MONSTER’S ‘BAIT’: Beauty Queen Claims Jeffrey Epstein Offered Her a Meeting With His “Pal” Prince Andrew SIX YEARS Before the Royal Said They Met — A Timeline That Could Shatter His Defense… – HG
It began, like so many of Jeffrey Epstein’s stories, with a quiet promise whispered in a luxury suite — a promise of access, of opportunity, of doors that only a select few could open. A former beauty queen has now come forward with a claim that could unravel one of the most fragile narratives in the long and sordid saga of Epstein’s elite connections.
According to her testimony, Epstein offered to introduce her to his “close friend, Prince Andrew” — in 1997, six years before the Duke of York claims to have first met the financier through Ghislaine Maxwell in 2000. If her account is true, it does not merely tweak the timeline. It detonates it.
Because Epstein’s world was built on timing — who knew what, and when. And if Andrew’s connection to him predates the official record, it suggests something darker and far more enduring than a passing acquaintance. It hints at a partnership of silence, woven through years of privilege, denial, and quiet complicity.
A Meeting That Shouldn’t Have Happened
The woman, who competed in an international beauty pageant held in New York in 1997, recalls being approached by Epstein at a post-event reception. “He had this air of effortless confidence,” she said. “He introduced himself as a philanthropist who loved helping young women in their careers. He said he could introduce me to ‘people who matter’ — even British royalty.”
When she laughed, assuming it was a joke, Epstein smiled and replied, “No, I mean it. Andrew’s a friend. He appreciates beauty.”
That single name, Andrew, would later become synonymous with scandal. At the time, however, it was simply intriguing — a royal connection whispered like a secret password into a young woman’s ear.
The encounter never turned into a meeting, but the offer itself — and the year it was made — changes everything. Because if Epstein was invoking Andrew’s name as early as 1997, it suggests they were in contact long before either admits.
The Significance of 1997
Why does 1997 matter? Because that year was pivotal in Epstein’s ascent. It was when his fortune, his network, and his predatory behavior began to fuse into the machinery of exploitation that would later ensnare dozens of women.
If Prince Andrew’s name was part of Epstein’s “bait” during that time, it means Epstein had already cultivated enough familiarity to use it with confidence — and perhaps even the Duke’s permission.
It’s also a devastating contradiction. Prince Andrew has consistently maintained that he met Epstein through Maxwell in 2000, after the financier had already embedded himself in Manhattan’s social elite.
But this testimony — corroborated by two witnesses who recall Epstein mentioning his “royal friend” in the same year — threatens to shatter that version entirely.
As legal analyst Rachel Clendinen puts it:
“If Epstein and Andrew were connected in the 1990s, it rewrites the entire narrative. It means the Duke’s claims of ignorance about Epstein’s reputation collapse under their own weight.”
The Epstein Playbook: Power as Predator’s Currency
The pattern is unmistakable. Epstein’s empire of exploitation was built on proximity to power. He didn’t just abuse young women; he weaponized fame and influence to make his victims feel both dazzled and trapped.
Every name he dropped — Clinton, Trump, Gates, and yes, Prince Andrew — was part of a psychological trap. The allure of being chosen by powerful men made his invitations irresistible to ambitious young women and nearly impossible to refuse.
According to multiple survivors, Epstein often described his connections as “doors waiting to be opened.” One of them, in a deposition, said:
“He’d talk about royalty, presidents, billionaires. It was like a spell. You felt special just being in the room.”
The beauty queen’s story fits perfectly into that pattern. Epstein was a master manipulator, and the name “Prince Andrew” was one of his most potent weapons — a symbol of legitimacy that allowed his crimes to hide in plain sight.
Prince Andrew’s Fragile Timeline
Prince Andrew’s defense has always rested on a single, narrow premise: that his relationship with Epstein was brief, superficial, and began after Epstein’s first wave of predation.
In his infamous BBC Newsnight interview in 2019, Andrew insisted he met Epstein “in 2000” and saw him infrequently. He even described staying at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion in 2010 as an act of “honor” — an attempt, he claimed, to end their friendship face-to-face.
