• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested...

Coercion doesn't have to be physical, that's why grooming is an offence in and of itself, why consent to travel is not a defence against the trafficking of an adult, the person being trafficked not understanding they were being trafficked and so on. However the legislation that today makes it clear what is considered trafficking and the like was not in place in 2001 which could make it hard to secure a conviction that involved the element of trafficking from back in 2001. (Although no longer an issue in this case any prosecution of him could have exposed her to prosecution for her own involvement in trafficking others, which would no longer be the case because of a statutory defence placed into the newer legislation.)
Fortunately, those laws were in place federally in the US back then. That's why US DoJ were able to use them to charge, try and then convict Ghislaine Maxwell.

Planigale needs to keep in mind that some of Andrew's perfidious activities took place in New York, and some in the US Virgin Islands, both under US Federal jurisdiction. Giuffre was a minor under US Federal laws at that time. If Andrew had sex with her (and £12m says he did) then that is Statutory rape.
 
Coercion doesn't have to be physical, that's why grooming is an offence in and of itself, why consent to travel is not a defence against the trafficking of an adult, the person being trafficked not understanding they were being trafficked and so on. However the legislation that today makes it clear what is considered trafficking and the like was not in place in 2001 which could make it hard to secure a conviction that involved the element of trafficking from back in 2001. (Although no longer an issue in this case any prosecution of him could have exposed her to prosecution for her own involvement in trafficking others, which would no longer be the case because of a statutory defence placed into the newer legislation.)
It is a genuine question, I am not clear even considering current legislation, what coercion Giuffre was under?

Smartcooky doesn't understand the definition of rape which is not something that I have ever seen alleged against AM-W.

I have seen no evidence that AM-W has possibly committed a criminal act in the UK*, even assuming he did have sex with Giuffre (which given she is no more likely to testify than Epstein is going to be a major block to any prosecution). I am certainly prepared to accept that he is lacking morally, but having sex with younger women is not a criminal offence.

*In relation to Epstein
 
Fortunately, those laws were in place federally in the US back then. That's why US DoJ were able to use them to charge, try and then convict Ghislaine Maxwell.

Planigale needs to keep in mind that some of Andrew's perfidious activities took place in New York, and some in the US Virgin Islands, both under US Federal jurisdiction. Giuffre was a minor under US Federal laws at that time. If Andrew had sex with her (and £12m says he did) then that is Statutory rape.
These are alleged events, you have given no specifics. If they are claims by Giuffre we know she is a proven liar who has made proven false allegations in the past.

Many states have a younger age of consent than 18, how does that work? Can one consent under state law but be convicted under federal law? I thought Federal criminal law on rape only applied in particular circumstances e.g on federal property such as reservations, national parks?

Age of consent is 17 in new york so not statutory rape.
 
Fortunately, those laws were in place federally in the US back then. That's why US DoJ were able to use them to charge, try and then convict Ghislaine Maxwell.

Planigale needs to keep in mind that some of Andrew's perfidious activities took place in New York, and some in the US Virgin Islands, both under US Federal jurisdiction. Giuffre was a minor under US Federal laws at that time. If Andrew had sex with her (and £12m says he did) then that is Statutory rape.
If you're talking about US law, why were you quoting chapter and verse of the Sexual Offences Act 2003?
 
These are alleged events, you have given no specifics. If they are claims by Giuffre we know she is a proven liar who has made proven false allegations in the past.
Carry on defending rapists... you've said the quiet part out loud, so we all know where you stand now.

Many states have a younger age of consent than 18, how does that work? Can one consent under state law but be convicted under federal law? I thought Federal criminal law on rape only applied in particular circumstances e.g on federal property such as reservations, national parks?
Well that just shows how little you understand about how federal law works in the US.

When a crime is committed in which the elements of the crime bridge across two or more states, that triggers federal jurisdiction. For example, if a person is kidnapped in Arizona, that is dealt with under Arizona law, but if the kidnapper takes the victim to New Mexico or Nevada or another state, the Feds take over jurisdiction. Its why serial killers such as Ted Bundy (who killed in Washington state , Idaho, Utah, Colorado and Florida) was investigated by the FBI not five independent state police forces.

Age of consent is 17 in new york...
Irrelevant.

Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit against Andrew was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). This is a FEDERAL COURT not a New York state court. Giuffre was trafficked across state lines, so the Feds had jurisdiction. There is a federal age of consent which applies to specific scenarios, such as sex trafficking or crossing state lines for sexual activity. That age of consent is 18.
 
