The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/)
-   -   The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy (2010-2019) (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/the-prince-andrew-and-jeffrey-epstein-controversy-2010-2019-a-30333.html)

suztav 01-22-2015 06:37 PM

As a woman I have to ask what this underage woman was doing in the company of Epstein, et al? Where were her parents or guardians? Really?


Sadly, this won't end well for anyone involved in this sordid tale. At worst I think Andrew, Dershowitz, et al are guilty of having bad taste in friends. Lessons learned!

Zonk 01-22-2015 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suztav (Post 1743067)
As a woman I have to ask what this underage woman was doing in the company of Epstein, et al? Where were her parents or guardians? Really?


Sadly, this won't end well for anyone involved in this sordid tale. At worst I think Andrew, Dershowitz, et al are guilty of having bad taste in friends. Lessons learned!

I thought Dershowitz was his lawyer, not so much a friend. In the US at least, the concept of law places an emphasis that even the guilty deserve to have adequate and competent representation.

Curryong 01-22-2015 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hernameispekka (Post 1742992)
I don't mean most. I myself didn't. But it's not like 17 year olds are coerced into it. (unless in the same way as an older)

You are not trying to say, are you, that this 17year old went to bed with Andrew because she fell instantly in love with him? She did what Epstein told her to do, and that was have sex with a 41 year old man, one of Epstein's great friends.

Most 17 year olds, if they are sexually active, are making love with their young boyfriends, not with men who are old enough to be their fathers.

soapstar 01-22-2015 06:46 PM

From what I've read, she was recruited at 15 years old. She has said that Epstein made her feel as if she could never be anything without him. So if you take into account her age, the money/power aspect, an obvious messed up family life and years of being abused, it's not hard to see how she didn't leave. Here was a messed up girl that was being told she was nothing and she believed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk (Post 1743069)
I thought Dershowitz was his lawyer, not so much a friend. In the US at least, the concept of law places an emphasis that even the guilty deserve to have adequate and competent representation.

According Dershowitz they were friends. Vanity Fair did an expose on Epstein and in the article, Dershowitz talked about their friendship.

hernameispekka 01-22-2015 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 1743070)
You are not trying to say, are you, that this 17year old went to bed with Andrew because she fell instantly in love with him? She did what Epstein told her to do, and that was have sex with a 41 year old man, one of Epstein's great friends.

Most 17 year olds, if they are sexually active, are making love with their young boyfriends, not with men who are old enough to be their fathers.

Uhm, no?! I'm saying she (might have) had sex with a man who happened to be over 40 and she lived a lifestyle very attracting. She could be telling the truth about being coerced by Eppstein, but nothing shows that Andrew knew about that. She will not be the first nor the last young girl intrigued by sex with an older man, a powerful at that. Nothing in that means she's forced.

Osipi 01-22-2015 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soapstar (Post 1743071)
From what I've read, she was recruited at 15 years old. She has said that Epstein made her feel as if she could never be anything without him. So if you take into account her age, the money/power aspect, an obvious messed up family life and years of being abused, it's not hard to see how she didn't leave. Here was a messed up girl that was being told she was nothing and she believed it.

Sometimes to a young woman, having a sugar daddy seems like a wonderful way out of a cruel world. It is very possible that after beginning a relationship with Epstein and all that he had to offer, the thought of leaving and thrust back into a world where all the amenities and easy living wouldn't be easy to come by turned out to be a scary thing. I do believe Epstein would have had a strong psychological hold over them that would have been very hard to break.

US Royal Watcher 01-22-2015 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soapstar (Post 1743071)
From what I've read, she was recruited at 15 years old. She has said that Epstein made her feel as if she could never be anything without him. So if you take into account her age, the money/power aspect, an obvious messed up family life and years of being abused, it's not hard to see how she didn't leave. Here was a messed up girl that was being told she was nothing and she believed it.

Exactly. The reason that we have statutory rape laws is that it is not always necessary to men to forcibly rape 15-year old girls. A 15 year old girl usually doesn't have the sophistication and experience to understand the ramifications of getting involved with lowlife scum like Epstein. They can be easily mislead and it could have serious consequences throughout their lifetimes.

Jane Doe #3 was 17 at the time she claims she had sex with Prince Andrew. She may have been legally old enough to consent but what on earth were her parents thinking? If Andrew had sex with her, what was he thinking? It's just wrong. Period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by soapstar
According to an interview that Dershowitz did, Epstein was his friend

Dershowitz is a defense lawyer who deals with scum all the time. He probably counts a lot of them as friends. It's a little different than Prince Andrew maintaining his friendship after Epstein's conviction. We'll see what Bill Clinton's story is.

tommy100 01-22-2015 07:18 PM

He shouldn't have said anything, I can see that there is no easy answer as saying nothing might have looked like he didn't care. But all he's done is given the newspapers another reason to report the story and for what, adding nothing extra to what was already said.

