her 15th birthday, she met Ghislaine Maxwell, who invited her to work as Epstein’s personal masseuse."
​

Interesting to learn that her father endorsed her job with Epstein.

 

[tayaway]

I want to keep an open mind, and to recognize that Royals are held to a higher standard. [SBM] If he cannot clear his name, but is in fact innocent, that sucks.

The royals are protected by an opaque wall created by the cooperation between the Firm, the Met, and the Press. What sucks is that not even a former Met officer can get justice against PA.

 

[sds71]

Defendant’s selective excerpts of Plaintiff’s prior depositions omit testimony that
demonstrates her intent to return to Colorado. For example, Plaintiff testified that she and her husband left Colorado because his elderly father needed their imminent care in Australia after multiple surgeries. 2 As Defendant himself points out, Plaintiff is registered to vote in Colorado,
where her mother currently resides. See Dkt. 58-9. 3 These facts, and additional evidence for which Defendant has already sought discovery, establish Plaintiff’s Colorado citizenship. See, e.g., King
2 Ex. A (Nov. 14, 2016 Dep. Tr.) at 517:10-25. These health issues continue today.
3 Prince Andrew’s false accusation that Plaintiff registered to vote in Colorado in 2020 “to
support her specious claim of citizenship” is baseless…


REQUEST NO. 6:
All gifts or other things of value and all Documents concerning all gifts or other
things of value that You received from Epstein or Maxwell (including any Agent thereof), including but not limited to puppets.

REQUEST NO. 8:
All Documents concerning Your alleged medical condition of anhidrosis, hypohidrosis, or Your inability to sweat.

Response in Opposition to Motion – #60 in Giuffre v. Prince Andrew (S.D.N.Y., 1:21-cv-06702) – CourtListener.com

 

[rosesfromangels]

Sadly, and not for the first time, we see that a title or a birthright does not make a man noble.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[Lilibet]

IMO Ones who are trashing VRG, whether it’s Andrew, his attorneys, Dershowitz or anyone on this thread, are essentially trashing the women who were abused by Maxwell and Epstein. Their stories are all basically the same and those who testified at Maxwell’s trial were believed. No woman is going to put herself through these attacks on her credibility for years just for money. It’s all about holding these men (and the women who enable them) to account and seeing justice done. And often the only way to hold men to account is to file a lawsuit, so that maybe men will think twice about their actions. Attacking and attempting to discredit women who are finally standing up for themselves speaks volumes about these men. VRG filing a lawsuit against Andrew does not suddenly turn him into a victim and her into a perp. She is a victim, as are the other women, and on WS we do not seek to discredit and malign victims.
JMO, MOO

 

[Legally Bland]

Work records forced her to admit that she was 17 years old.

RSBM. I've posted this before, but this isn't true (and I appreciate it's not you being untruthful, it's something that has been erroneously reported in the media). I'm just going to copy and paste an earlier post with links to the deposition which show VRG thought she met JE and GM in 1999, but her work records show it was in 2000, when she was 16. Given her chaotic childhood it doesn't bother me that she misremembered by one year. It may be different to a jury, but I don't think it affects her credibility.

[Page 25...]

13 Q All right. Did something change between
14 the time then and today that makes you believe that
15 it's not all accurate?

16 A Well, as you can see, in line 4 on page 1,
17 I wasn't aware of my dates. I was just doing the
18 best to guesstimate when I actually met them.
19 Since then I've been able to find out that
20 through my Mar-a-Lago records that it was actually
21 the summer of 2000, not the summer of 1999.

22 Q Oh, I'm sorry. Are you back on page 1?

23 A On the first page.

24 Q Okay.

25 A Yes.

[Page 26]

1 Q And you're talking about line 4?

2 A Line 4.

3 Q Paragraph 4 or line 4?

4 A Oh, sorry. Number 4, the paragraph
5 number 4.

6 Q Okay. And what part of paragraph 4 do you
7 now believe to be untrue?

8 A In approximately --

9 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form.
10 You can answer.

11 A In approximately 1999 when I was 15 years
12 old I met Ghislaine Maxwell.

13 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay.

14 A I now know that it was 2000, that I was 16
15 years old when I met Ghislaine Maxwell.

16 Q So when you signed this document under
17 penalty of perjury stating that it was true, you no
18 longer believe that to be true, correct?

19 A It was an honest mistake. We had no idea
20 how to pinpoint without any kind of records or dates
21 or anything like that. I was just going back
22 chronologically through time. And that's the best
23 time that I thought it was. And now I know the
24 facts, so it's good to know.DE 235-4 – #1090, Att. #32 in Giuffre v. Maxwell (S.D.N.Y., 1:15-cv-07433) – CourtListener.com

UBM


16 is also the age they're using in the subsequent compliant v Andrew:

[Page 2...]

