The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually it is. Every ctominal court case is brought by the Crown Prosecution Service. Since the statement was made by a Met Police Spokesperson it seems to suggest there was either no evidence, or insufficient evidence to even send to CPS.

In short, there was no case to answer.
As a matter of fact, the age for legal consent to sex is 16 in the UK and 18 in the US. If an adult has sex overseas with an US citizen who is below 18, this adult can be prosecuted back in the US. So grounds for legal action against Prince Andrew in US and no grounds in UK. Virginia Roberts was 17 when she claims having had sex with Prince Andrew in London.

Very interesting and clear podcast on the legal circumstances re. PA, Virginia Roberts and Epstein, from minute 13
https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=a...J1SzdzLWwwcC1mYW1mMWgwOXVUWVF6TnRZY2Jkcm93ZE0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a matter of fact, the age for legal consent to sex is 16 in the UK and 18 in the US. If an adult has sex overseas with an US citizen who is below 18, this adult can be prosecuted back in the US. So grounds for legal action against Prince Andrew in US and no grounds in UK. Virginia Roberts was 17 when she claims having had sex with Prince Andrew in London.
Doesn't that depend on the state where the alleged intercourse happened? AFAIK 18 is not the age of consent in all US states.
 
It is a Federal case now. The podcast I posted above is quite clear. Speakers come from FBI and Scotland Yard.
Doesn't that depend on the state where the alleged intercourse happened? AFAIK 18 is not the age of consent in all US states.
 
It is a Federal case now. The podcast I posted above is quite clear. Speakers come from FBI and Scotland Yard.
Does it being a federal case means that the age of consent is 18 even though the state it happened in has a lower age of consent?
 
Hope this explains it further.

Federal law makes it criminal to engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you. Each state takes a different approach as the age of consent has ranged from 10 to 18.

To be prosecuted for statutory rape of an underage girl, Andrew would have had to have sex with a girl aged 16 or younger and in the US by Federal definition.
 
Does it being a federal case means that the age of consent is 18 even though the state it happened in has a lower age of consent?
It refers to sex having taken place in London with a minor US citizen, younger of 18. Please read again my first message. The age of consent for the US federal Law is 18 according to the Fbi and Scotland yard panellists of the podcast.
 
Last edited:
I think the gist of it being a federal case rather than a state case indicates that should Andrew have had sex with an underage girl, regardless of which state the sex took place in, the Feds could nab Andrew anywhere Andrew would choose to step on US soil.

We saw this happen with the arrest of Epstein last summer. The Feds were there and waiting for him in New Jersey, arrested him and transported him to be held in Manhattan.

Extradition of Andrew from the UK to the US to face charges won't work in this case either (Ms. Giuffre). The US cannot extradite Andrew as the extradition treaty between the US and the UK is a “dual criminality” treaty. No one can be extradited by either country unless the offense is a crime in both countries and carries a prison sentence of at least one year.
 
I think the gist of it being a federal case rather than a state case indicates that should Andrew have had sex with an underage girl, regardless of which state the sex took place in, the Feds could nab Andrew anywhere Andrew would choose to step on US soil.

We saw this happen with the arrest of Epstein last summer. The Feds were there and waiting for him in New Jersey, arrested him and transported him to be held in Manhattan.

Extradition of Andrew from the UK to the US to face charges won't work in this case either (Ms. Giuffre). The US cannot extradite Andrew as the extradition treaty between the US and the UK is a “dual criminality” treaty. No one can be extradited by either country unless the offense is a crime in both countries and carries a prison sentence of at least one year.
This jumps forward. The point they make so far is that for the US Federal Law there is the basis to investigate PA as sex offender and possibly sex trafficker, as the US Federal legislation covers US minors overseas.
 
The bottom line here is that there is no credible evidence that PA committed any crime. The fact that this woman and others are talking about things in interviews by the media just muddies the water and makes any further criminal action impossible.

I believe the legal advisers to those who have been victimised would be doing their clients more good working on suing Epstein's estate for damages or recompense. This is merely money for jam and how to elevate their legal profile.
 
Other than the victims of Epstein filing civil law suits against his estate (which, from what I understand, Epstein locked up $577 million in trust funds days before he died), the only other criminal proceedings I see happening, if ever, is if they find and arrest anyone that can be proven to be a co-conspirator with Epstein in actually running the sex trafficking business and to me, there is nothing that points to Andrew at all.
 
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy (2010-2019)

Giuffre is being sued for defamation of character

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/2529869001

Alan Dershowitz is bringing the suit claiming she's lying about him and others including Andrew. I can see Dershowitz filing for himself but why bring in Andrew? Is he trying to protect the whole group? This only ties Andrew into this mess more.



According to the article, Dershowitz isn’t bringing Andrew into it, he’s filling for himself. It’s the article writers that mix Andrews name in it.
 