JeanB 01-22-2015 07:42 PM

Would have been better to say nothing. Don't think it helped at all and the way he walked in head down over the phone looking nervous would have looked better with head held high.
Sorry I still think he was involved



I have to agree with you whole heartedly! HE has never said that HE has not done anything. Buckingham Palace has said that he has done nothing and Andrew has reiterated this. This is as carefully worded as the Clinton/Lewinsky denial.

Osipi 01-22-2015 07:48 PM

I think no matter how Andrew acted, there would have been negative responses. This is clearly a damned if he does and damned if he doesn't kind of situation. I think by reiterating and stressing the statement made by BP may have been the best choice as it addresses that he is facing these allegations but yet short and sweet and shows he's not going to dwell on it and air all kinds of dirty laundry in public.

Roslyn 01-22-2015 08:45 PM

OK. Finally bit the bullet and hunted out the current version of "The Mann Act". It can be found in the U.S. Code, here: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 117 - TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMES | LII / Legal Information Institute

There is a separate "sex trafficking" provision which catches associated actions that don't involve the actual "transporting": Section 1591: 18 U.S. Code 1591 - Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion | LII / Legal Information Institute

In respect of victims under 18, the fact they might be happy as clams to be travelling and enthusiastic participants in the romps is irrelevant. They don't have to have been coerced or threatened in any way. The mere fact they are under 18 is enough for the person who knowingly transported them for the purpose of prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense; or even with the intent to do those things; or used the mail, etc., to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce, them into engage in those activities, is enough, and renders the transporter or persuader to be fined and imprisoned for not less than 10 years or for life.

A person who attempts or conspires to knowingly transport someone under 18 with intent they engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, is liable to the same penalty as if they were the one who did the transporting.

Section 1591 - the specific Sex Trafficking section which is wider than the "Mann Act" provisions - provides that a person who recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, or maintains by any means a person under 18 who will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act; and any person who benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has recruited, etc., a person under 18 who will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act; will be liable to penalties varying depending on whether the person is over or under 14. Where the victim is between 14 and 18, the penalty is a fine and imprisonment for not less than 10 years or for life. If force, threats of force, or coercion (as defined) were involved, the minimum prison term is 15 years. Again, the victim might be thoroughly enjoying everything that happened and have had no threats at all made against her, but that's irrelevant for the issue of conviction.

Section 1591 defines "commercial sex act" as any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person. So the "victim" doesn't have to have been paid in money.

The section defines "venture" as meaning any group of two or more individuals associated in fact, whether or not a legal entity.

Section 1591 also contains the interesting provision that, "Whoever obstructs, attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for a term not to exceed 20 years, or both." I find that one very interesting. I'm not sure what actions it might catch. I wonder whether letter-writing might qualify?

royal rob 01-22-2015 08:55 PM

Thank you for your time and trouble. I'm sure we will all refer back to it in the coming weeks ( months! )


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

US Royal Watcher 01-22-2015 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1743117)
Section 1591 also contains the interesting provision that, "Whoever obstructs, attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for a term not to exceed 20 years, or both." I find that one very interesting. I'm not sure what actions it might catch. I wonder whether letter-writing might qualify?

I think this section actually refers to obstruction of justice type actions, such as lying to the police, destroying evidence, etc... The allegation is that Andrew contacted the prosecutor to ask for leniency. It's not uncommon for people to support friends and relatives in trouble with the law. It certainly isn't unusual that Alan Dershowitz advocated on behalf of his client--that is what lawyers are supposed to do.

We know that during sentencing, family members are often called on to extol the defendant's wonderful qualities to the judge. Of course that is public record.

In other cases, judges often request something called a "pre-sentencing report," in which the investigator interviews people who know the defendant, whether they support the defendant or not. I'm not sure but I don't think that is public record because they want people to be honest.

I don't think it's criminal to contact a prosecutor on behalf of a friend. Let's turn it around, would it have been criminal Andrew to try and convince the prosecutor not to enter into the plea bargain?

sthreats 01-22-2015 09:14 PM

He didn't say anything

Roslyn 01-22-2015 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher (Post 1743119)
I think this section actually refers to obstruction of justice type actions, such as lying to the police, destroying evidence, etc... The allegation is that Andrew contacted the prosecutor to ask for leniency. It's not uncommon for people to support friends and relatives in trouble with the law. It certainly isn't unusual that Alan Dershowitz advocated on behalf of his client--that is what lawyers are supposed to do.

We know that during sentencing, family members are often called on to extol the defendant's wonderful qualities to the judge. Of course that is public record.

In other cases, judges often request something called a "pre-sentencing report," in which the investigator interviews people who know the defendant, whether they support the defendant or not. I'm not sure but I don't think that is public record because they want people to be honest.

I don't think that contacting a prosecutor on behalf of a friend is criminal. Let's turn it around, would it have been criminal Andrew to try and convince the prosecutor not to enter into the plea bargain?

