UK - Prince Andrew accused of underage sexual relationship, 1999 - 2002

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the difference between a sexually abused child facing charges if they abuse others and a sex trafficked minor nor facing charges for recruiting others ...

as horrific as child sexual abuse is the CSA victims are not being groomed, manipulated and coerced to recruit others into a sex trafficking situation; The child sexual abuse victim is abusing others without outside influence. Their mental and emotional state should definitely be a consideration regarding any charges and sentencing/treatment.

I am sure someone with legal/psychological knowledge could better explain the difference . At the moment, the most logical explanation I can think of is the sex trafficking victim is being manipulated/coerced/groomed to recruit others and the child abuse victim is acting without being instructed/forced to.

I found this study
Sexual Abuse in the Childhood of Perpetrators | INSPQ
Conclusion:
There is a firmly held belief in the general population that most perpetrators of sexual assault experienced sexual abuse as children and, therefore, that males who were sexually abused in childhood are more likely to commit sexual assault when they grow up. However, apart from the fact that prevalence rates for sexual abuse in childhood are higher (10% according to the study) among perpetrators of sexual assault than among adult males in the general population, being sexually abused as a child does not seem to be either a necessary or a sufficient condition to sexually offend later on in life. The factors identified as increasing the risk that male victims of child sexual abuse will go on to commit sexual assault suggest that those individuals who do offend had, among other things, more problems in childhood and were unaware of the negative effects of the sexual abuse they had suffered. Nonetheless, these findings have implications for the prevention of sexually aggressive behaviour.


Unfortunately, innocent until proven guilty only applies in a criminal case - public opinion is a whole other can of worms and Andrew's avoidance of the issue dug himself a bigger pile of mud to sink into.

Full Disclosure: I am a child sexual abuse victim (age 4 thru 10). Two family abusers - one an adult when I was 4 to 5 yrs old and one a 13 year old male when I was 7 - 10 yrs old. To the best of my knowledge the 13 year old was not sexually abused but home life was not the greatest. He just liked young girls - 3 others during the timeframe he was abusing me. I wish criminal charges would have been brought against him or he had received treatment rather than my family just moving him away from the known victims because after his death we found out he abused many children over the years. I don't use the hashtag #Metoo
 
why do people - including journalists apparently - keep forgetting that he has the right to appeal this decision before the case progresses?

so 4 options

Will Prince Andrew face trial? What happens next in Virginia Giuffre’s civil sex case against the Duke of York

Yup an appeal.

Does the ruling mean Prince Andrew will go to court?

The ruling means that Ms Giuffre’s civil lawsuit can proceed, but Prince Andrew’s legal team is now expected to make another attempt to have the case dismissed.

This appeal would be on the grounds that Ms Giuffre is not domiciled in the US. In order to bring a federal lawsuit in America, one of the parties involved must reside in the country.

Ms Giuffre has lived and raised a family in Australia for the past 19 years. However, her legal team will claim she is only required to show she intends to return to the US, where she remains a citizen, to show she is domiciled there.

Should Judge Kaplan refuse to dismiss the case again, it is expected he will set a date between September and December for the civil trial before a jury to proceed in New York.

In the run-up to the trial the discovery process will run until July, during which the prince will be called upon to provide evidence of the claims he has made that he was at a Pizza Express in Woking at the time of the alleged assault on Ms Giuffre.
 
I’m expecting a quick settlement from PA’s people, with a denial of guilt and giving few details.

They will pay whatever they need to in order to end this so that they can get on without further tarnishing the Queens Platinum Jubilee.

Most court cases, esp. civil ones, are settled out of court for many reasons.

He has no way of proving a negative (that he did not assault VRG) so he should just make it go away. IMO, MOO

ETA: PA does NOT have to prove/disprove anything but IMO, he needs to put the needs of the Monarchy ahead of this mess.
 
Last edited:
<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Imo her age when she was recruiting others is not a factor because it stems from ongoing abuse that began when she was 17.
-------------
If you are looking for a Judge's ruling naming Virginia as a victim of trafficking then no one will be to provide you with that proof at this time because per court rulings the victim's are to be anonymous and records sealed - as in Doe vs US Government for abusing their Victim's rights when the plea deal was reached with Epstein, the settlement agreement between Virginia and Epstein was strictly confidential, the Epstein's Victim's Fund keeps the victim's name confidential. Organizations, courts, legal filings all keep the names of minor victims sealed unless the victim consents to being identified.

Virginia was not allowed to join the case against the US government because she filed her motion to join the case too late. She was in Australia and did not know anything about the Epstein plea agreement (Sept. 2007) or the Victim's lawsuit (filed July 2008) Virginia did not return to the US until October 2013. She did give a deposition to Bradley Edwards in 2011 over the phone because she was in Australia - the Victim's lawsuit against the US is not mentioned in the deposition.