Carry on defending rapists... you've said the quiet part out loud, so we all know where you stand now.


Well that just shows how little you understand about how federal law works in the US.

When a crime is committed in which the elements of the crime bridge across two or more states, that triggers federal jurisdiction. For example, if a person is kidnapped in Arizona, that is dealt with under Arizona law, but if the kidnapper takes the victim to New Mexico or Nevada or another state, the Feds take over jurisdiction. Its why serial killers such as Ted Bundy (who killed in Washington state , Idaho, Utah, Colorado and Florida) was investigated by the FBI not five independent state police forces.


Irrelevant.

Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit against Andrew was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). This is a FEDERAL COURT not a New York state court. Giuffre was trafficked across state lines, so the Feds had jurisdiction. There is a federal age of consent which applies to specific scenarios, such as sex trafficking or crossing state lines for sexual activity. That age of consent is 18.
Wasn't that a civil suit not a criminal case? AM-W is not accused of trafficking. FWIW there is no age of consent for trafficking.

Your original claim was
So I repeat, if Epstein and Maxwell trafficked those girls, anyone who had sex with them knowing (and actually even if they didn't know) they had been trafficked, is automatically considered to have raped them, even if the girls consented at the time.
I am prepared to concede that you consider that is equivalent to rape, but it suggests you do not understand the meaning of rape. The law however does not consider these actions even if AM-W did perform them to be rape. It does not due your argument any good to exaggerate beyond reason AM-W's possible offences.

Any sexual offences I think will be very difficult to prove in a court of law without testimony from Giuffre and Epstein. Neither of whom could be considered reliable witnesses even if they did testify. Could Maxwell be a witness?
 
Last edited:
Wasn't that a civil suit not a criminal case?
A civil suit filed in federal court is under federal jurisdiction - federal laws apply, not the laws of the state in which the suit is filed and any hearings held.

AM-W is not accused of trafficking.
He was accused of sexual assault and battery. The accusation was that she was trafficked by Epstein FOR Andrew, and forced into sexual acts. These incidents were alleged to have taken place on three separate occasions when she was 17 years old. The alleged incidents, occurring in 2001, involved trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein to locations in London, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

FWIW there is no age of consent for trafficking.
There is a federal age of consent which applies to specific scenarios, such as sex trafficking or crossing state lines for sexual activity. That age of consent is 18.

You can't take someone under 18 across state lines for sexual purposes, even with their consent, and that applies to anyone they are trafficked to for sexual purposes.



I am prepared to concede that you consider that is equivalent to rape, but it suggests you do not understand the meaning of rape.
I understand perfectly well, probably better than you.

The law however does not consider these actions even if AM-W did perform them to be rape.
It does if the victim was trafficked.

It does not due your argument any good to exaggerate beyond reason AM-W's possible offences.
Its not exaggeration.

Any sexual offences I think will be very difficult to prove in a court of law without testimony from Giuffre and Epstein. Neither of whom could be considered reliable witnesses even if they did testify. Could Maxwell be a witness?
I don't need a court decision to verify my opinion. To me, the fact that Andrew paid out £12m is tantamount to an admission. The fact that the royal family stripped him of his titles confirms it IMO.

He may have strenuously denied it at the time, but his actions belie those denials.
 
Last edited:
Gentles all, may I suggest that the discussion would go easier if we could clarify whether at each point we are talking UK charges, US state, or US federal charges? I feel this is leading to some confusion.

eta: well I know I am.
 
Last edited:
Gentles all, may I suggest that the discussion would go easier if we could clarify whether at each point we are talking UK charges, US state, or US federal charges? I feel this is leading to some confusion.
These crimes are inter-jurisdictional. Its difficult to put everything into in nice little compartmentalized boxes.
 
A civil suit filed in federal court is under federal jurisdiction - federal laws apply, not the laws of the state in which the suit is filed and any hearings held.


He was accused of sexual assault and battery. The accusation was that she was trafficked by Epstein FOR Andrew, and forced into sexual acts. These incidents were alleged to have taken place on three separate occasions when she was 17 years old. The alleged incidents, occurring in 2001, involved trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein to locations in London, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
I don't need a court decision to verify my opinion. To me, the fact that Andrew paid out £12m is tantamount to an admission. The fact that the royal family stripped him of his titles confirms it IMO.

He may have strenuously denied it at the time, but his actions belie those denials.
So not rape, in a civil case where burden of proof is low.

