So if she has stated that she wasn't below the age of consent for any of the times then she must have been over 18 when the Florida one happened. Still an offence if she was coerced though.
That's why I kept on about the upper age limit, I didn't know how old he was at the time, I couldn't be arsed to work it out, but I sort of guessed/assumed it was a big age gap.
At least one state (I think Mississippi but could have the state wrong) allows marriage as low as 14 with all parents consent but sexual consent is 16. I remember reading of one story where a "man" was convicted of statutory rape for getting his wife pregnant. (If I recall she was 15 and he was 17 or 18). Every state is different but I think in most states you only get charged if the person is 2 or more years younger than yourself. So if in one state, age of consent is 16, a 17 year old won't get convicted if sleeping with his 16 yo girlfriend.
The funny (not funny) thing is, Andrew may get away with sexual assault, but there are plenty of people permanently on the sexual offender list because they were peeing on a tree outdoors and happened to be seen. Pee on a tree. Lifelong sexual offender registry. Be a Prince and have sex with someone underage, worst consequence is being the butt of memes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States Mississippi is 15, but it's undercut by California (14), Vermont (14) and Massachusetts (12 for females). To make it even weirder, Mississippi's normal marriage age without parental permission is 21. There really should just be one age when you're considered an adult and that's it.
It would be nice if a lot of laws were a little more consistent here, it's hard to keep some things straight, but that's unfortunately not how government works here. One thing that is worth pointing out. If someone lives in a state with say a 17 age of consent and goes across state lines to a state where 15 is the age of consent, it's not only illegal, but then becomes a federal crime. As is going overseas as a sex tourist to countries with more relaxed rules... So there is no taking someone on vacation somewhere to avoid the law.
If she wasn't under the legal age of consent and she was PAID to have sex with His Royal Highness the Duke of Twatsville and she accepted a ONE OFF financial payoff to keep quiet what exactly is her case about Technically at the time of the encounters by accepting payment she was a high class hooker (not that it excuses Andrew for being an idiot and being there) If her case is that he raped and sexually abused her then he would have had to have been a violent nutcase with it being laid on plate for him, and I just can't see that I think the only thing the Royal family can do now is to banish him somewhere where he can't do anymore damage to the Queen and pretend he didn't exist
Tesla says they will have a mars base in five to ten years. Perhaps Andrew can be a pioneer. According to Aberdude the royal family are all space aliens anyway, so in a way he'd be returning home.
If the second part is true and Randy Andy knew about it then she would be back under the age of consent as I think it is illegal to pay for sex with somebody under 18
She had been groomed from about the age of 14. She was far from a high class hooker, mate. If she was paid anything that's where the grooming had lead her, too. It kept her in Epsteins and Maxwells control. They'd got her to the point where she didn't know any different and being paid was part of the deception by the two evil bastards. I have mixed feelings about this case. One part of me is saying its clearly obvious she is doing this for money and money only and she's already been paid a huge sum and signed NDA's so she probably shouldn't be able to do this. Then there's the other side of me which says she had her childhood and innocence stolen from her by these scumbags so good luck to her and I hope she empties every one of the bank accounts of all the older blokes who quite clearly took advantage of her at such a young age.
I am not saying that any of it was right, it was disgusting and Maxwell and Epstein deserve to be punished, the question how much did Andrew know about her and why she was there
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. Epstein and Ghiz-Max were clearly in the wrong and broke many laws. Glad both of them got caught. Prince Andrew was also clearly in the wrong, but I have to confess, I don't actually know if he actually broke any laws or was just being a slimy bastard. Either way, I'm not wishing him luck. He deserves to be chastised, laws technically broken or not. Now as for the girl... Of course this is all about the money and she's going after the Prince hoping he will settle... I don't blame her though. It may be about the money, but she's kind of owed it after what she went through, and it's karma if Andrew has to give her a few million to keep quiet.
Lawyers for Ghislaine Maxwell say she deserves a new trial after a juror told media that he used his own experience of being sexually abused to persuade other jurors who doubted witnesses. Prosecutors also asked the judge to open an inquiry into the statements. Maxwell was found guilty last week of grooming underage girls to be abused by Jeffrey Epstein. The juror said he told fellow jurors that, like some of Epstein's victims, he had been abused as a child. The man, who asked to be identified by his first and middle name, Scotty David, told reporters that he shared his experiences with jurors after some had questioned the recollections from two of Maxwell's accusers. "I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the colour of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video," he said he told the jury, according to The Independent. "But I can't remember all the details, there are some things that run together." "When I shared that, they were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse," Scotty David said, referring to other jurors, according to the Reuters news agency. He also said that he "flew through" the juror questionnaire used before trial to ascertain whether prospective jurors could judge Maxwell fairly, and did not recall being asked about his experiences with sexual abuse. He added that he would have answered honestly. In a letter to US District Judge Alison Nathan in Manhattan, who presided over Maxwell's trial, the lawyer for the British socialite said there were "incontrovertible grounds" for a new trial to serve the interest of justice. The letter was filed shortly after prosecutors said the reports "merit attention by the Court". Neama Rahmani, a lawyer and legal commentator who co-founded West Coast Trial Lawyers, told the BBC that if Scotty David "lied on his prospective juror questionnaire and denied being the victim of sexual abuse, that would be both perjury and potential grounds for a mistrial". "This is why prosecutors cringe when jurors talk to the media after a guilty verdict: because jurors may say something that may overturn the conviction," he said.
That is worrisome and that juror dunfukdup. Ghis Max is definitely guilty and deserves to be in jail, but yeah, if true, that probably warrants a retrial. I can't imagine anything but the same outcome though and will be an annoying waste of public funds.
In 12 Angry Men, Fonda points out to one of the jurors of his experience of having ridges on his nose due to wearing glasses, which suggests the old dear who claims to have witnessed the accused with the knife was bullshitting because she had the same ridges on her nose. No need for a retrial.