As I said before, the men and women who used and abused these young girls for sex will always get the upper hand.
 
Its not about having the "upper hand". Its about doing things in a legal manner through the justice system.

Well... one way that Dershowitz does have a bit of an advantage is that he's not going to have to shell out a huge amount of money for lawyers to present his case. He'll probably represent himself.

It'll be up to Giuffre to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was telling the truth in her statements about Dershowitz. That is not going to be easy. One cannot make statements publicly about someone and just expect it to be taken as a gospel truth. It needs to be proven and in this case, Dershowitz wouldn't even have filed a lawsuit unless he knows he has a good assurance he can win in court.

It also sets a precedence that defamation of character lawsuits can and will be filed against false statements. It kind of makes me think that this is exactly the "threat from the palace" that kept that Giuffre interview off the air about Andrew.

This will be interesting to watch to see what happens.
 
Well... one way that Dershowitz does have a bit of an advantage is that he's not going to have to shell out a huge amount of money for lawyers to present his case. He'll probably represent himself.

If he does, he'll have a fool for a client.
 
The BBC interview should be interesting but at the end of the day the interviews that really matter are ones with the FBI and procesutors of the Southern District of New York (with counsel present as would be his right). US law enforcement will not stop looking at Andrew based on a TV interview; it would be based on their investigations. Talking to the Feds would be a better legal and PR strategy.
 
I don't believe for one second that he sat down in front of her with no prior knowledge of the quedtions and fully rehearsed answers. The Palace would never take such a risk.
 
I don't believe for one second that he sat down in front of her with no prior knowledge of the quedtions and fully rehearsed answers. The Palace would never take such a risk.



Then you have a BBC journalist openly lying to millions of people. I don’t think the BBC or Emily would take that risk either.


The BBC interview should be interesting but at the end of the day the interviews that really matter are ones with the FBI and procesutors of the Southern District of New York (with counsel present as would be his right). US law enforcement will not stop looking at Andrew based on a TV interview; it would be based on their investigations. Talking to the Feds would be a better legal and PR strategy.



US Law Enforcement won’t stop looking for what exactly? Why would Andrew talk to the Feds when he’s not accused of anything?
 
Where's the risk for the BBC? The Palace are hardly going to report them. If his answers are not scripted to within an inch of their lives I'll eat my hat and it will be obvious if they are.
 
Where's the risk for the BBC? The Palace are hardly going to report them. If his answers are not scripted to within an inch of their lives I'll eat my hat and it will be obvious if they are.



No but the people would. If it’s a lie, and it’s scripted and he was aware of the questions then the BBC and their reporter have lied. They would be crucified, and they’re already under severe scrutiny.
 
Where's the risk for the BBC? The Palace are hardly going to report them. If his answers are not scripted to within an inch of their lives I'll eat my hat and it will be obvious if they are.

I agree!
Andrew is a bumbler; if left to his own devices he is sure to make matters worse. The Palace won't take such a risk.
 
No questions vetted? Yeah I doubt it. She better come swinging then and nothing soft or everyone will see right through it.

She can quite tough/and or aggressive depending on your view. She has written a book recently called Airhead which is a behind the scenes look at tv reporting.

I don’t think she will left him off with soft evasive answers.
 
What matters is that Andrew has sat down and agreed to be interviewed on the matter and that will be aired publicly. As this interview is being done by the BBC, which actually means reputable to me and not some "talking heads" tabloid type television presentation, I expect the questions to be done in a respectful manner that Andrew will answer to the best of his knowledge. This isn't an interview to create a sensation that adds to a scandal but rather Andrew being given the chance to air his side of the whole thing.

As far as the criminal cases being investigated by the FBI, I don't believe that Andrew is going to be any part of their ongoing investigation into who may have aided and abetted Epstein in his alleged crimes of sex trafficking. They *may* however want to talk with Andrew about those that they're investigating that Andrew has known and been friends with. Ghislaine Maxwell comes to mind but it would be *her* they're looking into to possibly press criminal charges against her and not Andrew. Andrew simply may be able to give them information they didn't know of but any information coming from Andrew would be attained in a voluntary manner rather than an interrogation. At least that's how I see it.
 
She can quite tough/and or aggressive depending on your view. She has written a book recently called Airhead which is a behind the scenes look at tv reporting.

I don’t think she will left him off with soft evasive answers.

I guess we will see. I hope she is tough on him. If not than this is just another failed PR stunt to add to his others around this case. If he is going to sit down and talk about it... then do it.
 
I suppose there are ways in which it could technically be true that no questions were vetted, but the parameters were so narrow that there need be no concern about what is coming.

No member of The Royal Family, in any context, gives an interview without knowing exactly the substance of what is coming. That tradition did not stop here, in this context.

Very deceptive of Emily Andrews to present this as if Andrew is going in cold, on a technical truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom