Or - maybe - she’s genuinely a victim of sexual abuse - and he really is a criminal abuser?
Calling the character of the possible victim into question is the usual bad lawyer/chauvinist approach to rape cases, isn’t it?
5 Likes
She is a victim Geof and I wish she had gone for criminal charges rather than a ton of cash but sadly she didn’t. I’m not too impressed with her choice of lawyer either as he defended Weinstein previously.
1 Like
The U.K. has already removed the diplomatic status previously accorded family of US intelligence officers based in the U.K.
Blighty won’t be seeing her again unless the White House needs a huge favour throws her under the bus as a sweetener.
Maybe she is and maybe he is, we simply don’t know, so the best way to determine it would be in a criminal court.
Calling the character of the possible victim into question is the usual bad lawyer/chauvinist approach to rape cases, isn’t it?
Similarly the the character of the alleged abuser. Again we just don’t know, but if that photo is anything to go by she doesn’t look to be kicking and screaming.
But then again, maybe the photo is not genuine, or it is, and it is simply a consenting relationship albeit inappropriate because of her age.
The Daily Mail published an article detailing inconsistencies in both of their stories:
Two questions that appear to have been unanswered:
(1) Where were Roberts’ parents whilst this was going on?
(2) Why does Roberts smiling and appear to be relaxed in that photo?
Both completely irrelevant to the question of whether she was trafficked for sex.
5 Likes
And the second just another way of calling the character of the possible victim into question - the usual bad lawyer/chauvinist approach to rape cases.
3 Likes
I’d prefer the legal profession to decide on that rather than speculate.
a) it doesn’t absolve Epstein, Maxwell or Andrew if her parents were absent or even actively complicit.
b) It doesn’t matter if she enjoyed it, if she was brought to the UK for sex she was trafficked.
The point about her being relaxed and smiling *could* go to whether she was additionally forced to have sex against her will but not the trafficking charge, and precisely where and when the (alleged) sex took place could go to whether statutory rape was committed.
There are certainly questions for a court to decide, preferably a criminal court, as to whether she was trafficked but neither of the two points you identify have a bearing on that specific aspect of the case.
2 Likes
Exactly, the degree of proof is higher in a criminal lawsuit, so she is choosing to go for a civil prosecution.
She is after the money.
This is the third civil prosecution she has made.
Cressida Dick said today that they will be looking at the London end again.
I normally make a point of completely ignoring you, however on this sole occasion I’ll make an exception.
You appear to be implying that I am chauvinistic, which I find offensive.
I don’t participate on this forum to be insulted by you.
I think that’s your inference, Nigel, rather than an implication of my comment - which was very clearly about chauvinist views in general.
5 Likes
Even if she wasn’t trafficked and even if they never had sex and even if she was consenting, I still have a massive issue with a married father of two having his arm around a young girl. It’s inappropriate/ icky / and the rest.
And with his background (wealth / privilege / education etc) he should certainly have known better.
And what about the puppet incident? He’s a dirty old lech IMHO and the full force of the law should be thrown at him. And then some.
7 Likes
For an innocent 17 year old she keeps company with some very rich people.
According to the Mail Online article, she met Andrew first in London in March 2001 when, at the age of 17, she can consent to sex. She cannot, of course, drink alcohol in a night club.
The photograph was taken in London at that time. If there was anything illegal or coerced would that posed photo have been allowed?
She later flew to New York on Epstein’s private jet. Was this against her will? Then another time to Epsiein’s private island & yet another time to Epstein’s New Mexico ranch.
Between times I guess she was held prisoner somewhere, unable to get help.
I wonder what her appeal was to get these invites - witty conversation? Perhaps she was a financial wizard of some sort.
Yes, I am skeptical & not all claims like this are true - not all older men are predators & not all young girls are defenceless innocents.
3 Likes
This mistake was made by the police in the Rotherham grooming cases - blaming the girls for being “delinquents” and thus managing to blind themselves to the fact that no matter how happy she is to be there a 13 year old cannot consent to sex.
In the case, as you point out, the girl was 17 - technically above the age of consent in the UK. Or was she? If the older partner holds a position of power or undue influence the relevant age is 18 - arguably Andrew *did* hold such a position (but, yeah, for a court to decide).
The crimes of trafficking, statutory rape etc are absolute - they do not depend on the victim being “up for it” and “I don’t recall” is not a defence.
Coercion can be subtle, it’s still coercion.
12 Likes
I find her choice of lawyer and the fact that it is civil and not criminal trials off-putting, it is like she is hoping they will all settle out of court for big money rather than face a trial.
are there rules concerning “double jeopardy” in such cases? I think not - which would leave it open for the plaintiff, even if awarded damages at whatever level, to escalate to criminal proceedings later. Hell hath no fury etc…
Evidentially, the requirement for proof may be less in the civil case and this may just be a rehearsal for the bigger trial.
Whatever her motives - and, yeah, it’s hard not to be cynical - bringing a criminal case is not in her gift.
3 Likes
True… but may be a trigger point for the prosecutors if the civil case succeeds.
American law may OTOH allow a complainant to “lay information” such as exists in English Law IIRC.
1 Like