I am familiar with the concept of people writing letters for a friend or colleague to be tendered as part of submissions as to sentence. I didn't really think letter-writing would qualify.

I am, however, very curious about the reasons the US Attorney agreed to not prosecute Epstein.

US Royal Watcher 01-22-2015 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1743122)
I am familiar with the concept of people writing letters for a friend or colleague to be tendered as part of submissions as to sentence. I didn't really think letter-writing would qualify.

I am, however, very curious about the reasons the US Attorney agreed to not prosecute Epstein.

That is one question. There could have been many reasons., including contact from famous people. It could have also been that the prosecutor was concerned that the news coverage that would have occurred would have hurt the victims. It could be that he had a weak case.

Regardless, I don't think it would have been criminal if Andrew had contacted the prosecutor on Epstein's behalf--just incredibly stupid and terribly immoral.

MARG 01-22-2015 09:50 PM

The way I see it people are going off on so many tangents that it is hard to keep up with what is "actually being reported" and trying to assess the source for credibility.

From:
Sex with a 12 year old? There is nothing to indicate that any 12 year old girls were there, but boy it got the bash him brigade going.

Transportation for illegal sexual activity etc. I would have thought the US authorities would have got Epstein on that back in 2011. But that's not what's bothering me the most but rather how did these sex slaves obtain passports? Forget state lines, what about foreign borders? They didn't fly Coach, it was First Class all the way. But, where were their parents?

Andrew at the Press Conference:

He walks in with his head and shoulders down . . . he's obviously guilty because if he wasn't he would have walked in with his head held high!

Or

He walks in with his head held high . . . he's arrogant, didn't care and obviously guilty.

In the end, I think he said nothing! But it seems the truth is a prisoner on this board, the concept of 'Innocent until Proven Guilty' is beyond the ken of many and I can only say that those of the "Guilty" brigade have some of the most fertile imaginations I have ever come across.

The truth of the matter, asserted by the suit, Mr Dershowitz, BP etc. is surely more than enough to bang on about without getting overly creative?

Roslyn 01-22-2015 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher (Post 1743124)
That is one question. There could have been many reasons., including contact from famous people. It could have also been that the prosecutor was concerned that the news coverage that would have occurred would have hurt the victims. It could be that he had a weak case.

Regardless, I don't think it would have been criminal if Andrew had contacted the prosecutor on Epstein's behalf--just incredibly stupid and terribly immoral.

But if he did it, I'd love to know it and know what he said.

In the judgment of 26 September 2011, His Honour Judge Marra noted that the plaintiffs allege that the investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on "overwhelming" evidence. If that is true, not mere puffery, it wasn't a weak case, so why?

I'm don't necessarily think Andrew was the reason, or even any part of the reason, I'm just curious.

Cris M 01-22-2015 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 1743125)
The way I see it people are going off on so many tangents that it is hard to keep up with what is "actually being reported" and trying to assess the source for credibility.

From:
Sex with a 12 year old? There is nothing to indicate that any 12 year old girls were there, but boy it got the bash him brigade going.

Transportation for illegal sexual activity etc. I would have thought the US authorities would have got Epstein on that back in 2011. But that's not what's bothering me the most but rather how did these sex slaves obtain passports? Forget state lines, what about foreign borders? They didn't fly Coach, it was First Class all the way. But, where were their parents?

Andrew at the Press Conference:

He walks in with his head and shoulders down . . . he's obviously guilty because if he wasn't he would have walked in with his head held high!

Or

He walks in with his head held high . . . he's arrogant, didn't care and obviously guilty.

In the end, I think he said nothing! But it seems the truth is a prisoner on this board, the concept of 'Innocent until Proven Guilty' is beyond the ken of many and I can only say that those of the "Guilty" brigade have some of the most fertile imaginations I have ever come across.

The truth of the matter, asserted by the suit, Mr Dershowitz, BP etc. is surely more than enough to bang on about without getting overly creative?

Very well said, Marg! I totally agree with, some people here just don't care about facts anymore.

GracieGiraffe 01-22-2015 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1743127)
:previous: But if he did it, I'd love to know it and know what he said.

In the judgment of 26 September 2011, His Honour Judge Marra noted that the plaintiffs allege that the investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on "overwhelming" evidence. If that is true, not mere puffery, it wasn't a weak case, so why?

I'm don't necessarily think Andrew was the reason, or even any part of the reason, I'm just curious.

Why didn't they prosecute and accept the plea deal? Who can say - sometimes these decisions are political - who would have been implicated besides Epstein (Andrew or otherwise). I also wonder if the prosecutor was not thinking money. It's one thing when the defendant has a two-bit lawyer. Epstein would have assembled a dream team of sorts. It would have cost millions to prosecute. Perhaps it all boiled down to costs.

My guess is money. It's usually what underlies most things, IMO.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises