The man formerly known as Prince can fall no further....

Quote Whitewavemark2 Sat 01-Nov-25 10:58:15
annie is 14 years old young enough to qualify as a child?

Does evidence like the Lolita Express passenger log count? Or various photos? Or e-mails or footage of WM entering and exiting Epstein’s NY home where so much rape and sex trafficking took place?

This is probably a tiny amount of evidence in the Epstein file.

No, not proof,

Are you talking about what went on in the bedroom, or wherever he chose to carry out his activities?

Well, that as other posters have suggested that this will almost certainly be on the balance of probabilities as in other cases of rape or abuse.

There may never be a smoking gun, although we do have a young woman’s witness statement which was accepted as true in USA court. What else do you need?

It speaks volumes that WM refused to give evidence in the USA court.

I suppose it depends at what age a child is no longer seen or treated as a child.
Epstein’s conviction that resulted in prison, was sexual offences against a 14 year old.
The various tv documents and interviews with yiung women Epstein and Maxwell groomed, sexually abused and delivered to their friends, refer to girls of 11

Those suggesting no prosecution equals no ‘proof’ please remember the so called grooming gangs, jimmy saville and others in the public eye.

You meant “probably “ yet posted it as fact , thank you

When offences take place in private bedrooms there will rarely be 'proof'. Does that mean that there should be no prosecutions?

I'm not a detective, but I assume it would have to be something like DNA having been taken at the time to count as indisputable 'proof', and that will happen so rarely as to be virtually never - more than nine times out of ten verdicts will be based on the balance of probabilities - testaments of people who have seen or heard things that suggest an offence took place, photos of the accused with his arms around the accuser and others of her traffickers at the home of the accused and so on.

Are people suggesting that it should only be when there is incontrovertible 'proof' that cases of sex offences should be prosecuted, and/or the accused found guilty? If so, what would you accept as proof, and how would you expect a victim to obtain it?

That is exactly how it happens, Doodledog. The very nature of rape or sexual assault means that there is often no independent witnesses to what actually happened, and unless there is physical evidence - such as DNA - then a jury does have to reach a verdict based on the balance of probabilities.
In the case of the historical sex abuse case on which I was a juror, there were two victims (who had never met each other) who had both been assaulted by the accused on separate occasions - their evidence each corroborated the other's.

Exactly. Those saying that Andrew hasn't been found guilty are setting an impossible standard if they don't believe that he (and by extension anyone) should be able to do as they like so long as it is in private.

Quote Doodledog Sat 01-Nov-25 14:26:04
Exactly. Those saying that Andrew hasn't been found guilty are setting an impossible standard if they don't believe that he (and by extension anyone) should be able to do as they like so long as it is in private.

Doodle my turn, what in this between Virginia and Andrew would you consider as proof ?

I'm saying that Andrew hasn't been charged with let alone found guilty Doodledog but I am not saying that he or anyone else should be able to do as they like as long as it is in private. That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The man formerly known as Prince can fall no further?

Further things could still come to light. Now that AMW no longer has the protection of a royal title he is more vulnerable than before and there is also the possibility of large sum legal costs:

1) Republic (TBC- I am not a member or sympathiser of Republic)) , an activist group seeking to abolish the monarchy says it is pursuing a private prosecution of AMW " because if the government and the police won't hold him to account, we will". Republic has instructed lawyers to investigate and, if appropriate, begin a private prosecution over allegations of sexual offences and misconduct in private office".
2) The use of the government backed shell company Bank of England Nominees for investments
3) An alleged past attempt to "dig up dirt" on Virginia Giuffre and how he came to have her personal details and social security detail. The Metropolitan Police are looking into the claims made by a newspaper regarding this...
4) The "Pitch@Palace Global' start up competition.
5) His payment from a firm linked to a pension fund scams that allegedly "ripped off pension savers".
6) Details surrounding his Swiss chalet purchase.
7) His financial ties to various individuals, including Doug Barrowman.

Of course not.

Rape comes to mind.

Smileless2012

I'm saying that Andrew hasn't been charged with let alone found guilty Doodledog but I am not saying that he or anyone else should be able to do as they like as long as it is in private. That's a ridiculous thing to say.

Of course Smileless is correct.

Rape comes to mind.

This is not necessarily an exhaustive list....e.g - his sale of Sunninglhill Park in 2007 to a businessman for £15 million, i.e.£3million over the asking price is also controversial but I guess that is included in 7) above and whatever else Republic's investigation digs up.....

