Most liked posts in thread: Prince Andrew

The thing is we absolutely shouldn't. For starters this is a civil case that has a much lower burden of proof, you don't actually need to prove anything, you just have to persuade the judge or jury that it's more likely to be true than false. It's why civil cases often never reach court because even if you are 100% innocent its not worth the risk of the trial

And second of all because what crime exactly has he absolutely committed. Her story has gone from being that Andrew wasn't aware that she was forced to sleep with him to that he probably knew she was trafficked. Everywhere he is alleged to have slept with her she was of legal age, it's only the trafficked factor that would make it illegal but when we live in a world where young girls throw themselves at famous men can you really convict someone without proof they knew that person was trafficked? What exactly are people supposed to do ask everyone they sleep with if they have been trafficked? Is a girl who has been trafficked really going to answer yes?

It stinks of either her money-grabbing (And perhaps trying to make people forget she wasn't being held hostage and the fact she supposedly is just as much guilty as Maxwell when it comes to recruiting girls who by US law were underage) or as part of a FBI fishing exercise because they need a big name as a foreign sacrificial lamb so they don't have to go after big names in the US like Trump and Clinton

 

It's massively unlikely it required him to enact it as it somewhat goes against the whole point of the clause, it would allow her to sling mud and force him to than take legal action to stop it which then would paint him as a trafficker which is what he was trying to stop. And death generally doesn't void legal agreements

 

First of all, it depends on the state, they have varying ages of consent across the country. And in general, it's the rule of the law of the land so where it happened decided if it's a crime. The only thing that changes that is the tracking factor but unless she has evidence Andrew knew of this (Which the only evidence she seems to have is a picture of her meeting him, I imagine he probably takes countless pictures with people like that every year so its hardly a smoking gun. If she had more surely she would be taking a criminal case and helping the FBI) then it would be massively unfair and unusual for someone to be found guilty of a crime they were totally unaware was a crime because they thought it was consensual and hence legal by local laws

 

What the judge said doesn't make any indication of it requiring Epstein to activate it. It's him saying that the wording is pretty broad and when you and as such when you have one party who signed the agreement arguing it doesn't apply and a 3rd party who is arguing the agreement covers them but who wasn't part of making the deal then its more complicated when you don't have the other party directly involved in the deal who can explain it from his side

If it did require Epstein to activate it then it would have already been thrown out as his death would make it clear cut. And again no lawyer is drafting a clause that allows her to take everyone connected to their client to court where charges would be made public and then their client having to goto court himself to enact the clause. It would mean paying someone and then allowing them to 'smear' you with the allegations you paid them off to drop

 

Look it may be sleazy but it's not illegal for two consenting adults to have sex even if there is a big age difference. And you do realise its not just teenagers who get trafficked right? It could be someone age-appropriate who is being trafficked and you might not know about it

I noticed you put the trafficked part in there which in turn makes the vulnerable part a factor. The point I made was that if he didn't know she was being trafficked which she implied he didn't until this case (and even now she has said he probably knew not that he did know). That's a massive factor in this, if he did sleep with her and he did know she was being trafficked then sure he is guilty but as of right now there is no evidence he did know so apart from being a bit sleazy what has he actually done wrong if he did sleep with her?

 

First of all, there is just this little thing called evidence. People can say he must have known as much as they like but we live in a society that's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Even she is unable to produce any evidence he knew and again until it came to this court case she didn't even make a suggestion Andrew knew.

It's actually telling that in her initial statements when she was Jane Doe #3 there are some interesting things in there such as

• making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein’s purposes in “lending” Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.

He was doing this to curry favour with important people as he wasn't doing it to make money from it, it was costing him money as the other girls have said he was the only one who ever paid them. Introducing people of power to a young attractive women that seem to be into the important person and then using that to their advantage and if that doesn't work then blackmailing them with it is a tactic almost as old as time. It's actually a tactic the mob would use a lot

• Epstein instructed Jane Doe #3 that she was to give the Prince whatever he demanded and required Jane Doe #3 to report back to him on the details of the sexual abuse

Again notice the 'report back details part'. He was gaining favour introducing Andrew and others to attractive girls and then using the girls as honeypots so if they ever stopped being useful to him he could force their hands. Should also be noted IF Andrew knew why would he go to a club beforehand where he could be seen in public to meet them, the real world isn't a pretty woman where people take prostitutes out beforehand, especially one being trafficked. It seems pretty clear to me that Epstein wanted it to seem like she was really into him not that she was paid for

You also need to remember serial abusers are often very good at hiding the fact they are abusers, he is unlikely to have flaunted what he was doing to Andrew or anyone else. Especially as some of the people connected to this are people in positions where they potentially would have had to report it. Again you need to remember much younger women throwing themselves at older men of prominence is not uncommon so it's not like they would automatically assume 'well something is strange about this'

She also seems to lie in that statement where she says "Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years". We actually know now from other Witness's, the ones she recruited for Epstein because she isn't the innocent victim she is trying to portray herself as that Epstein sent her on a massage course where she met her husband. That's not escaping, she told him she wasn't coming back and he knew where she was which is hardly hiding out. Also, she seems to lie about her age. She says she was 15 when she was recruited in 1999 and got away and escaped in 2002 which makes her 17 or 18. It's claimed based on the dates she provided that she was underage in all 3 locations. However, since revealing her name she has stated she met Maxwell in 2000 when she was working at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, when she was 17. That she was 17 when she first met Andrew and that she was 19 when she was sent to the Massage School in Thailand where she was sent not only to take classes but to recruit a specific girl because at this point she was as involved as Maxwell when it came to recruiting new girls.

Plus she claims she met the Queen during that first trip to London. The Queen doesn't just meet random Americans. Even Meghan didn't just rock up at Buck house with Harry and stroll in and meet her, there are extensive checks and these things get planned months in advance. So she really doesn't have a great track record of being truthful. I suspect that may very well be why she was one of the few girls whose identity is known who wasn't called in the Maxwell trial as you don't call someone who has lied repeatedly and who was involved in the trafficking just as much

Epstein was certainly guilty, there was evidence of that. Maxwell also had evidence against her but not as strong so we can probably say she is guilty but beyond that anyone else who has been accused of being part of it hasn't any solid evidence presented to show they were, this includes Andrew. In fact there is more evidence showing she is guilty of trafficking than him and others knew the girls were being trafficked. Until there is any suggestion he absolutely knew has no legs to stand on and that actually if he did sleep with her that he is also a victim of a crime as the evidence does backup that Epstein was honey trapping these powerful people

Oh, and earlier people were asking how anyone knew about the deal that protects other parties. It's actually mentioned in these initial court documents before she and others revealed their names