2. During 2000–2002, beginning when Plaintiff was 16, Plaintiff was the victim of sex trafficking and abuse by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Complaint – #1 in Giuffre v. Prince Andrew (S.D.N.Y., 1:21-cv-06702) – CourtListener.com

 

[sds71]

Judge denies Andrew's motion to block all discovery in Virginia Giuffre's suit against him until she answers questions under oath about where she lives:


Defendant moves for an order compelling plaintiffto respond to“targeted” but as yet unspecified “written
discovery requests pertaining to her domicile,” requiring her “to submit to a two-hour remote deposition limited to the issue
of her domicile,” and staying all other discovery until] the Court determines whether subject matter exists, lack of which
would be a potential defense that the defendant refers to as “anticipated” and that he concededly has not actually raised.

The motion (Dkt 58) is denied, substantially for the reasons set forth in the plaintiff's opposition to
defendant’s motion. Among other relevant points, it appears that the defendant previously served on the plaintiffextensive
discovery, including at least one comprehensive request for documents relating to her domicile, to which responses are due,
and have been promised, by January [4. See Dkt. 58-2, at 2.

This ruling is without prejudice to any defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction that defendant may

raise by motion or by answer. It likewise is made without determining the merit, or lack of merit, in

plaintiff's assertion that defendant’s motion is “a transparent attempt to delay discovery into his own



ORDER denying 58 Letter Motion to Compel. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 12/31/2021) (Kaplan, Lewis) (Entered: 12/31/2021

 

[otto]

IMO Ones who are trashing VRG, whether it’s Andrew, his attorneys, Dershowitz or anyone on this thread, are essentially trashing the women who were abused by Maxwell and Epstein. Their stories are all basically the same and those who testified at Maxwell’s trial were believed. No woman is going to put herself through these attacks on her credibility for years just for money. It’s all about holding these men (and the women who enable them) to account and seeing justice done. And often the only way to hold men to account is to file a lawsuit, so that maybe men will think twice about their actions. Attacking and attempting to discredit women who are finally standing up for themselves speaks volumes about these men. VRG filing a lawsuit against Andrew does not suddenly turn him into a victim and her into a perp. She is a victim, as are the other women, and on WS we do not seek to discredit and malign victims.
JMO, MOO

In any situation where one person makes a claim against another, it's important that we understand all aspects of the claim. We know that Giuffre's memory is unreliable, that she misremembers. We know that she believes that she was raped by Dershowitz and that she believes she participated in an orgy with Prince Andrew and 8 young girls. Both claims lack evidence at this time.

On the basis of one photo taken with Giuffre and Prince Andrew at Maxwell's house in London, we should believe that she was raped by Prince Andrew. He is basically guilty by association with Epstein. If Epstein abused teens, then all of his friends must have abused teens as well. Everyone who associated with Epstein must have the same morals and values as him - regardless of the fact that his enormous wealth attracted everyone from Trump to Clinton to Prince Andrew.

Giuffre was victimized throughout her life, first by family, then by one trafficker, later by another trafficker. Dershowitz, a lawyer, has said that she can be charged with victimizing others. I think we're all familiar with the cycle of abuse where an abuse victim becomes an abuser. I want to see evidence before taking the leap from one photo to rape.

Regarding money, didn't Giuffre receive millions from Epstein, and more millions from Maxwell at a later date? Isn't this lawsuit against Prince Andrew seeking money? If her lawsuit was seeking damages of $1.00, I would more easily believe that this is about justice.

 

[UK Girl]

IMO Ones who are trashing VRG, whether it’s Andrew, his attorneys, Dershowitz or anyone on this thread, are essentially trashing the women who were abused by Maxwell and Epstein. Their stories are all basically the same and those who testified at Maxwell’s trial were believed. No woman is going to put herself through these attacks on her credibility for years just for money. It’s all about holding these men (and the women who enable them) to account and seeing justice done. And often the only way to hold men to account is to file a lawsuit, so that maybe men will think twice about their actions. Attacking and attempting to discredit women who are finally standing up for themselves speaks volumes about these men. VRG filing a lawsuit against Andrew does not suddenly turn him into a victim and her into a perp. She is a victim, as are the other women, and on WS we do not seek to discredit and malign victims.
JMO, MOO

To be honest considering Virginia was reportedly high up the ranks I am curious why the Prosecution didnt call her as a witness

 

[UK Girl]

