Prince Andrew is reported to police over Epstein files: Calls on both sides of the Atlantic for the Duke of York to face prosecution after unsealed documents make more claims of sexual assault - damaging hope of returning to royal duties

Daily Mail UK ^ | January 4, 2024 | matthew lodge

[MayflowerMadam]

“William chose VERY Well.”

He certainly did. Kate seems perfect for her position, and future position, within the whole royalty thing. And she seems to be a good wife and mother — down to earth.

[MayflowerMadam]

“I should also note that the statute of limitations has likely lapsed on any alleged crimes.”

Considering the location where the crimes happened, do American laws apply? British law?

[Jonty30]

How it works is that whomever is King or Queen, their children will be in the line for the throne with the oldest being the most likely. In this case, William and his descendants.

However, if William was unable to have kids, then it would fall to eldest brother or sister and they would become king once William abdicated or died. Harry, as I recall, was ninth from the throne and the first eight people ahead of him would have to die before Harry got his chance.

Honestly, Harry was in a sweet spot if he had been raised that way because he had the family’s money to pursue his interests to the fullest without having to put on airs of responsibility. By all accounts, Charles was a loving parent to Harry and William. However, Harry suffered from feeling inadequate, whatever those inadequacies were.

[yldstrk]

Charles, Andrew and Harry are all morons.

[T.B. Yoits]

Giuffre was over the age of consent at 17.

This isn't about the mutual consent of two teen love birds; it's about trafficking minors. Money changed hands and it's a felony.

[Georgia Girl 2]

There’s a reason they call it the “age of consent”. Under 18 is under 18. If you’re under 18 you can’t consent. Why do you think they had to go to some secret island to do this stuff? Because its ILLEGAL!

[Vaduz]

Epstein knew to much on powerful people it cost him his life should have invested in a crew to handle things.

[rdcbn1]

No, I don't think it's ok.

I think everyone involved needs to be exposed and go down hard.

I object to most of these girls be characterized and treated as victims when they were in fact underage prostitutes who were well paid and totally down with what they were doing.

To the extent they participated in any Epstein blackmail and extortion schemes ( which some did) they need to go down hard with the rest of the dirt bags in this scum fest.

If for no other reason than out of respect for the first generation of Epstein girls who were in fact 8-12 year old slavic girls sold into sex slavery out the collapsed Soviet Union. They are the true victims in this, not some suburban gold digging white trash teeny boppers looking for swag, cash and a glam lifestyle with important and powerful people. .

[Dr. Franklin]

This isn't about the mutual consent of two teen love birds; it's about trafficking minors. Money changed hands and it's a felony.

So who was trafficking the minors and paying for them? Epstein or someone else?
Did third parties know that these were minors, and they were being paid to travel for sexual services? Focusing on emotional arguments that something bad happened doesn't mean that everyone involved was guilty of everything. People can't be convicted of things they didn't know at the time.

[Dr. Franklin]

Considering the location where the crimes happened, do American laws apply? British law?

What happened in the U.S. is subject to U.S. law, and what happened in the U.K. is subject to U.K. law. No criminal charges where brought against anyone but Epstein and Maxwell in the U.S. No charges were brought against Prince Andrew since they couldn't prove he knew all of the facts later discovered. I don't think they had a civil case against him the U.K. either.

[T.B. Yoits]

So who was trafficking the minors and paying for them? Epstein or someone else? Did third parties know that these were minors, and they were being paid to travel for sexual services? Focusing on emotional arguments that something bad happened doesn't mean that everyone involved was guilty of everything. People can't be convicted of things they didn't know at the time.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one").

[Dr. Franklin]

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one").

The question isn't what the law was. It's the facts of Epstein's machinations with these girls. Knowledge of that can't be imputed to people that were targeted by Epstein.

[T.B. Yoits]

Unless Epstein put a gun to their head, they willingly chose to have sex with a trafficked minor. Any claim they didn’t know she was trafficked is irrelevant.

[Dr. Franklin]

Unless Epstein put a gun to their head, they willingly chose to have sex with a trafficked minor. Any claim they didn’t know she was trafficked is irrelevant.

That's not the law. It's a crime to traffic minors for sex. That means someone is paying for such services. In this case, it's not disputed that Epstein, and not anyone else, paid these girls. To proves a crime it must be proved in court that these men knew that the girls were minors and that they were trafficked, and that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The government couldn't meet that burden of proof since they were above the age of consent.

[T.B. Yoits]

These perverts knew damn well that no one would go near them unless they were paid.

[Dr. Franklin]

These perverts knew damn well that no one would go near them unless they were paid.

I wouldn't want to make that argument to a jury, and I don't think many judges would permit the case to go forward based upon that argument. The fact is that Prince Andrew has had young girls throwing themselves at him since he was a teen. Probably some 17 year old girls in the UK would still want to sleep with a British prince. I am not arguing that what he did is moral, but it was likely not criminal as that can't be proved in court.

[mewzilla]

Andrew update, ans this is the only source I can find on the info, from TalkTV...

https://youtu.be/QwS3u_ABiY0?feature=shared

Documents on Andrew’s time as trade envoy are...missing.

And we’re not talking about the docs already embargoed until 2065.

[MinorityRepublican]

Monarchy is dated. We see actors in the Royal Family. I guess it’s good for tourism.