It doesn’t seem to me to be any kind of stretch to believe that Andrew was egotistical enough to honestly believe she was (a) of age under UK law and (b) was willing to have sex with a prince.
Maybe he knew exactly what was going on. I don’t know the state of the evidence is about that (and I don’t believe a word anyone says without citations because the level of hysteria around the whole thing is beyond belief). I’m pretty sure there is no chance whatever of being able to prove his state of mind. Certainly not now and probably never.
I’ve always said that there might be evidentiary difficulties, especially as the principal witness for the prosecution is now dead. But if we pretend the evidentiary difficulties don’t exist, I think Andrew would be guilty of an offence under Sexual Offences Act 2003 s. 48 if he asked Epstein to bring Giuffre to London or agreed with Epstein that Giuffre would be brought to London for his entertainment (or indeed if he asked or agreed for any girl, and Giuffre was the girl Epstein brought). But if Epstein just suprised Andrew by producing a girl for him, then I don’t think a prosecution could succeed.
Is there an offence that might be committed if Epstein just produced a girl for Andrew? Sexual Offences Act 2003 s. 53A, but only if Andrew paid (in some way, doesn’t have to be cash) for the girl’s sexual services, and SFAIK we have no reason to think that he did.
But I think Andrew would be very vulnerable to a charge under Sexual Offences Act 2003 s. 47. The elements of that offence, in the circumstances of this case, are:
Andrew intentionally obtains the sexual services of Giuffre for himself
Andrew knows that Giuffre is paid or has been promised payment for this
Giuffre is under 18, and Andrew does not reasonably believe that she is over 18
The maximum sentence, given that Giuffre is between 16 and 18, is 7 years.
To be clear, in the offences outlined above, it’s irrelevant whether Giuffre consented, or even consented enthusiastically, to what went on. Giuffre’s consent, or the lack of it, is not an element of any of the offences I have mentioned.
If Andrew were charged with rape (Sexual Offences Act 2003 s. 1) then the question of whether Giuffre consented, or Andrew reasonably believed that she consented, would be relevant. The focus would not be on whether Giuffre consented to the whole situation in which she was employed by Epstein, but on whether she consented to being sexually penetrated by Andrew, at the time that it happened. I don’t think a charge of rape could succeed.
Matter for evidence. But Giuffre was formally and openly employed by Epstein — pay, social security, the lot — and her role was basically the provision of sexual services to, and at the direction of, Epstein and Maxwell. We don’t actually know how Giuffre was introduced to Andrew (“This is Virginia, our, um, friend who we don’t pay at all. We feel sure that she would like to sleep with you.”)
I’m sceptical that Andrew didn’t know what the state of play was. He’s dumb, but not that dumb. But without Giuffre’s own evidence, my scepticism is not going to be enough to convict him.
So just to be clear you “think Andrew would be very vulnerable to a charge under Sexual Offences Act 2003” but have no evidence at all to support that proposition, in FQ? You openly admit you “don’t know” about the critical points. And instead fabricate some dialogue for which you have no evidence.
Might assist with fighting ignorance if there was less raw speculation on this topic.
I’ve said repeatedly that I think there are evidentiary problems. I don’t think Andrew will ever face a prosecution, and not just because of his status and connections.
But if the evidentiary problems were magicked away, on the facts alleged by Giuffre is there a charge to which Andrew would be vulnerable? Yes; the s. 47 charge. It is necessary for that charge to be made out that Andrew should have known that Giuffre was being paid, but it’s not a wildly improbable speculation that he did. It was widely known in Epstein’s circle that he paid girls to provide sexual services to himself and others in his circle and that Maxwell, an old friend of Andrew’s, arranged and managed this for him; Giuffre was an employee of Epstein and here she was, providing sexual services to Andrew in the context of entertainment laid on by Epstein and Maxwell. It doesn’t look like a stretch to me to suggest that Andrew understood that the role for which Giuffre was paid included having sex with him.
But as I understand, she was “legitimately” employed as a masseuse. I’m not sure what that does to the case for “paid for sex”.
As I mentioned a while ago - Dodi Fayed has a big yatch in the Mediterranean, where a number of young ladies (but well above the age of consent) hung out for free, with the understanding they helped “entertain” the guests and the crew. (no mention of spending money, but I’m sure that happened) Apparently, according to one of them, they were told to get lost whenever Dodi showed up with Diana. So this aspect of lifestyles of the rich and famous is not unheard of. I gather this was part of Andrew’s lifestyle experience too. (Recall at one point he dated a porn star)
So I doubt he ever asked for or had to pay for girls. Epstein was enough of a social climber to understand and provide what was needed. The reason why Andrew avoided a lawsuit was - obviously - in discovery and at trial he would have to answer in detail about his sexual adventures and typical behaviour. You think his TV interview was bad publicity…? How would that play out?
As I said - if there are emails or other evidence that he made requests, then obviously he would be legally liable. If there was specific evidence he had sexual encounters below the age of consent in other countries, also he’d be liable. So far, nothing specific, although implications about NYC and the island. I would imagine he’s a recognizable public figure that plenty of Epstein’s victims would be able to identify.
But the difference between Diana and Andrew is that, when Andrew came calling, nobody got rid of the sex workers. Andrew was in the class of people to whom sex workers were supplied, not from whom they were concealed.
He doesn’t have to have made requests; he just has to have been aware that the young woman he was having sex with was being compensated for this. He certainly knew that she was being compensated; the only issue is whether he understood that providing sexual services to Epstein and his associates was part of the role for which she was compensated. And, as you point out, Andrew moved in circles where this wouldn’t have been an unusual state of affairs. And Andrew himself was not somebody from whom anyone would have felt it necessary to conceal things like this.
So, while we can’t show that he did know this, it’s entirely plausible that he did, and many people will be ready to believe that he likely did.
(It’s also quite likely that, if he did know, he wasn’t aware that he was committing a crime. A lot of discussion in this thread has involved people assuming either that the sex had to be in some way non-consensual, or that Andrew himself had to have arranged or paid for it, before a crime would have been committed. Andrew himself may have made similar assumptions.)
The trouble with Andrew is that, by his manner, he hasn’t made many friends on the way up (other than of the fair weather variety) and now that he needs them, they are in short supply. There are many stories about the way he treats his inferiors.
In past centuries, none of this would have attracted much comment. George III’s sons and brothers behaved much worse.