Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

The normal rules do apply.

You need to familiarize yourself with concepts like negligence, recklessness, and willful blindness, and why they are sufficient to establish both civil and criminal culpability for some crimes in the absence of strict intent.


Another concept is strict liability: the act is the crime, regardless of intent. A common example is felony murder: if someone is killed during another felony, everybody involved gets charged, even if a specific person didn't kill or intend to kill anybody (as, say, the getaway driver at a bank robbery). It's truly bizarre to keep claiming that sex with someone too young to consent isn't a crime as long as you weren't sure the victim is too young. That's not what the law says. You need to be sure that she isn't.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-common-strict-liability-crimes.html
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-common-strict-liability-crimes.html
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Felony-Murder+Rule
 
It's truly bizarre to keep claiming that sex with someone too young to consent isn't a crime as long as you weren't sure the victim is too young. That's not what the law says. You need to be sure that she isn't.

"I didn't know" is especially likely to fall on deaf ears when there's substantial reason to believe she's probably underage...for instance, when the girl is ostensibly being pimped to you by a man who has an actual reputation for interest and trafficking in underage girls.
 
"I didn't know" is especially likely to fall on deaf ears when there's substantial reason to believe she's probably underage...for instance, when the girl is ostensibly being pimped to you by a man who has an actual reputation for interest and trafficking in underage girls.

Not just a reputation, but a criminal conviction and a place on the sex offender registry.
 
Another concept is strict liability: the act is the crime, regardless of intent. A common example is felony murder: if someone is killed during another felony, everybody involved gets charged, even if a specific person didn't kill or intend to kill anybody (as, say, the getaway driver at a bank robbery). It's truly bizarre to keep claiming that sex with someone too young to consent isn't a crime as long as you weren't sure the victim is too young. That's not what the law says. You need to be sure that she isn't.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-common-strict-liability-crimes.html
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-common-strict-liability-crimes.html
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Felony-Murder+Rule

Ever since the Bentley case in England (the 'let him have it' murder) it doesn't have felony murder UK equivalent. You can be an accessory to the crime instead.
 
Ever since the Bentley case in England (the 'let him have it' murder) it doesn't have felony murder UK equivalent. You can be an accessory to the crime instead.

Incorrect. Since 1957 (in England and Wales), it’s no longer been covered by statute law, but the common law principle of joint enterprise (which is what was applied in the Bentley case) persists and is still used.
 
I'm surprised no one has posted the documentary of the Prince and the Paedophile here.

Essentially, it is Virginia Giuffre's side of the story, with another witness from South Africa also explaining how they were groomed and exploited by Epstein and Maxwell. It is pretty detailed, and intercut with Andrew Windsor's own claims. Giuffre comes across as quite convincing, but the Panorama is not uncritical of either women's claims pointing, out that there are some inaccuracies or inconsistencies with their stories.

There is also an interview with Alan Dershowtiz who is also implicated by one of the women in the documentary.

 
I'm surprised no one has posted the documentary of the Prince and the Paedophile here.

Essentially, it is Virginia Giuffre's side of the story, with another witness from South Africa also explaining how they were groomed and exploited by Epstein and Maxwell. It is pretty detailed, and intercut with Andrew Windsor's own claims. Giuffre comes across as quite convincing, but the Panorama is not uncritical of either women's claims pointing, out that there are some inaccuracies or inconsistencies with their stories.

There is also an interview with Alan Dershowtiz who is also implicated by one of the women in the documentary.


They may or may not be hoping to get their hands on a lot of money in compensation. The US culture of litigation is also not one much cared for in Europe. However, the more I hear of this case, and I must admit it wasn't until Prince Andrew's interview that I took any interest in it, the more I am convinced these women are telling the truth. OK, so maybe they misremember a detail here and there, such what took place at which location and on what date. Paradoxically that is all the more reason it sounds authentic, because a carefully scripted liar will never diverge from his or her story, whereas someone being straightforward is more relaxed and can seemingly contradict themselves on minor points. If I think back to 2001 or when I was seventeen, I can remember key events as clear as day but could I tell you whether it was a Wednesday or a Tuesday or happened in Oxford Street or Charing Cross Road, or was it Kensington High Street? We can use key dates like a family member's birthday, as Prince Andrew did and try and pinpoint the restaurant and who was there.

I'm guessing that Virginia and Sarah attended so many events in their 'working' lives they are bound to get some minor details wrong but the memorable details right.

What I find strange is what we are not being told. Clearly each of these women have been told they can only talk about their own experience and nobody else's, thus we have a peculiarly narrow focus of two or three women recounting what happened to them in various locations, which ipso facto is only going to be of their own small world, yet we are not getting the bigger picture IMV of what is being covered up.
 
Last edited:
It is reported that Canadian organizations who have Andrew as their Royal patron are dropping him as fast as they can. Several specific organizations listed in this morning's paper. More to come I bet.
 
Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from Prince Andrew (and, presumably, Epstein, who he described as a “terrific guy” and “a lot of fun to be with”), claiming not to know him, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
 
Here's the original. I still can't zoom it enough, but it's bigger and it has more content than what is shown above. Also a high-quality footnote:

This chart spawned from Crazy Days and Nights (CDAN) podcasts (Patreon Ep. 77 & Ep. 284) where he shared blinds and known facts. In addition,
other research was conducted and links to that research can be found throughout this chart in any of the font that is blue. Some of these details
are “alleged” and not 100% confirmed. Not every player confirmed and/or alleged may be in here but in time this will be updated.

