CharlieH Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Prince Andrew "spent weeks" at sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein's Florida mansion, according to a third batch of unsealed court files. Juan Alessi, who managed Epstein's residence in Palm Beach, testified that the Duke of York stayed in the guest bedroom and had daily massages. The testimony appears in around 1,300 pages of evidence released on Friday. The records also paint a disturbing picture of how Epstein procured victims for sexual exploitation. Hundreds of pages of legal filings have been unsealed this week under order from a federal court. The legal papers are part of a 2015 defamation lawsuit by one accuser, Virginia Giuffre, against Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's imprisoned former girlfriend. In a 2009 deposition, Mr Alessi told investigators that Prince Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, were "friends" of Epstein and Maxwell. The duchess is not accused of any wrongdoing and Prince Andrew has denied misconduct. Asked if they ever had "massages" during visits to the Palm Beach mansion, Mr Alessi answered: "Prince Andrew did." He added that the duchess once briefly visited the house, but "Prince Andrew spent weeks with us", receiving "daily massages". "I can't remember if he had more than one [per day], but I think it was just a massage for him," he added. In one of the court filings unsealed this week, one accuser, Jane Doe 3, believed to be Ms Giuffre, alleges she was "forced to have sexual relations" with Prince Andrew while she was 17 in Maxwell's London apartment, in New York and on Epstein's private resort in the US Virgin Islands in an "orgy" with other under-aged girls. This allegation is not new, and the British royal has long denied any wrongdoing. In a 2019 interview with the BBC, the Duke of York said he had no memory of ever meeting Ms Giuffre. In 2022, he paid her an undisclosed financial settlement to settle her sex assault lawsuit against him, but did so with no admission as to liability. Who is named in Jeffrey Epstein files and why? Recruitment of girls detailed in second Epstein batch Prince Andrew and Clinton named in Epstein files Also in the documents unsealed on Friday, witnesses describe how people in Epstein's orbit were directed to "pick up girls" to "bring back for Jeffrey". FULL STORY 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post BritManToo Posted January 6 Popular Post Share Posted January 6 3 hours ago, CharlieH said: Mr Alessi answered: "Prince Andrew did." He added that the duchess once briefly visited the house, but "Prince Andrew spent weeks with us", receiving "daily massages". Lots of my pals have daily massages, as far as I know, only against the law in some Arab countries if mixed sex. Perfectly legal in the UK and the USA. 6 1 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted January 6 Popular Post Share Posted January 6 Settling out of court with mummy ‘s money before Discovery commenced was a smart move for a guy not known to be very smart. 2 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post RuamRudy Posted January 6 Popular Post Share Posted January 6 1 hour ago, BritManToo said: Lots of my pals have daily massages, as far as I know, only against the law in some Arab countries if mixed sex. Perfectly legal in the UK and the USA. I don't think that the massage itself is the aspect under scrutiny. It's the suggestion, from various claimants, that Epstein was using underage girls to deliver the massages and more. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post thaibeachlovers Posted January 6 Popular Post Share Posted January 6 16 hours ago, CharlieH said: Juan Alessi, who managed Epstein's residence in Palm Beach, testified that the Duke of York stayed in the guest bedroom and had daily massages. Oh, that'll do it. Let's just take Andrew out and hang him! That's like saying every farang that ever stayed in Pattaya had sex with bar girls, which would be a nonsense. Is Alessi charged with managing a residence in which nefarious activities have been reported to have taken place? 3 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impulse Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 15 hours ago, RuamRudy said: I don't think that the massage itself is the aspect under scrutiny. It's the suggestion, from various claimants, that Epstein was using underage girls to deliver the massages and more. It's the happy ending. On a related note, I wonder how many Thai visitors would stand the scrutiny if documents were released from a lawsuit by a former Thai short timer... You know, when "she looked of age" doesn't cut it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 20 minutes ago, impulse said: It's the happy ending. On a related note, I wonder how many Thai visitors would stand the scrutiny if documents were released from a lawsuit by a former Thai short timer... You know, when "she looked of age" doesn't cut it. If you wish to lead us down that path of wondering, are you speaking from personal experience? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post impulse Posted January 7 Popular Post Share Posted January 7 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: If you wish to lead us down that path of wondering, are you speaking from personal experience? Nope. Never had sex with a Thai woman, paid or unpaid, of any age. Considered it, but my Chinese GF sometimes feeds the ducks on the pond where we live. Edited January 7 by impulse 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 I wonder how many people posting on these anti-royalist threads have also had [cough] "massages" with Thai "bargirls" who were above the legal age of consent. There is zero evidence any laws were broken. Just a few ex-prostitutes seeing an opportunity to get on the Guiffre bandwagon for a large settlement. 3 1 4 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 1 minute ago, JonnyF said: I wonder how many people posting on these anti-royalist threads have also had [cough] "massages" with Thai "bargirls" who were above the legal age of consent. There is zero evidence any laws were broken. Just a few ex-prostitutes seeing an opportunity to get on the Guiffre bandwagon for a large settlement. Minors may not consent to sex, they are by definition of law victims of statutory rape, they are not prostitutes. 2 1 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said: Minors may not consent to sex, they are by definition of law victims of statutory rape, they are not prostitutes. She was 17 and the age of consent in the UK is 16. No law was broken, even if he did sleep with her (which he denies and is completely unproven). You've got nothing. 5 3 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 On 1/7/2024 at 4:32 AM, thaibeachlovers said: Oh, that'll do it. Let's just take Andrew out and hang him! That's like saying every farang that ever stayed in Pattaya had sex with bar girls, which would be a nonsense. Is Alessi charged with managing a residence in which nefarious activities have been reported to have taken place? I was only having a cup of tea upstairs with the girls in that bar in soi 6. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 Just now, JonnyF said: She was 17 and the age of consent in the UK is 16. No law was broken, even if he did sleep with her (which he denies and is completely unproven). You've got nothing. Appart from she was trafficked for sex (a crime) and she was raped in the U.S. while a minor. The allegations are a matter of sworn testimony before a court of law. Prince Andrew refuses to give sworn testimony, or at least for now he does. As I said earlier, settling out of court with mummy’s money before Disclosure commenced was an unusually smart move for a guy who is known to be not very smart. Certainly not smart enough to understand he’s not put an end to this sordid piece of his past. 2 2 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said: Appart from she was trafficked for sex (a crime) and she was raped in the U.S. while a minor. The allegations are a matter of sworn testimony before a court of law. Prince Andrew refuses to give sworn testimony, or at least for now he does. As I said earlier, settling out of court with mummy’s money before Disclosure commenced was an unusually smart move for a guy who is known to be not very smart. Certainly not smart enough to understand he’s not put an end to this sordid piece of his past. Please provide evidence for these spurious allegations. This is nothing more than titilation for readers of tabloid rags and anti-royalists. There is no evidence Andrew slept with her while underage. None. Sworn testimony? That is essentially one side of a story and is very often a complete lie, especially when huge payouts are potentially up for grabs. You have nothing more than accusations from sex workers seeking huge payouts. The only person who has admitted to any crime is Guiffre herself. 3 2 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 Just now, JonnyF said: Please provide evidence for these spurious allegations. This is nothing more than titilation for readers of tabloid rags and anti-royalists. There is no evidence Andrew slept with her while underage. None. Sworn testimony? That is essentially one side of a story and is very often a complete lie, especially when huge payouts are potentially up for grabs. You have nothing more than accusations from sex workers seeking huge payouts. The only person who has admitted to any crime is Guiffre herself. Court files are not ‘tabloid rags’. Sworn testimony before a court of law is evidence. Prince Andrew can whenever he chooses provide a sworn testimony of his side of the story, he refuses to do so and used his mummy’s money to settle out of court before Discovery commenced. If only one side of this story is being told, that’s because Prince Andrew has refused to give his side of events that are a matter of public record. 