Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Apparently, for the State they were residing in, 17 was underage
If that was the case as I said earlier why was he not accused of rape. Or are you suggesting that the States DA office and the complainants all took pity on him and didn't accuse him of the more serious crime?
 
What is the actual accusation?

I don't believe rape was something that he has been accused off. Just that at the time she was under age.

As an FYI sleeping with someone who is over 14, but under 18 now is considered a misdemeanor in most US states.

The bloke is obviously a cretin, but I don't put him in the same basket as people sleeping with 7 year olds for instance.
Regardless of age, if the complainant has been coerced into having sex (which she said she was) then it can fall into the realm of rape.
 
If that was the case as I said earlier why was he not accused of rape. Or are you suggesting that the States DA office and the complainants all took pity on him and didn't accuse him of the more serious crime?
It was a civil case. The plaintiff decides what the accusation is
 
Does the age of consent mean that anyone under that age isn’t legally allowed to give consent and therefore it would be classed as rape?
They are..... if the two consenting parties are aged 16 and 17 nothing would happen. But when one is 17 and the other in his 40's or older it is slightly different.
I think the age difference has to be no more than 3 years difference and that one party has not exerted power over the other (taking mental ability into it).
I worked in a children's home and the kids (all 60 of them spread over 5 houses on one site) would be up to all sorts. If something sexual happened between kids and they were more than 3 (it may even have been two, certainly if they were younger) years between them then we had to call the social services.... if within that period it didn't become an issue if consensual.
 
No NDA signed. Further more, To clear up some of the sentiment that has led to some posters accusing her of protecting abusers from criminal prosecution- NDAs cannot legally prevent criminal disclosure and any clauses that purport to do so are null and void.

Even Epstein's agreement with Giuffre declared that in a standard boiler plate clause.

Andrew's alleged offences in the US are outside the statute of limitations period.

The Met closed the investigation into alleged offences in the UK.

 
No NDA signed. Further more, To clear up some of the sentiment that has led to some posters accusing her of protecting abusers from criminal prosecution- NDAs cannot legally prevent criminal disclosure and any clauses that purport to do so are null and void.

Even Epstein's agreement with Giuffre declared that in a standard boiler plate clause.

Andrew's alleged offences in the US are outside the statute of limitations period.

The Met closed the investigation into alleged offences in the UK.

Whatever comes out can’t really do much now though?

Andrew’s name is mud. He’s been accused of lots of things, but had none proven.

The book can throw more accusations out, but they won’t be proven.

Peoples’ opinion of Andrew are already set in stone. They think he’s a paedophile.

Whatever any book suggests, his reputation can hardly be sullied any further.
 
As if people are actually okay with fucking a 17 year old. 17! 12 months out of high school. Illegal, maybe not, weird as fuck and a bit noncey, most definitely.

This girl has been trafficked to a different country then coerced into having sex with much older men. Whole thing is fucking disgusting
 
As if people are actually okay with fucking a 17 year old. 17! 12 months out of high school. Illegal, maybe not, weird as fuck and a bit noncey, most definitely.

This girl has been trafficked to a different country then coerced into having sex with much older men. Whole thing is fucking disgusting
Would you feel the same if it had happened in this country? The having sex with a 17 year old, not the coercion bit, obviously.
 
Giuffre gets further millions to add to the millions she has already received without the ball ache of having to answer some potentially very damaging questions about both her credibility and actions when ‘working’ for Epstein. Why wouldn’t she settle?
This. Cnut as he is, Andrew doesn’t monopolise dodginess.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top