Thanks Faith!

I have issues with this case. The indictment that I saw said "minor" females. It may have said girls; I don't remember for sure. The problem is that "age of consent" and "minor" are two different legal terms. The states named were New York(17), Florida(18), and New Mexico(16). London(16) was also listed. [I looked this up months ago and may have the ages wrong.]

I'm not sure about the legal status of "grooming". Be very nice to a girl from 12 to 15, celebrate sweet 16 in New Mexico or London. Legal?

Also, I'm not advocating for any of this. I'm just not sure that this is illegal.

I'm looking at this from being a juror point of view. Gruler is licensed in AZ and CA; two states were 18 is age of consent. In TX, it is 17. In NJ and NM, it is 16. I don't think there is any state with under 16.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/statutory-rape-guide-state-laws-and-reporting-requirements-summary-current-state-laws/sexual-intercourse-minors

https://www.ageofconsent.net/states

I just noticed that our two links disagree on age of consent in AZ. Yours says it is 17; mine says it is 18. I suspect mine is correct since Gruler's response suggested it is 18 in AZ.

says 18 in the table but 16 on the map, think the table is up-to-date

I didn't notice the table. It seems to agree with my link's table as well.

New channel...

Yeah, looks like its new. I truly hope she spends the rest of her life in jail. More importantly, I hope the victims can find a way to sue Epsteins estate and get into the pockets of every public official that aided those scuzzy people.

Agreed.

I'm interested in her getting a fair trial!

I'm interested in her living long enough to get a fair trial!!

And what part of my statement indicates I don't also want those things?

I absolutely believe that we should risk 100,000 guilty go free as a single innocent person be convicted. But, that is in no way contrary to my opinion in the matter. The public evidence is extensive. So, I absolutely believe she is as guilty as sin. But, yes of course I want her and every other person to get a fair trial.

I also oppose the death penalty and vigilante justice - so not sure what you mean by "living long enough to get a fair trial"

What part of what I said excludes what you said. But it's hard to look at her in terms of a fair trial if we don't check out the defense?

And what is her defense? That "technically" some of these children were at the age of consent by the time Epstein raped them?

That appears to be what you are saying. And if that, in fact, is true then maybe she skates a few counts. But, I hardly think that her plan was to con this poor girls often from broken homes and in dire situations to help them out of their situations by selling their bodies to a pervert - but only after they reached the age of consent.

If that is established at trial then by all mean well done defense team. But I seriously doubt that being the case.

Grooming is treated differently to "consensual" intercourse, IIRC.

Or exploitation of a minor.

And for the record here I am very very defense oriented. The idea that prosecutors are out there saving the world from all the horrible criminals is utter horseshit.

If our laws do not protect the least of us, the worst of us then they will eventually fail to protect the best of us....

So absolutely she gets her defense... and absolutely she can walk on a technicality and I would defend that result. Because those "technicalities" are there for a reason. They are there to protect us from over zealous prosecutors and the like....

I am simply stating that my opinion is that she is guilty and I hope she will get found guilty after a fair trial. But I will absolutely support a not guilty verdict even on something as technical as age of consent laws.

Yeppers... I am aware.

And while the "grooming" laws are different than the actual act of sex you do bring up an interesting point. The "exploitation of a minor" was locked in not long after Maxwell met the girls.

I put "consensual" in quotes because I firmly believe anyone under 18 cannot consent to sexual intercourse with a 30+ year old man. The power dynamics are way to prevalent.

If she met a girl and began to interact with the intent of offering her up to Epstien at a later date that is exploitation of a minor even if the girl never meets Epstein

Im a bit more liberal. I was having sex before 18 and baring one incident it was all consensual and I feel I did not suffer adversely from those sexual encounters (save the 1 but that did not involve consent)

But, I do agree that we have to pick an age

If it's with people your age, that's less a power dynamic than if the person is an established adult.

I agree

which is why Tennessee's law on the matter is pretty good

If the "victim" is less than 16 (I think) and the accused is 3 years or less older then its a defense.

I might have the numbers off but that is essentially the way it works

And of course it does not apply to any form for forced sex regardless of age

A lot of states do not call it "rape of a child" unless the victim is like 12 or under. So anyone charged in that situation regardless of their age is going to go away from a long time.

But, to me 12 is too young. Its really hard for me to imagine even a 14 year old capable of making those sorts of decisions regardless how old the other party is

It's the same sort of opinion I have about shady things in Hollywood. People have power dynamics and they abuse those to take advantage of people from a young age that are looking to make their footprint in life. A lot of the offers are simply **unable to be refused**, no matter how much they may not want to do a particular act with someone.

And I firmly believe that sort of behavior is incredibly predatory.