As any lawyer will say court cases are unpredictable and expensive, you are best to avoid them. That is why plea deals are common in the US, why cases are settled out of court even when people are innocent. People are often wrongly convicted. You are entitled to your views, but I do not accept doing a deal to avoid court is evidence of being guilty of rape which is your claim.
 
As an American I knew from the start that the line of succession was controlled by Parliament. You can't be told about the monarchy in much depth without learning about primogeniture and laws passed that effectively decided who could or couldn't sit on the throne. And I think there was a documentary a few years back, King Ralph, that poked a bit of fun at how absurd that might get.

But I think Americans generally have a poor understanding of the role of titles and positions in the aristocracy and how those interact with lawful succession. I remember hearing once that the ascending monarch's titles are all extinguished such that no one title is said to lead to the crown. Hence every Prince of Wales must be created anew. But the whole notion of creation and extinction of titles and their heredity just sounds to Americans as an undifferentiated and unimpressive cloud of dukes, princes, barons, earls, viscounts, marchionesses, monsignors, thanes, and elderberries. As my spouse said while watching the recent coronation: "I thought we fought a war so that I didn't have to remember any of this ◊◊◊◊."

What unites them all in the American view is best summed up by Dennis of the Moor: "And 'ow did you get that, eh? By exploiting the working class." That is, a perpetuation of a class of wealth and privilege by institutional means, largely maintained by and for the benefit of various Upper Class Twits. Eventually one of them gets to be king. But exactly how is murky to us, as soon as it falls outside the rules of straightforward primogeniture. It never occurred to us that Andrew is somehow in the line of succession.

The delicate ballet amongst styles, titles, and succession is largely lost on us too. The king can apparently take some of those away just by announcing it from the balcony amidst a fanfare of trumpets. But others can only be taken away by Parliament. I'm sure most of us naturally thought that the king stripping some of that privilege away from Andrew automatically withdrew him from the line of succession (even if he is only eighth in line and would probably require a King Ralph level of catastrophe to make him heir apparent—or presumptive, however that works). A lot of us thought that you have to first be prince of something in order to eventually be the king of anything. Most of us are just hoping we don't have to face the prospect of Don Jr. ascending the throne of America upon the death of our own Baron Harkonnen.

But even here in America there is the sentiment that even the credible suspicion of wrongdoing ought to be enough to remove a person from an otherwise undeserved position of privilege. It doesn't always happen. But there once was a time in the U.S. where credible suspicion of lawbreaking meant you had to fall on your sword and resign any offices of public trust. So it won't come as a surprise at least to some of us if Andrew is fully removed from his privileges before any actual legal finding issues forth.
We are similarly baffled as to how you can have a 'First Lady'.
 
I agree. As an individual I suspect (having never met him) he is obnoxious. But being obnoxious is not the same as being criminal. Most teen age males are obnoxious. I do recognise that his naval service was genuine service, and despite his position as the spare, (as harry put it), he risked his life in the Falklands.

I feel slightly sorry for him that when he left the navy, there was no easy option for him. Many options open to us normal people weren't open to him.

there is no suggestion that AM-W is a rapist. Giuffre did not claim AM-W forced her to have sex. Epstein may have 'encouraged' young women have sex with various persons including AM-W, but that does not mean that those who were sex partners were rapists.
I shouldn't sob too hard, he got an automatic £46K per annum pension on leaving.
 
Fortunately, those laws were in place federally in the US back then. That's why US DoJ were able to use them to charge, try and then convict Ghislaine Maxwell.

Planigale needs to keep in mind that some of Andrew's perfidious activities took place in New York, and some in the US Virgin Islands, both under US Federal jurisdiction. Giuffre was a minor under US Federal laws at that time. If Andrew had sex with her (and £12m says he did) then that is Statutory rape.
That's correct. Whilst western guys were free to marry 14-year-olds in Thailand at one point, they soon had their collar felt on returning to UK soil, as 'Gary Glitter' discovered.
 
So not rape, in a civil case where burden of proof is low.
I get that the distinction is important in a court of law, where different penalties may apply to each. But "sexual assault and battery" sure seems rapey enough to me, to use the terms interchangeably in normal conversation. Put too much effort into defending the distinction, and it starts to seem like you're down-playing the seriousness of sexual assault and battery.
 
I get that the distinction is important in a court of law, where different penalties may apply to each. But "sexual assault and battery" sure seems rapey enough to me, to use the terms interchangeably in normal conversation. Put too much effort into defending the distinction, and it starts to seem like you're down-playing the seriousness of sexual assault and battery.
Sexual battery is unwanted contact with intimate parts, clothed or unclothed, including breasts in women. Groping.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom