So, not underage then.
Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking
- Thread starter applecorped
- Start date
So, not underage then.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,647
It is for prostitution, even in the UK.
Another concept is strict liability: the act is the crime, regardless of intent. A common example is felony murder: if someone is killed during another felony, everybody involved gets charged, even if a specific person didn't kill or intend to kill anybody (as, say, the getaway driver at a bank robbery). It's truly bizarre to keep claiming that sex with someone too young to consent isn't a crime as long as you weren't sure the victim is too young. That's not what the law says. You need to be sure that she isn't.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-common-strict-liability-crimes.html
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-common-strict-liability-crimes.html
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Felony-Murder+Rule
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
"I didn't know" is especially likely to fall on deaf ears when there's substantial reason to believe she's probably underage...for instance, when the girl is ostensibly being pimped to you by a man who has an actual reputation for interest and trafficking in underage girls.
Not just a reputation, but a criminal conviction and a place on the sex offender registry.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Ever since the Bentley case in England (the 'let him have it' murder) it doesn't have felony murder UK equivalent. You can be an accessory to the crime instead.
Incorrect. Since 1957 (in England and Wales), it’s no longer been covered by statute law, but the common law principle of joint enterprise (which is what was applied in the Bentley case) persists and is still used.
That’s a different question.
angrysoba
Philosophile
I'm surprised no one has posted the documentary of the Prince and the Paedophile here.
Essentially, it is Virginia Giuffre's side of the story, with another witness from South Africa also explaining how they were groomed and exploited by Epstein and Maxwell. It is pretty detailed, and intercut with Andrew Windsor's own claims. Giuffre comes across as quite convincing, but the Panorama is not uncritical of either women's claims pointing, out that there are some inaccuracies or inconsistencies with their stories.
There is also an interview with Alan Dershowtiz who is also implicated by one of the women in the documentary.
Essentially, it is Virginia Giuffre's side of the story, with another witness from South Africa also explaining how they were groomed and exploited by Epstein and Maxwell. It is pretty detailed, and intercut with Andrew Windsor's own claims. Giuffre comes across as quite convincing, but the Panorama is not uncritical of either women's claims pointing, out that there are some inaccuracies or inconsistencies with their stories.
There is also an interview with Alan Dershowtiz who is also implicated by one of the women in the documentary.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
They may or may not be hoping to get their hands on a lot of money in compensation. The US culture of litigation is also not one much cared for in Europe. However, the more I hear of this case, and I must admit it wasn't until Prince Andrew's interview that I took any interest in it, the more I am convinced these women are telling the truth. OK, so maybe they misremember a detail here and there, such what took place at which location and on what date. Paradoxically that is all the more reason it sounds authentic, because a carefully scripted liar will never diverge from his or her story, whereas someone being straightforward is more relaxed and can seemingly contradict themselves on minor points. If I think back to 2001 or when I was seventeen, I can remember key events as clear as day but could I tell you whether it was a Wednesday or a Tuesday or happened in Oxford Street or Charing Cross Road, or was it Kensington High Street? We can use key dates like a family member's birthday, as Prince Andrew did and try and pinpoint the restaurant and who was there.
I'm guessing that Virginia and Sarah attended so many events in their 'working' lives they are bound to get some minor details wrong but the memorable details right.
What I find strange is what we are not being told. Clearly each of these women have been told they can only talk about their own experience and nobody else's, thus we have a peculiarly narrow focus of two or three women recounting what happened to them in various locations, which ipso facto is only going to be of their own small world, yet we are not getting the bigger picture IMV of what is being covered up.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
No.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
It is reported that Canadian organizations who have Andrew as their Royal patron are dropping him as fast as they can. Several specific organizations listed in this morning's paper. More to come I bet.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The Daily Mail is now reporting that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor to Epstein's baby-factory ranch; something Clinton has denied.
Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from Prince Andrew (and, presumably, Epstein, who he described as a “terrific guy” and “a lot of fun to be with”), claiming not to know him, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Source? Is there a version that's big enough to be readable?
Here's the original. I still can't zoom it enough, but it's bigger and it has more content than what is shown above. Also a high-quality footnote:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
This is an interesting video which features a body language analysis of Prince Andrew's interview.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
To be fair, there's a lot of people trying to distance themselves from Prince Andrew right now, and wondering how well they actually know him. And I can see Donald Trump meeting someone a few times at various functions, without ever really getting to know them.