cleopatra2

The only angle we need to look at is . When Andrew was given the opportunity to test the allegations in court . Andrew declined and agreed a settlement.

The allegations were sexuall assault with battery, including 1st and 3rd degree rape under article 130 of NY penal code

Prince Andrew

Andrew had the opportunity to test the accusations in a court of law. The results of which would have been public record that no bias media could alter . Andrew for whatever reason declined. Instead agreeing a settlement reportedly twice as much as Guiffre requested and 20 times the 500,000 Epstien settlement.

There is no age of consent for rape.

The public reach decisions based upon what they see and the individuals action. Andrew now infamous interview alongside his running around castles avoiding the summons. In addition to the failed attempt to have the case dismissed and ultimately paying a settlement to avoid giving evidence . Is not the actions that would make the public believe he is not guilty.

correction under NY penal code 130 including 130. 25 and 130.35

Read the docket. Sexuall assualt and battery under section 30 of NY penal code. Includung 1st and 3rd degree rape. It also states that Andrew was fully aware of Giuffre age and being trafficked by communication with Epstein and Maxwell

Andrew was accused of engaging in non consensual sexual activity. Was fully aware the victim was groomed and trafficked by Epstein .

But the record will show Andrew paid a settlement in a case where Andrew was accused of sexuall assualt and battery

Of course there are advantages to tolling agreement. It provides the opportunity to settle out of court away from public gaze. It would have provided an opportunity to assess the case merits. If has Andrew claims he never met Giuffre it would have given opportunity to provide details

It was an unequivocal win for Giuffre. Without any testing of her case ,Andrew has decided to pay a settlement to a person whom he claims to have never met. The optics make it almost certain Andrew will not regain any public duties.

After the Newsnight interview Andrew issued a statement declaring he would co operate. Prior to Giuffre filing the case she offered a tolling agreement. Andrew remained silent to FBI requests and the offer of tolling.

This is incorrect The claimant has to establish liability. The claim was one of sexual assualt and battery under NY penal code. The claim included 1st and 3rd degree rape, amongst others. The claim alleges Andrew was a knowing willing participent. The claim also alleged Andrew was aware Giuffre was trafficked and a minor. That there was communication evidence to support this claim.

Guffrie's claim is that she did not give consent. Due to the abusive nature of the relationship between herself , Maxwell and Epstein felt compelled to comply with Maxwells request.

Andrew's legal team decided it was best to negotatiate a settlement rather than test it in court.

That is the issue. Guffrie claims that she was told to sleep with Andrew. She feared the consequences of not complying

If you wish to dispute the claim , be aware that a possibility of section 358 criminal code , causing damage to another persons property may apply.

I do not think this does any favours. To understand how absurd your point is. Stand up and and state Epstein is not a peadophile , just a person who sexually assaults a child and it is ok if they are famous.

You are confusing compliance with consent. Staying with UK law, Guffrie would be regarded as a victim of child sexual exploitation. A person under the age of 18 is regarded as a child. It is established fact that Epstien groomed and exploited Guiffre. If Andrew engaged in sexual activity then he would also be inflicting harm .

Andrew has just declined to put forward his defence in court. Which would have afforded him the opportunity to directly question Guiffre account under oath.

Guiffre is recognised as an Epstein sex trafficking victim. The claim being Guiffre was under duress to have sex with Andrew. As for Andrew believing Guiffre was over the age 18 would depend on various jurisdictions strict liability rules. However Andrew denied ever meeting the woman so becomes somewhat moot.

The payment can be made by a third party. It is not necessary for Andrew to make the payment.

For the purpose of English law. The age of consent in cases of prostitution is 18. The UK met consider the FBI is the relevant authority to investigate due to the internationall trafficking aspects. Up to this point in time Prince Andrew has nof responded to the FBI request for interview.