But every new revelation since then has chipped away at that story. Leaked documents, flight logs, and photographs have repeatedly suggested a deeper, longer association.
Now, with this new testimony, Andrew’s chronology of innocence begins to collapse entirely.
If Epstein was already invoking Andrew’s name in 1997, it implies that their relationship — or at least Epstein’s use of it — was well-established years before Andrew acknowledges it.
And that, experts say, is legally and morally devastating.
“The moment Epstein’s name entered Andrew’s orbit,” says human rights attorney Lisa Bloom, “the question becomes: what did he know, and when did he choose to stop caring?”
Epstein’s Network of Silence
The beauty queen’s account does more than challenge Andrew’s story — it exposes how Epstein’s network functioned through suggestion and silence.
He didn’t need to parade his powerful friends in front of his victims; all he had to do was make them believable. The mention of a prince or a billionaire was enough to create an illusion of safety — a sense that nothing illicit could happen under the protection of such names.
Epstein used that illusion like a fishing line. Every powerful man he could cite was another piece of bait, another thread in the web.
And the silence of those men — their refusal to speak, to acknowledge, to confront — became the net that held everything together.
That silence continues. Buckingham Palace has refused to comment on the new allegations. Andrew’s representatives, too, remain mute. The same pattern, decade after decade: when the light grows too bright, the powerful retreat into the shadows of “no comment.”
A Timeline of Convenience
Prince Andrew’s public narrative of his relationship with Epstein has always been curiously convenient.
- 2000: Claims he met Epstein through Maxwell.
- 2008: Epstein is convicted of procuring a minor for prostitution. Andrew says he “cut ties.”
- 2010: Seen walking with Epstein in Central Park — says it was to end the friendship.
- 2019: Denies ever meeting Virginia Giuffre.
- 2022: Settles Giuffre’s civil suit for a reported £12 million without admitting guilt.
Each stage of that timeline is carefully crafted to minimize connection, to contain the scandal within manageable borders.
But if Epstein was invoking Andrew’s name years before that first “official” meeting, the timeline transforms from a defense into a deception.
It suggests not a man fooled by a manipulator — but a man whose proximity to that manipulator was much deeper than he has ever admitted.
Revisiting Epstein’s “Royal Connection”
Former Epstein staffers have hinted for years that the financier bragged about his friendship with “a British royal.” One recalled Epstein saying that Andrew “owed him a favor,” while another mentioned that Epstein displayed photographs of the Duke at his Palm Beach home long before 2000.
Until now, such claims were treated as gossip — unverifiable fragments from a world where lies and truth often blurred. But with this new testimony aligning with those earlier accounts, the pattern is impossible to ignore.
As one former employee put it, “Jeffrey never bragged idly. If he said he knew someone, he did. And if he used your name, it was because he believed he owned it.”
That ownership — that sense of entitlement — was Epstein’s ultimate illusion.
The Collapse of Denial
What remains of Andrew’s credibility is now threadbare. Every revelation reopens the same questions he tried to bury in 2019: What did he know? When did he know it? And how long has he been lying about it?
The Duke has already paid the financial price of his association with Epstein, losing his royal titles and military honors. But the moral debt remains — a debt to truth, to justice, to the countless women silenced by the same machinery that once shielded him.
Because if Epstein used Prince Andrew’s name as “bait,” then Andrew’s silence helped build the trap.
And no matter how many years pass, no palace walls are thick enough to contain that truth.
The Final Reckoning
History rarely gives second chances to the powerful who mistake silence for safety. The world has seen Epstein’s empire crumble, but the debris still glints with the names of those who thought they could outlast exposure.
For Prince Andrew, the reckoning is no longer about a single accusation or an isolated photograph. It’s about a pattern — a timeline of lies that stretches back further than anyone dared to admit.
If this woman’s story holds true, then the Duke’s defense doesn’t merely weaken — it disintegrates.
And in that disintegration lies a haunting truth about power: that sometimes, the most dangerous thing isn’t the monster himself — it’s the people who let him use their names as bait.
Leave a Reply