2 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said: Court files are not ‘tabloid rags’. Sworn testimony before a court of law is evidence. Prince Andrew can whenever he chooses provide a sworn testimony of his side of the story, he refuses to do so and used his mummy’s money to settle out of court before Discovery commenced. If only one side of this story is being told, that’s because Prince Andrew has refused to give his side of events that are a matter of public record. Evidence? She could have given sworn testimony that Andrew morphed into an alien and took her to Mars on an inflatable flamingo, you can call that "evidence" as well if you wish. Andrew was perfectly entitled to settle out of court. Guiffre didn't have to accept the money, she chose to. Proving once again what this was all about. Money. A cash grab. Hardly surprising given her history. If you want to blame anyone for Andrew settling out of court, blame Guiffre for accepting the cash offer instead of seeking "justice". 5 3 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ozimoron Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 1 minute ago, JonnyF said: Evidence? She could have given sworn testimony that Andrew morphed into an alien and took her to Mars on an inflatable flamingo, you can call that "evidence" as well if you wish. Andrew was perfectly entitled to settle out of court. Guiffre didn't have to accept the money, she chose to. Proving once again what this was all about. Money. A cash grab. Hardly surprising given her history. If you want to blame anyone for Andrew settling out of court, blame Guiffre for accepting the cash offer instead of seeking "justice". Sworn testimony is evidence. Lack of testimony is not evidence. It was open to prince charming to give evidence and contest her claim in court. He chose not to and paid up instead. 1 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 (edited) 7 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Evidence? She could have given sworn testimony that Andrew morphed into an alien and took her to Mars on an inflatable flamingo, you can call that "evidence" as well if you wish. Andrew was perfectly entitled to settle out of court. Guiffre didn't have to accept the money, she chose to. Proving once again what this was all about. Money. A cash grab. Hardly surprising given her history. If you want to blame anyone for Andrew settling out of court, blame Guiffre for accepting the cash offer instead of seeking "justice". Meanwhile the allegations persist, and aren’t going to disappear. He’s going to spend his life dodging this sordid part of his past. Charles needs to do the smart thing and toss him to the curb for bringing the institution of the Royal Household into disrepute. Edited January 8 by Chomper Higgot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 10 minutes ago, ozimoron said: Sworn testimony is evidence. Lack of testimony is not evidence. It was open to prince charming to give evidence and contest her claim in court. He chose not to and paid up instead. Moreover, the allegations are made under oath. Prince Andrew denies the sworn allegations against him but will not make that denial under oath. He’s dull, but not that dull. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 28 minutes ago, ozimoron said: Sworn testimony is evidence. Lack of testimony is not evidence. It was open to prince charming to give evidence and contest her claim in court. He chose not to and paid up instead. Yes it is evidence. Not all evidence is reliable, or even true. I meant real evidence not the lies of a self confessed sex trafficking prostitute. It was his right to settle out of court. Perfectly legal. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Moreover, the allegations are made under oath. Prince Andrew denies the sworn allegations against him but will not make that denial under oath. He’s dull, but not that dull. Plenty of people lie under oath. Just as plenty of people choose to settle out of court. If she was that bothered she could have refused the settlement but she already got exactly what she wanted. Money. If you're angry that he was allowed to settle, blame Guiffre. She accepted it. 2 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 26 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Plenty of people lie under oath. Just as plenty of people choose to settle out of court. If she was that bothered she could have refused the settlement but she already got exactly what she wanted. Money. If you're angry that he was allowed to settle, blame Guiffre. She accepted it. Lying under oath is perjury, which is why ‘don’t make statements under oath if you need to lie’ is good legal advice. I’m not angry. Neither am I defending a credibly accused rapist who is unwilling to defend himself. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Lying under oath is perjury, which is why ‘don’t make statements under oath if you need to lie’ is good legal advice. I’m not angry. Neither am I defending a credibly accused rapist who is unwilling to defend himself. So your "evidence" is the word of a self confessed prostitute and procurer of children for sex who stood to make millions (and did) by making the claims? Excuse me if I don't join the cries to lock him up and throw away the key... 2 1 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 1 minute ago, JonnyF said: So your "evidence" is the word of a self confessed prostitute and procurer of children for sex who stood to make millions (and did) by making the claims? Excuse me if I don't join the cries to lock him up and throw away the key... Not ‘my evidence’, evidence before the court. Once again, child victims of sex trafficking and statutory rape are not prostitutes. Nobody is calling for anyone to be locked up and the key thrown away. Only one of us is defending a guy credibly accused of rape. 1 1 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Not ‘my evidence’, evidence before the court. Once again, child victims of sex trafficking and statutory rape are not prostitutes. Nobody is calling for anyone to be locked up and the key thrown away. Only one of us is defending a guy credibly accused of rape. There is nothing credible about the accusation. Maybe your sympathy should lie with the victims of Guifree, the children that she herself admitted to acquiring for Epstein. Now THAT is a credible accusation since the perpertrator admitted to the crime. But no, she isn't a British Royal Male is she? So let's just brush that under the carpet and attack Andrew... 1 2 3 1 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post beautifulthailand99 Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 10 minutes ago, JonnyF said: There is nothing credible about the accusation. Maybe your sympathy should lie with the victims of Guifree, the children that she herself admitted to acquiring for Epstein. Now THAT is a credible accusation since the perpertrator admitted to the crime. But no, she isn't a British Royal Male is she? So let's just brush that under the carpet and attack Andrew... Is Andrew in the room with you now ? 1 1 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 29 minutes ago, JonnyF said: There is nothing credible about the accusation. Maybe your sympathy should lie with the victims of Guifree, the children that she herself admitted to acquiring for Epstein. Now THAT is a credible accusation since the perpertrator admitted to the crime. But no, she isn't a British Royal Male is she? So let's just brush that under the carpet and attack Andrew... Sympathies lie with the victims of Espstein and all those who engaged in his crimes against minors. Prince Andrew is credibly accused of being amongst the abusers. 2 3 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post beautifulthailand99 Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 Let's pretend this has gone to a court of law then what would a reasonable person believe from the evidence we are aware of to date. That Maxwell and Epstein are convicted peadophile groomers and traffickers of long standing a fact that was known to many by their actions ,behaviours and environments they created. Trumps he liked them young comment. Folks who repeatedly and vigorously associated with them could not be unaware of the sleazy environment they created and shared with like minded rich and powerful individuals. Then add to the fact that Andrew continued to consort with them after the conviction even staying in his NY house. Then add the sworn testimonies of multiple victims naming him, the photographic evidence , his unwillingness to cooperate with the FBI despite saying he would and the 12 million payout. Guilty or not guilty. I'll get the rope.... 3 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JonnyF Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Sympathies lie with the victims of Espstein I have sympathy for the real victims, not opportunist hustlers who reject the chance of "justice" for cold hard cash. 5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: and all those who engaged in his crimes against minors. You can sympathize with those who engaged in his crimes against minors but I certainly won't. 5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Prince Andrew is credibly accused of being amongst the abusers. Yes accused. Not convicted. I could accuse you of the same thing, it means nothing. Andrew is innocent until proven guilty. 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted January 8 Popular Post Share Posted January 8 2 minutes ago, JonnyF said: I have sympathy for the real victims, not opportunist hustlers who reject the chance of "justice" for cold hard cash. You can sympathize with those who engaged in his crimes against minors but I certainly won't. Yes accused. Not convicted. I could accuse you of the same thing, it means nothing. Andrew is innocent until proven guilty. Your sympathies clearly lie with the credibly accused rapist. I doubt you’d be so stupid as to accuse me of anything under oath. 1 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now