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

[Durham]

Thanks for that. Is he guilty of a crime then or not? If so what is it? Is this a crime in the US but not the UK? Genuinely puzzled.

Is sleeping with someone who has been trafficked but doesn't make it known (& appears to willingly consent to the sex act) a crime in the US? Why has he not been arrested in the UK if he has broken the law?

Are his security culpable as well if they allowed a crime to take place? They are police officers after all.

 

[Osipi]

Although there are allegations made that Andrew slept with an underage girl, there are no criminal charges anywhere against him. Crimes and their statutes vary from country to country and state to state in the US and as far as I know, no evidence leads to Andrew committing a crime punishable by law anywhere.

 

[Durham]

Although there are allegations made that Andrew slept with an underage girl, there are no criminal charges anywhere against him. Crimes and their statutes vary from country to country and state to state in the US and as far as I know, no evidence leads to Andrew committing a crime punishable by law anywhere.

I wasn't aware of these allegations. Where is this alleged to have happened & how old was the girl? It's not in the Netflix documentary.

 

[Fem]

I wasn't aware of these allegations. Where is this alleged to have happened & how old was the girl?

Literally everything you're asking is in the article Osipi linked, so I'd recommend reading it, but in the shortest way possible, a woman named Virginia Giuffre (who is one of Epstein's victims) claims she slept with Prince Andrew three times, the first one in 2001, because Ghislaine Maxwell told her to. She's claiming the whole thing happened in Maxwell's house in London.

 

[Durham]

Literally everything you're asking is in the article Osipi linked, so I'd recommend reading it, but in the shortest way possible, a woman named Virginia Giuffre (who is one of Epstein's victims) claims she slept with Prince Andrew three times, the first one in 2001, because Ghislaine Maxwell told her to. She's claiming the whole thing happened in Maxwell's house in London.

I have read the article.

Where in the article does it say he slept with an underage girl? It says he slept with a 17 year old in London. The age of consent in the UK is 16.

 

[Rayal]

In 2001 she was 17 to 18 years old. Born August 9, 1983.

 

[Osipi]

I have read the article.

Where in the article does it say he slept with an underage girl? It says he slept with a 17 year old in London. The age of consent in the UK is 16.

The age of consent is behind, I believe, the reason why the Metropolitan Police in the UK decided to scrap the allegations made by Virginia Roberts Guiffre. If you remember in the Netflix docuseries, Guiffre related her experience with Andrew and how he "sweated in buckets" at Tramps.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/uk/prince-andrew-accuser-london-intl-gbr/index.html

None of these allegations actually point to Andrew "committing a crime". The real crime and the instigators of it were Epstein and Maxwell as Guiffre's "handlers" and telling her what she had to do.

None of this makes Andrew a "criminal".

 

[Durham]

The age of consent is behind, I believe, the reason why the Metropolitan Police in the UK decided to scrap the allegations made by Virginia Roberts Guiffre. If you remember in the Netflix docuseries, Guiffre related her experience with Andrew and how he "sweated in buckets" at Tramps.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/uk/prince-andrew-accuser-london-intl-gbr/index.html

Yes I do indeed. Yuk.

So he's not broken any law, at least not in the UK.

 

[Pranter]

According to UK law (I read about this months ago) her age is not the issue in this situation. A trafficked person cannot give consent even if she was 20. Ignorance of the law is not always going to save you either. Many a man has found this out.


LaRae

 

[Durham]

According to UK law (I read about this months ago) her age is not the issue in this situation. A trafficked person cannot give consent even if she was 20. Ignorance of the law is not always going to save you either. Many a man has found this out.


LaRae

So he has committed a crime in the UK. Why has he not been charged? That's outrageous.

 

[Pranter]

So he has committed a crime in the UK. Why has he not been charged? That's outrageous.

I don't know ...not all people who commit crimes are charged. There may be legitimate reasons they've not done anything. In the US prosecutors often decide not to charge someone who may be guilty because they can't prove it or have enough evidence to persuade a jury of guilt.



LaRae

 

[Lumutqueen]

The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy (2010-2020)

So he has committed a crime in the UK. Why has he not been charged? That's outrageous.