Virginia is identified as Jane Doe #3 deposition in her motion to join the Doe vs US Government, in the Maxwell lawsuit and Dershowitz lawsuit depositions - all legal affidavit filed in legal court proceedings.

There is circumstantial proof Virginia was sex trafficked. She is listed on Epstein's flight record - on same flights with Andrew, her deposition in the Maxwell case was confirmed by Maxwell's guilty verdict for sex trafficking. She has the records to confirm her travel to Thailand and pictures to prove she was in London with Maxwell, at a party for Naomi Campbell at the Ranch (there are probably other pics but am drawing a blank on those). Other girls have confirmed parts of Virginia's account of being victimized. She received compensation from the Epstein Victim's fund.

In Judge Marra's decision he states Epstein sexually abused more than 30 girls
Doe vs US
KENNETH A. MARRA, United States District
Judge
The facts, as culled from affidavits, exhibits,
depositions, answers to interrogatories and
reasonably inferred, for the purpose of these
motions, are as follows:

From between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey
Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls,
including Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2
(hereinafter, "Petitioners"), at his mansion in Palm
Beach, Florida, and elsewhere in the United States
and overseas. (Government Resp. to Petitioner's
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
(hereinafter, "DE 407" at ¶ 1.)



In this article about the Epstein Victims Compensation program
Inside the messy effort to compensate 225 Jeffrey Epstein accusers
Of the applicants, 150 were deemed eligible for compensation, which was funded by sales of Epstein’s real estate and financial assets, and more than 92% accepted the offers.


Are the victims from the lawsuit against the US and those compensated from the Epstein Compensation Program not to be considered victims because their name is not mentioned ? IIRC, Virginia received compensation from the Epstein Compensation Program which would classify her as a victim.


MOO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m expecting a quick settlement from PA’s people, with a denial of guilt and giving few details.

They will pay whatever they need to in order to end this so that they can get on without further tarnishing the Queens Platinum Jubilee.

Most court cases, esp. civil ones, are settled out of court for many reasons.

He has no way of proving a negative (that he did not assault VRG) so he should just make it go away. IMO, MOO
Agree. PA and The Crown will want to detach, the sooner the better.
 
One example of why trafficked victims are not charged and can have past convictions vacated for crimes committed when they themselves were trafficked victims.
------
Setting Aside Crimes of Sex Trafficking Victims | Indianapolis Criminal Defense Lawyers

In 2017, the Indiana General Assembly passed a bill to provide relief that even many criminal defense lawyers don't know about that allows victims of human trafficking who are convicted of crimes to have their convictions vacated.

Victims can be adults but most are recruited between the ages of twelve and fourteen. Victims of sex trafficking are often found and groomed from social media sites rather than grabbed from the streets. For this reason, many victims of human trafficking don't think of themselves as victims, but may consider their trafficker to be a boyfriend. However, a trafficker can be anyone close to the victim-- a boyfriend, a spouse, or even a parent.
To have a crime vacated, the person has to show that he or she was a victim of sex trafficking when the crime was committed, but it does not matter if the trafficker was ever charged or convicted. The burden of proof is also favorable, requiring proof that the person was a victim of human trafficking only by the preponderance of evidence, a much lower standard than, say, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The only significant restriction is that, for a conviction to be vacated, the crime must not have resulted in the bodily injury to any person other than the trafficked person.
 
One of the main principles on which Websleuths was founded is that we are victim friendly.

Members who are persistent in their attempts to blame the victim in this case are banned from this discussion.
 

I agree 100% with JSP in this article. I'm in the UK and this verbiage is up and down the Country. PA is finished no matter which road he takes. It's felt he needs to be removed from the RF completely, lock stock and barrel. The disgrace and untold harm he has caused, guilty or not, is immense.
PA is arrogant, and has no social skills as such, as JSP tells us. He decided to hide at Windsor Castle, taking his mess right there to his mothers home, a woman still in mourning.
He wants to defend himself to the end but wanted everything spoken sealed so details won't be heard or seen outside of the Court walls. Andrew you are an idiot. Paying up before the Trial starts, in my view makes him look guilty. Either way, his time of living the Royal life is done.
 
Just wanted to pull this out of the CNN article: bbm

Andrew will also no longer use the style "His Royal Highness" in any official capacity, a royal source told CNN on Thursday.

You know that's got to sting.

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
221
Guests online
292
Total visitors
513

Forum statistics

Threads
608,537
Messages
18,240,774
Members
234,392
Latest member
FamilyGal
Back
Top