His vulnerability is those individuals, organisations, newspapers and general public opinion that still may not be satisfied with his downfall thus far- and what steps they may further request or take to bring him down further....

Doodledog

LadyBridgerton

Doodledog

Where do you get the idea that juries ‘always find for the alleged victim’?

I sat on a jury in a historical abuse trial and from the minute we discovered the nature of the case he was guilty in the eyes of most of the jury.

Ok, but how does that mean that juries 'always' find for the victims?

David, you have gone from 'always' to 'most' and back again in your last post, but there is still no indication of what you are basing it on.

It means I have no faith in the US legal system to give a fair and just outcome in cases. Judging from what we know at present there is no evidence of criminal culpability against Andrew.
Yes Guffrie was abused first by her father then trafficked but there is no evidence that Andrew was involved, some here are trying to pile all the abuse on him, trial by media, including GN.

trial by media, including GN I agree David.

Norah

Smileless2012

I'm saying that Andrew hasn't been charged with let alone found guilty Doodledog but I am not saying that he or anyone else should be able to do as they like as long as it is in private. That's a ridiculous thing to say.

Of course Smileless is correct.

Rape comes to mind.

Indeed it does.

But that is my point. If the only thing stopping someone from doing exactly as they like is proof that they broke the law, and that proof can't be obtained as the offence took place in private, then there is nothing stopping them.

You may not agree, Smileless, and I may be wrong, but I am not being ridiculous - just giving my point of view. As rape has been mentioned, how would you prove it if it happened in a bedroom with only the victim and the perpetrator there?

Doodle my turn, what in this between Virginia and Andrew would you consider as proof ?

I don't think it can be proven, which is why I think that the balance of probability has to be taken into account. Photographs, witness statements from other victims, evidence from staff and other people known to have been on the premises - that sort of thing. I think it was a mistake to allow a pay-off.

If the burden of proof is too high then very few cases of any sort will ever be proven. What is decried as 'he said/she said' is just another way of describing witness testimonies, which, if accepted by a jury, count as evidence. If they never get their day in court then a jury never hears them.

It has to be a balance between justice for the accused and justice for the accuser. Even if someone witnesses an assault, theft, rape, whatever, it is still 'he said/she said' is it not? People were found guilty before we had DNA evidence - what counted as proof then?

Yes Guffrie was abused first by her father then trafficked but there is no evidence that Andrew was involved, some here are trying to pile all the abuse on him, trial by media, including GN.
Where is your proof that she was abused by her father, and that she was trafficked? Are you selecting the parts of her account that you believe, and if so, why?

For the record, I am not saying that anything definitely happened. I am saying that the idea that there must be undefined 'proof' of something as intimate as sexual abuse or rape before it can be accepted as such is deeply flawed, and that allowing someone to buy his way out of a trial should not be allowed in such cases.

Depending on how long after the crime was committed that it's reported, the police would look at any forensic evidence at the scene and by the use of a rape kit, as well as examining the suspect for forensics.

The suspect's alibi would be checked; can anyone support his claim that he couldn't have been there when the crime was committed. This is a tool available to the police regardless of how soon after the crime it was reported.

I know you're giving your point of view Doodledog but you posted that anyone who says there's no proof of any wrong doing by Andrew is saying that he or anyone else should be able to do as they like as long as it is in private. As I'm one of those saying there's no proof, I find your suggestion that that means I think that anyone can do whatever they like as long as it's in private, ridiculous.

Does the accused have a history of violence, have there been previous accusations of a similar nature. There are probably others but I'm not a police officer.

Andrew didn't buy his way out of a trial Doodledog,he bought his way out of a civil case and that was only possible because VG accepted the out of court settlement.

She did accept the out of court settlement, then later reneged on her agreement.

Smileless2012

Andrew didn't buy his way out of a trial Doodledog,he bought his way out of a civil case and that was only possible because VG accepted the out of court settlement.

I think that is semantics, but I am not a lawyer.

The point, as I see it, is that he bought his way out of being questioned in a court of law, civil or criminal, so there could be nothing proven, which is then extrapolated to his being innocent. Which he may, or may not be.

The following puzzles me

A man with a massive ego etc . She claims he had sex with her as if it was his birthright, would he accepted she was paid for this ?

Annie is it possible given his friendship with Maxwell and Epstein along with his established persona as a Randy man, and his total lack of understanding of the issues surrounding organised child / adolescent sexual abuse, had him lacking in care, assuming these girls were really having a good time. Something they’d been groomed to act.
This is the man who famously said he didn’t see the girls around, he was used to not noticing servants, a similsr thing 🙈