What crime has he committed to be charged with?

In the US prosecutors often decide not to charge someone who may be guilty because they can't prove it or have enough evidence to persuade a jury of guilt.

That doesn’t have anything to do with US Prosecutors deciding not to charge someone, it’s down to the fact you can’t simply charge someone and have a jury find them guilty with no evidence or not enough to proof it. No matter how much people think that individual is guilty of a crime.

 

[Pranter]

What crime has he committed to be charged with?




That doesn’t have anything to do with US Prosecutors deciding not to charge someone, it’s down to the fact you can’t simply charge someone and have a jury find them guilty with no evidence or not enough to proof it. No matter how much people think that individual is guilty of a crime.

Prosecutors typically don't bother to waste taxpayer funds on cases they aren't sure they can prove enough to get a conviction.


LaRae

 

[Lumutqueen]

Prosecutors typically don't bother to waste taxpayer funds on cases they aren't sure they can prove enough to get a conviction.





LaRae

Well that makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

 

[Denville]

What crime has he committed to be charged with?




That doesn’t have anything to do with US Prosecutors deciding not to charge someone, it’s down to the fact you can’t simply charge someone and have a jury find them guilty with no evidence or not enough to proof it. No matter how much people think that individual is guilty of a crime.

There is a big step between charging someone and "having a jury find them guilty ." Its quite possible for a prosecution service to believe there's a good case and have someone charged with a crime but they get off...

 

[victor1319]

The Queen heard enough...

I see it this way: Prince Andrew is in dire financial difficulties. Nevertheless he did not retire. He was sent into retirement! By whom? The queen has heard enough!

 

[Denville]

What have his finacnail difficulties to do with retirement?

 

[Lumutqueen]

The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy (2010-2020)

What have his finacnail difficulties to do with retirement?

I’m assuming the poster believes Andrew gets some kind of financial recompense for “being a royal”. Therefore by being sent into retirement, it implies The Queen is “cutting him off”.

 

[Durham]

What crime has he committed to be charged with?

Post 3849 - "A trafficked person cannot give consent even if she was 20".

I get the point you & others have made about evidence.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Post 3849 - "A trafficked person cannot give consent even if she was 20".



I get the point you & others have made about evidence.

Then you see why I asked the question, it’s been eloquently put that if there was enough evidence for this crime having been committed, the person who committed it would have been arrested, found guilty and be in prison.

This will be the case until the “deadlock” has been broken, Andrew has not been charged officially with anything anywhere. I literally haven’t seen any new information about this since before his interview. Even the leaked stuff anonymous did over the weekend there wasn’t anything new that hadn’t already been brought to light.

I do wish that considering his position, the fact he has openly confirmed his association with that man. On that alone, he should have got more than a wrap on the knuckles and sent into retirement and I am one of the staunchest supporters of the BRF.

 

[Durham]

That all makes sense thanks.

I agree with your sentiments in the last paragraph.

 

[Elenath]

According to UK law (I read about this months ago) her age is not the issue in this situation. A trafficked person cannot give consent even if she was 20. Ignorance of the law is not always going to save you either. Many a man has found this out.


LaRae

A bit late, but I believe the minimum age for prostitution is 18. So even if she wasn't trafficked, someone underaged cannot consent to prostitution.

 

[Osipi]

There are a few reasons I'd like to add to the discussion of just why Andrew will not be arrested for sleeping with Ms. Guiffre (three times supposedly).

#1. First of all, the charge would have to be filed by Ms. Guiffre with the court of law in the state in which the "crime" took place. With Ms. Giuffre, I believe that would be London, New York, Palm Beach, Florida or Little St. James Island in the Virgin Islands. The only real accusation that has come to light was the incident in London. As Ms. Guiffre was of the age of consent, the Met Police found no basis to pursue the allegations issued by Ms. Guiffre further.

#2. The ongoing investigation right now into sex trafficking by Epstein and his cohorts by the FBI will not prosecute sole claims filed by the victims of Epstein such as Ms. Giuffre is. Those will have to be filed in civil court as per #1.

