I, of course, would bow to your expertise on all law matters.
I was thinking a search warrant. Since it was Epstein, it seems like it would be for trafficking (and why is there a “k” in trafficking?) or underage women. Police find at least two middle age men there along with however many young women are there. They are not related and have no business dealings with the women. One of the women tells the police that she is being trafficked and points out Andrew who she says she was forced to have sex with at least twice.
Police can do nothing in this case? Leaving out the diplomatic immunity in this instance.
If one of the women alleges that Andrew raped her, or had sex with her before her 17th birthday, then yes, of course the police could do something. Rape is a crime, and Andrew would be Suspect #1.
The problem in the actual case is that Virginia Roberts Giuffre alleges that Epstein and/or Maxwell told her to have sex with Andrew, but she does NOT allege that Andrew actually knew that, or had any part in the trafficking himself, or was aware that she wasn’t a willing participant, and she was of legal age to consent to sex at the time. What crime did HE commit? What evidence would the police have to link him to the trafficking (which has a ‘k’ because c followed by i would be pronounced as “ess”; cf. dancing)?
ETA: It comes down to the fact that “she is being trafficked and points out Andrew who she says she was forced to have sex with at least twice” requires answering the question of who forced her? who trafficked her? The answers might implicate one or both middle-aged guys, or it might only implicate a third party not present. Statutory rape (underage) is a strict liability crime: it doesn’t matter if he knew she was underage. However, rape is not a strict liability crime: conviction requires showing he knew or should have known that she was unconsenting. Prosecution for trafficking likewise requires that he possessed the “mens rea,” the knowledge or intention of wrongdoing.
A passport is just documentation.
Diplomatic Immunity is something a country can claim, not something a person can claim.
As a matter of practice, a diplomatic passport indicates that a country will claim diplomatic immunity for the passport holder.
As a matter of practice, the police do not have reasonable grounds for arrest of a person holding a diplomatic passport, because there is not reasonable expectation of prosecution.
Some countries are less inclined to claim diplomatic immunity, even for diplomatic passport holders. In the view of the Australian government, diplomatic immunity is is limited to acts performed in the exercise of diplomatic/consular functions. In 1954, the Australian government grounded an airplane and took off the Third Secretary of the Soviet embassy. He wasn’t charged with a crime: the situation was completely different, but it was not viewed differently by the Soviet Union. So there is a limited precedent here.
There’s a tendency in English to modify the base word if the prefix can imply a different pronunciation. For example, “bat” becomes “batting”, not “bating”, as the latter would be pronounced the same “bating” by the usual English rules. Or “hate” become “hating”, not “hateing.”
Normally you double the final letter (or drop an E), but since a C followed by I makes an S sound, we instead add a K.
There are other such words: “frolicking,” “rollicking,” “panicking,” etc.
This I think is the key. Epstein and co. were doing the trafficking. There is no allegation that Andrew participated in that. He simply it seems, being the sleazebag that he is, took advantage of he “free entertainment”.
I remember a story about the hangers-on on Dodi’s yacht. Assorted women - willingly - hung out there and the implication was htey got a free-loading time on a multi-million dollar yacht with all the trimmings, in return for being much more than just eye-candy. Dodi delegated it to his minions to tell them to get lost before Diana arrived.
The point being, for a certain social milieu of sleazy A-listers, free entertainment included women. I doubt Andrew concerned himself with the mundane details of where the women came from, whether and how they were recompensed, etc. And being an A-lister, likely they fell into his lap (so to speak) or were pushed there - he didn’t have to go out soliciting. There’s no indication that they were held in bondage, or beaten, or anything else that implies “he should have known”. They photo of Andrew and Guiffre in London does not appear to show her attempting to get away. Also, this was Epstein’s specialty - with or without providing sex, he ingratiated himself with top society. If they appreciated him providing sexual services too, so much the better.
What are the charges available in New York or London? Can someone be charged with soliciting prostitution if they take no part in arranging the presence of women, or they payments/ (In all those bad police shows on TV, it seems the key to making an arrest is getting the man to mention money…)
There have been no allegations I’ve read that Andrew had a hand in helping transport the women, which presumably would make him also liable for trafficking. Considering Epstein had his own jet, and probably did not like to let the girls out of his control, reinforces this, Can someone be charged with Mann Act or trafficking if they are just another passenger in the aircraft? Presumably then almost any passengers listed on the jet manifest most of the last two decades would be liable.
As others have mentioned, the encounters Guiffre describes happened when she was of legal age, so there is no basis for charges of statutory rape.
So I don’t see any reason to charge Andrew with anything, unless there are allegations (that can be substantiated) that he engaged with sex with someone under 18 while in the Virgin Islands.
Unfortunately, being a sleazy dirtbag is not a crime. having sex with someone over the legal age but decades younger is not a crime, even though it seems to be the very definition of sleaze.
I assume that when Andrew does travel, he and all royals get a diplomatic passport - not because of this problem, but more to avoid any hassles; as other cases above mention. Britain does not want the hassle of a royal detained and jailed overseas for even less scandalous incidents like DUI or assaulting a paparazzi.
As for Andrew, I’m suspecting the royal family and consequently Downing Street keep him on a tight travel leash now just in case. I assume the famously independent DA’s for assorted districts are sufficiently independent that there is a risk they will attempt an arrest and let Washington sort out the fallout later if they get sufficient evidence. Considering a grand jury will famously indict a ham sandwich, it would be a risk.
