Prince Andrew in jep?

Ok he can still say he did not know she was trafficked, did not know her age, did not pay her and doesn't remember her - but maybe he did sleep with her on some drunken night...etc etc. It would be difficult for a prostitute to argue she was taken advantage of!

Epstein was charged and convicted with soliciting a minor for prostitution ....that opened the door for Roberts and others to sue him for damages arising from the abuse suffered

the level of proof required is only the balance of probabilities.

put a crying woman in the witness box and the bar gets lower.

The very fact that she was in the UK was a bit of a clue that she might have been trafficked, surely? For what purpose did Andrew imagine she had been brought to the UK?

I don't see that the location within the UK makes any difference at all - Epstein's house or Andrew's, or anywhere else. Andrew met Giuffre on several occasions. On each occasion, she was brought along by Epstein/Maxwell in order to, ahem, accompany or entertain Prince Andrew. Therefore, when he met her in the UK, he knew she had been brought to the UK for his benefit. If he thought that benefit included him sleeping with her, then he knew she was trafficked; being brought into the country in order to provide sexual services is basically the definition of trafficking.

(And, to correct a misapprehension evident in some earlier posts, it makes no difference whether she was brought to the UK against her will, or with her understanding of, and co-operation in, what was expected of her. Either way, she was trafficked. And, to correct another misconception, while 16 is the age of consent in the UK for "ordinary" sexual relationships, in relation to any kind of sex work the important age is 18. If Epstein/Maxwell procured Giuffre to provide sex to Andrew, it matters whether she was under or over 18, not whether she was under or over 16.)

she wasn't doing therapeutic massage for him she was doing happy ending massages. that is sex work so the minimum age is 18.

My point was no matter where Roberts was with Epstein/Maxwell ..London...Dublin....Paris... More than likely it was first and foremost to satisfy Epsteins needs be it sexual or therapeutic as she had been been doing it on a regular basis according to herself

you find it hard to believe that he had sex with her? That is the least unbelievable part of the story. She was young, pretty and available to him. I would be shocked if he didn't shag her.

I'd say he had no shortage of shags all his life and took full advantage of all of them including Maxwell most likely...and the public know this by calling him randy Andy ...

I would have had a dispute with Her, if she just took my military titles away, just because of gossip and hearsay.

No evidence was seen or heard or presented, no court of law? I think this paints a bit of a negative picture on the British monarchy.

And honestly, I wouldn't care less about Andrew if he's rotting in jail for sleeping with a minor, but again, nothing was ever proven in a court of law....

Below is Prince Andrews defence, there is an awful lot of 'I cant remember' stuff. Its a standard boiler plate defence, i.e. admit nothing at this point of the proceedings

He is still going on about the 2009 Epsten settlement disbarring Guffree taking this case even though a judge already ruled on it. Denying he was a close friend of Maxwells even though they were photographed together a lot during the time period in question. Denying he didnt co-operate with the FBIs investigation even though the FBI said as much. Denying sufficient knowledge of the famous photograph. Saying that her case is disbarred by the statute of limitations even though New York has a specific law allowing historical sex abuse cases to be taken after the statute is up.

Its all full of denials that will crumble in front of a judge and jury. If he goes with a defence like that in court of telling lies about things that are demonstrably true then he will lack all credibility on claiming that he did not have sex with her.

As you correctly said, "if" then sure, yes, agreed.

But again, there was nothing heard in a court, no judge, no jury, just hearsay.

I have personally known somebody who was a later on child molester, - he was a colleague of mine. Does that make me automatically guilty as well? No.

And also, more than 20 years later?