#3. Should charges be actually filed against Andrew in the US as to his crime of sleeping with an underage girl, then Andrew would have to be extradited to stand trial. In order for Andrew to be extradited, the crime he's accused of committing must be a crime in both the US and the UK and carry a sentence of at least a year in prison. So it stands that if Ms. Guiffre was 17 and not of the age of consent in New York or wherever she files charges, those charges are not a crime in London and extradition goes out the window. I do not know what the sentence would be for this particular crime. Remember, Epstein got 18 months in Florida but that was a "sweetheart" deal since ruled to be invalid.

What the FBI want Andrew for is to talk to him and find out from him what he knew of Epstein and Maxwell's activities over the years. This does not mean that they're looking to prosecute Andrew at all. From Andrew's actions and demeanor after all hell broke loose, it does make Andrew look like he's "hiding something" but being guilty of an actual crime is certainly not one of them at this time. Who knows what incontrovertible evidence is still to be found in all this mess?

Just my thoughts.

 

[suztav]

While we could all discuss the finer points of age of consent, the biggest crime committed by Andrew is very, very, very poor judgement. He is now paying the greatest sentence -- social ostracization from his royal duties.

 

[Osipi]

So very true Suztav. Andrew gives credence to the statement "Give a man enough rope and eventually he'll hang himself with it." Epstein did it literally. Andrew has done it figuratively. Both can be deemed suicide. One of the body and one of reputation. ?

 

[KellyAtLast]

There are a few reasons I'd like to add to the discussion of just why Andrew will not be arrested for sleeping with Ms. Guiffre (three times supposedly).

#1. First of all, the charge would have to be filed by Ms. Guiffre with the court of law in the state in which the "crime" took place. With Ms. Giuffre, I believe that would be London, New York, Palm Beach, Florida or Little St. James Island in the Virgin Islands. The only real accusation that has come to light was the incident in London. As Ms. Guiffre was of the age of consent, the Met Police found no basis to pursue the allegations issued by Ms. Guiffre further.

#2. The ongoing investigation right now into sex trafficking by Epstein and his cohorts by the FBI will not prosecute sole claims filed by the victims of Epstein such as Ms. Giuffre is. Those will have to be filed in civil court as per #1.

#3. Should charges be actually filed against Andrew in the US as to his crime of sleeping with an underage girl, then Andrew would have to be extradited to stand trial. In order for Andrew to be extradited, the crime he's accused of committing must be a crime in both the US and the UK and carry a sentence of at least a year in prison. So it stands that if Ms. Guiffre was 17 and not of the age of consent in New York or wherever she files charges, those charges are not a crime in London and extradition goes out the window. I do not know what the sentence would be for this particular crime. Remember, Epstein got 18 months in Florida but that was a "sweetheart" deal since ruled to be invalid.

What the FBI want Andrew for is to talk to him and find out from him what he knew of Epstein and Maxwell's activities over the years. This does not mean that they're looking to prosecute Andrew at all. From Andrew's actions and demeanor after all hell broke loose, it does make Andrew look like he's "hiding something" but being guilty of an actual crime is certainly not one of them at this time. Who knows what incontrovertible evidence is still to be found in all this mess?

Just my thoughts.

Wouldn't this be like obstruction of justice or something?

 

[Osipi]

No. Andrew is not obligated to cooperate with the FBI if he doesn't want to. The fact that he hasn't though is reflective on his character and adds to the speculation that he's "hiding something" and won't cooperate.

Especially after stating publicly in that disastrous interview that he was willing to cooperate.

 

[Somebody]

Wouldn't this be like obstruction of justice or something?

No, I don't think so. For obstruction of justice (see legal dictionary) to take place, it seems the bar is much higher than not cooperating with an investigation.

 

[theroyalfly]

Many articles have appeared in last hours about US either 'requesting' or 'demanding' Prince Andrew to appear in court over Jeffrey Epstein links.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-demands-uk-hands-over-22153995

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...s/news-story/1efe21c8232bf198ae85106a874d77b6

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/07/usa-demands-prince-andrew-handed-face-questions-epstein-12818677/

 

[Pranter]

So...can the UK government compel Andrew to cooperate?



LaRae