Updated 7/15/19
 
Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from Prince Andrew (and, presumably, Epstein, who he described as a “terrific guy” and “a lot of fun to be with”), claiming not to know him, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

To be fair, there's a lot of people trying to distance themselves from Prince Andrew right now, and wondering how well they actually know him. And I can see Donald Trump meeting someone a few times at various functions, without ever really getting to know them.
 
To be fair, there's a lot of people trying to distance themselves from Prince Andrew right now, and wondering how well they actually know him. And I can see Donald Trump meeting someone a few times at various functions, without ever really getting to know them.

Yes, indeed, why would the second son of the Queen of England be memorable at all? I think you're equivocating on the meaning of "know", by the way. Never mind, there's this:

President Donald Trump has claimed that he does not know Prince Andrew, but a recently resurfaced interview with People from 2000 says otherwise, showing Trump describing Andrew as "a lot of fun to be with."

“He’s not pretentious. He’s a lot of fun to be with,” Trump told People in 2000, speaking of Andrew. The article also states that Trump and Andrew, as well as Trump’s then-girlfriend Melania Knauss, had “chatted” at a Halloween costume party hosted by Heidi Klum in New York City in 2000.
 
Yeah, but it's important to be "fair" to claims made by Donald Trump, noted fair person and truth teller.
 
Hopefully you don't think everybody he's even spent time with is part of some sort of conspiracy.



Body language? Next you'll tell me the shape of his skull indicates that he's a pedophile.

Shows how ignorant you are.

(a) body language is real

(b) a paedophile is a person attracted to little children.
 
Yes, indeed, why would the second son of the Queen of England be memorable at all? I think you're equivocating on the meaning of "know", by the way. Never mind, there's this:

Okay, so Trump knows Prince Andrew well enough to talk to at a costume party. And says nice things about him sometimes. Which, from what we know of Trump, aren't really evidence that he knows sod all about the Prince. Now what? I hope you didn't intend this as a serious counterpoint to the new testimony about the Clintons visiting Epstein's baby-making ranch.
 
If a ranch doesn't make any babies, is it still a "baby factory ranch?"

Depends on the context. Apparently Epstein had big plans to run a birthing factory there. The plans never came to fruition, thankfully. I won't complain if you think that doesn't count. I'm still going to use the epithet, though.
 
I'm going to start calling my place the "multi-platinum album recording studio" or maybe "time travel townhouse."
 
I'm going to start calling my place the "multi-platinum album recording studio" or maybe "time travel townhouse."

As long as you don't plan on raping little girls to power it, I don't see the problem.

On the other hand, if you do plan on raping little girls to power it, "multi-platinum album recording rape studio" is going to go down in history as a derogatory term for your place, even if you never follow through on those plans.
 
This is an interesting video which features a body language analysis of Prince Andrew's interview.

I watched some of it. What I saw focused on his spoken language, not his body language. I'm not really interested in watching the whole thing, it's kind of long. Where does it focus on the body language?
 
So real that it's admissible in court? Or so real that you accept that it's real when it agrees with you?

Real in the sense that body language experts analysing say, the body language of Trump and Hillary in debate (he was hovering around trying to intimidate her, was he not?) or Prince Andrew's reactions to Emily Maitlis' searching questions can be revealing. For example, the analyst in the youtube above which peeps have condemned without bothering to watch it, succintly points out that Price Andrew in saying he was being honourable (when visiting JE for four days in NY) is saying he still has enough respect for Epstein despite his conviction for underage sex and prostitution procuring. Likewise his look of anxiety every time Maitlis mentions 'party' when there is nothing inherently negative about the word.

Body language can indeed be admissible in court. Police witnesses are trained to be entiely objective. In their notes they will write down appearance of suspect, date, time, demeanour (for example, agitated, confused, drunk, etc), what they say, and so on.

It immediately becomes clear that body language can be objective evidence in court. For example, a policeman in a famous case, testified that when he and a colleague arrived at the scene of a crime, the two persons hanging around outside 'were visibly surprised' to see them.
 
I watched some of it. What I saw focused on his spoken language, not his body language. I'm not really interested in watching the whole thing, it's kind of long. Where does it focus on the body language?

The sheer look of horror on Prince Andrew's face when Mailtis deliberately exaggerated or overstated a claim as compared to his controlled responses when she aimed at factual points. In other words when refuting something that obviously was not true, his response was an immediate and firm rebuttal as opposed to his humming and hah-ing at other times, for example, about whether he had ever met Virginia Roberts.

I thought it was informative.
 
Yeah, but it's important to be "fair" to claims made by Donald Trump, noted fair person and truth teller.

Your point is itself certainly fair; but some things are independently implausible, Trump's self-serving denialism notwithstanding. Epstein was a professional money donor and hobnobber; he met with rich and famous (and not-so) people all the time because that was his business. It is not plausible that every person he met with, even several times, was truly a friend of his; likewise it's not plausible that every person he met with, even several times, even at his island home, was provided with an underage prostitute, or even was aware that's what Epstein was about.

I don't know if Prince Andrew was a donor the same way Epstein was; but his special station is much the same in that his life largely consists of perpetually attending functions and meeting any number of people, sometimes more than once, who don't honestly qualify as "friends" or even "associates" really.
 
Yeah, but it's important to be "fair" to claims made by Donald Trump, noted fair person and truth teller.

I'd say it's always important to be fair, but okay, sure. Sarcasm noted. If zooterkin's point was simply to be unfair to Donald Trump, nothing more needs to be said. The thing speaks for itself.
 

Back
Top Bottom