IMO Ones who are trashing VRG, whether it’s Andrew, his attorneys, Dershowitz or anyone on this thread, are essentially trashing the women who were abused by Maxwell and Epstein. Their stories are all basically the same and those who testified at Maxwell’s trial were believed. No woman is going to put herself through these attacks on her credibility for years just for money. It’s all about holding these men (and the women who enable them) to account and seeing justice done. And often the only way to hold men to account is to file a lawsuit, so that maybe men will think twice about their actions. Attacking and attempting to discredit women who are finally standing up for themselves speaks volumes about these men. VRG filing a lawsuit against Andrew does not suddenly turn him into a victim and her into a perp. She is a victim, as are the other women, and on WS we do not seek to discredit and malign victims.
JMO, MOO

to be honest it doesnt mean Andrew has been convicted either.

 

[UK Girl]

In any situation where one person makes a claim against another, it's important that we understand all aspects of the claim. We know that Giuffre's memory is unreliable, that she misremembers. We know that she believes that she was raped by Dershowitz and that she believes she participated in an orgy with Prince Andrew and 8 young girls. Both claims lack evidence at this time.

On the basis of one photo taken with Giuffre and Prince Andrew at Maxwell's house in London, we should believe that she was raped by Prince Andrew. He is basically guilty by association with Epstein. If Epstein abused teens, then all of his friends must have abused teens as well. Everyone who associated with Epstein must have the same morals and values as him - regardless of the fact that his enormous wealth attracted everyone from Trump to Clinton to Prince Andrew.

Giuffre was victimized throughout her life, first by family, then by one trafficker, later by another trafficker. Dershowitz, a lawyer, has said that she can be charged with victimizing others. I think we're all familiar with the cycle of abuse where an abuse victim becomes an abuser. I want to see evidence before taking the leap from one photo to rape.

Regarding money, didn't Giuffre receive millions from Epstein, and more millions from Maxwell at a later date? Isn't this lawsuit against Prince Andrew seeking money? If her lawsuit was seeking damages of $1.00, I would more easily believe that this is about justice.

I was wondering about this earlier actually. What is the main reason for doing this? to see him in court? because I doubt very much thats going to happen. For money? Is she getting her lawyers pro bono? because...they dont even seem sure IF she wins...whether he can be forced to pay any money from here and secondly...I dont know that he even has any. He may be a Prince but in his case hes not exactly loaded and if she is paying her legal bills herself she could end up spending a fortune...and not getting anything for it. Incidentally if they really are thinking of calling Meghan and Charles.....thats just ugh

 

[MrsWatson]

We also need to keep in mind that Giuffre was trafficked at age 13, and that her father rescued her from that life. He helped her to put her life on track, including helping her to get a job at one of Trump's resorts.

In any situation where one person makes a claim against another, it's important that we understand all aspects of the claim. We know that Giuffre's memory is unreliable, that she misremembers. We know that she believes that she was raped by Dershowitz and that she believes she participated in an orgy with Prince Andrew and 8 young girls. Both claims lack evidence at this time.

On the basis of one photo taken with Giuffre and Prince Andrew at Maxwell's house in London, we should believe that she was raped by Prince Andrew. He is basically guilty by association with Epstein. If Epstein abused teens, then all of his friends must have abused teens as well. Everyone who associated with Epstein must have the same morals and values as him - regardless of the fact that his enormous wealth attracted everyone from Trump to Clinton to Prince Andrew.

Giuffre was victimized throughout her life, first by family, then by one trafficker, later by another trafficker. Dershowitz, a lawyer, has said that she can be charged with victimizing others. I think we're all familiar with the cycle of abuse where an abuse victim becomes an abuser. I want to see evidence before taking the leap from one photo to rape.

Regarding money, didn't Giuffre receive millions from Epstein, and more millions from Maxwell at a later date? Isn't this lawsuit against Prince Andrew seeking money? If her lawsuit was seeking damages of $1.00, I would more easily believe that this is about justice.

So, her father allegedly rescued her, then also abused her?

Since you appear, based on your multiple posts denigrating a victim of sexual assault, to think that Ms Giuffre is lying, could you explain what you think her motive would be? Can't be money, she's already had a sizable payout. She is doing this why?

Use small sentences, please, I seem to be dense on this.

 

[UK Girl]

So, her father allegedly rescued her, then also abused her?

Since you appear, based on your multiple posts denigrating a victim of sexual assault, seem to think that Ms Giuffre is lying, could you explain what you think her motive would be? Can't be money, she's already had a sizable payout. She is doing this why?

Use small sentences, please, I seem to be dense on this.

I dont think her dad abused her. A family friend reportedly did and then there was another guy who ran some sort of sex cult I think. I think she then went home after that and then met Epstein.