Prince Andrew named in Epstein files. surprised pikachu.
Police reject calls to investigate. Surprised Pikachu!
Buckingham Palace declines to comment . SURPRISED PIKACHU!!!11!1!
Met rejects calls to investigate Prince Andrew after release of Epstein files
Submitted 10 months ago by shish_mish@lemmy.world to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
Comments
Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk 10 months ago
byroon@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Don’t investigate just send him straight to prison
Biohazard@feddit.uk 10 months ago
Met are complicit. The highest politicians, the rich, the powerful, are pedos and they’re protecting each other.
autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] 10 months ago
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Metropolitan police has rejected calls to launch an investigation into Prince Andrew, after the release of court documents relating to the late child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The documents, unsealed in two batches by judge Loretta Preska, identify numerous Epstein associates, including Andrew, mentioned in proceedings of a case Giuffre filed against Ghislaine Maxwell in 2015.
The campaign group Republic, which reported Prince Andrew to the police on Thursday after the release of the documents, said it was dismayed by the Met’s decision.
In one newly unsealed witness statement, Johanna Sjoberg claimed Andrew groped her at Epstein’s house in New York in 2001 when she was aged 20, with Maxwell and Giuffre also present.
The duke stepped down from public life after the furore over his friendship with Epstein, and settled the sexual assault case filed against him by Giuffre for an undisclosed sum.
In a previous statement about links to Epstein, the palace said Andrew “deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent”.
The original article contains 544 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Devi@kbin.social 10 months ago
Met aren't wrong here, the court documents have been released to the public, but they're not new information. He went to court over the one accusation, and if there was enough weight to the others he'd have gone over them too.
That's not to say any are untrue, just it needs significant evidence to convict someone in court, if that isn't there then there's nothing they can do.
Anticorp@lemmy.world 10 months ago
They need significant evidence to convict someone who rich and powerful in court. They convict people with tenuous evidence all the time if the people don’t have any money.
Devi@kbin.social 10 months ago
Not exactly. It's much easier to convict poor people cause they can't afford a good defence, but even a bottom of the class law student can shoot down no evidence.
That's the issue with sexual assault in general, there's often no evidence just by the nature of the crime.
It's shitty for the victims, but I'm not sure how much it can be helped.