It’s not that the police can do nothing. If there is a search warrant for the physical location of a suspected criminal enterprise those that are found there will be held under investigative detention. There was already probable cause found by the judge for the search warrant. Those individuals can be held for investigative purposes for a no bright line reasonable amount of time.
Each crime has elements defined in the statute, points of fact that must be present for there to be a crime. If during the investigation the actions of a detained individual don’t match the elements of a crime then they are released. If there is not enough probable cause to link them to the necessary elements of the crime but they are still suspects they are released pending further investigation. The maid might just be cleaning the bathroom. The caterer may just be serving food. Prince Andrew may just be there for financial advice. Or maybe all three have knowledge of and participate in trafficking. What the police can do is determined by what they see and find at the scene combined with the evidence they already had to get the search warrant.
I guess the core question is - is just being present, or taking advantage of free “entertainment” a crime, let alone a crime of trafficking?
There is no indication Andrew took part in or was aware of any physical or psychological intimidation to “force” these women /girls to have sex. (As I said, the photo in London doesn’t show Guiffre in obvious distress) No indication he participated in paying for them. I mean, he’s not stupid (we hope), he had to know women don’t always throw themselves at him, but if he did not actively participate or collude in force or payment, is he committing a crime? If so, what crime?
Even if the police raded the home and caught adult males with their pants down, actively engaging in sex with females of legal age, is there a crime?
(I know Canada had a crime of “Keeping a Common Bawdy House”, but I understood that included that an aspect of money changing hands or repeated acts of sex. Is there something similar in NYC?)
You will have to look at the statutes in whatever jurisdiction you are talking about to see what elements are required for it to be a crime of trafficking. I don’t think just being present would be enough anywhere without any overt action to further the crime.
First, Happy Birthday! One year closer to retirement, one year farther away from being young enough to fully enjoy it.
Thanks for the explanation, it really helps. I know you can only speculate, but I often see/read stories about trafficking, they show everyone being led out of the building in handcuffs, even the trafficked women. Is that them all being arrested because of a warrant or just them being taken into custody temporarily until they can question them all?
Thanks, I was trying to think of other words when I posted that and couldn’t come up with any.
That’s typically going to be a ‘detain everybody until we can question them’ sort of situation. It is often not obvious who falls into what category; for example, it is not unusual that one or more of the trafficked women have themselves recruited other women, acted as ‘enforcers,’ or committed other criminal acts, and investigators and prosecutors may have to walk a delicate line to figure out who should be helped and who should be punished.
PRINCE Andrew is “not above the law” and has no diplomatic or sovereign immunity over the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, it can be revealed. … It is understood Andrew is not eligible for sovereign immunity as only the Queen is entitled to that category of protection.
But there is no cite, so I don’t know if’s accurate.
It’s pretty clear that sovereign immunity only applies to the Sovereign. There is only one. It doesn’t extend to her family.
Diplomatic immunity applies to a role not by accident by birth. Prince Andrew is not given diplomatic immunity because he is a prince. He has taken on diplomatic roles. He most likely had diplomatic immunity while he was an economic envoy traveling abroad. They question is if he did anything illegal and if he fell under diplomatic immunity when it happened. His home country can also allow prosecution to happen voluntarily.
Prostitution is illegal. Most likely they would be arrested for that. In the past that’s where it would stay. Now it’s understood that the prostitutes may themselves be victims of trafficking and not suspects. That takes more digging and investigation. Even if there is probable cause for an arrest for prostitution it doesn’t mean they will be formally charged if it was determined they were trafficked.
But presumably if he’s frequently doing things like advocating for charities when he travels - does he have two passports, one for when he’s on a “Mission From Mum”, and another to cruise the Riviera or New York?
How do others handle this? Do ambassadors have a second plain passport for when they take a vacation to a third country?
One of the interesting details about palace servants that I recall reading - Charles never even put his own toothpaste on his brush. A servant did that - it was sitting there waiting for him when it was time to brush. Things one takes for granted in a privileged position.
Plus, as I said, I doubt he every had to pay for sex directly.
Firstly, there are women who are willing to horn on celebrities for free, as numerous music groupies and even Monica will attest. I remember even when Andy was attending school for a while near Toronto, many of the news stories were about the girls who enjoyed socializing with him (but no hint that it went any further than school dances and dates).
Second, Epstein’s modus operandi was to ingratiate himself with A-listers, participate in charity events, invite them for dinner; not all partook of his peculiar after-dinner entertainment. While there’s a picture of Guiffre giving Bill Clinton a massage (she was training to be a trained massage therapist), in the Netflix documentary She specifically mentions that on the trip to Africa for the Gates Foundation with BIll and Bill (Gates and Clinton) along with Epstein on Epstein’s jet, that was one trip where nothing happened. But if it appears that if Epstein latched onto someone who enjoyed the entertainment, he provided it - not as a business, but as an additional way to ingratiate himself.
I do wonder though - considering it’s been a while and no evidence from numerous videos has come too light, nor has anyone confessed to being blackmailed, did Epstein actually bluntly threaten anyone with video evidence? The only hint we seem to get is the cushy deal he struck with the feds in his first case. Who in Washington protected him and why? We need to hear more details from Acosta. (Also, Acosta quit fairly quickly providing minimum details - is he being “looked after” in return by someone in Washington?)
What a load of tosh. There are many stories like this about Charles, like the idea that he takes his own toilet seat on tour and his staff had to boil a whole series of eggs so that there would be a perfect one for his breakfast.