Jump to content

Will Prince Andrew testify for alleged sex with an underage sex slave?


marylander1940
This topic is 3338 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Will Prince Andrew testify for alleged sex with an underage sex slave?

 

London (AFP) - The woman who alleged in a US court filing she was kept as an underage "sex slave" by a Wall Street financier and forced to have sex with Britain's Prince Andrew stood by her story on Saturday despite Buckingham Palace's strong denial.

 

The plaintiff, identified only as "Jane Doe #3" in court papers, told British newspaper The Guardian that she refuses to be "unjustly victimised again" after robust denials of the allegations from the palace and also a prominent US attorney named in the lawsuit.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-making-prince-andrew-sex-claims-vows-not-002829280.html

 

I know, it's a strange story!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will it ever get to trial so that he might have to testify? I doubt it...either because it will be dismissed (surely the defense will ask for it to be thrown out due ot lack of evidence or some other legal detail) or it will be somehow settled. If it does goes to court, then I imagine he would have to testify if called upon by the plaintiffs. And yes...very strange story indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to the question in the title of the thread is "no" as things stand because the court filings do not seek to hold anyone other than Jeffrey Epstein criminally liable. Even as to Epstein, the purpose of the filings is to nullify his plea agreement to relatively minor state charges in favor of more sweeping (and presumably federal) charges. Given the existence of prosecutorial discretion, nullifying the existing plea agreement doesn't guarantee the filing of more serious charges, nor does it guarantee a conviction on such charges, despite the reek of favoritism here because Epstein is rich and powerful and has rich and powerful friends.

 

Also, the adjective "underage" is a little misleading. According to her own statement, Jane Doe #3 was seventeen when she had sex with Prince Andrew in London and New York. Seventeen is not underage in either of those jurisdictions. But she would have been underage if, as one of the articles intimates, she had sex in Florida with a partner over the age of 23 while she was still 17.

 

The trafficking issue supersedes the age issue, but it's possible that the predicate for a trafficking charge might not be established when it comes to the men she was "lent" to if they didn't know or have reason to know she was trafficked.

 

As for Alan Dershowitz; I have very little respect for anything he says anymore. He takes a black-and-white, all-or-nothing view of everything when anyone with a lick of sense knows that not everything is that cut and dried. We parted ways over Israeli policy toward the Palestinians and the use of torture in terror investigations. I'm sorry; anyone who endorses the use of torture but thinks he still cares about civil rights and civil liberties is delusional. What he's really doing is picking and choosing whose civil rights and civil liberties he cares about. He also conveniently fails to mention that lawyers filing pleadings in federal court without inquiring into the reasonableness of the factual allegations are potentially subject to sanctions under Rule 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...