Last edited Fri Sep 26, 2025, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)
Testimony + documents ≠ automatic conviction
Even if “Epstein files” name Prince Andrew and hundreds of survivors testify about his conduct, prosecutors still have to build a criminal case. That means:
Identifying specific incidents, dates, places.
Matching them to the jurisdiction where the crime occurred.
Meeting the criminal-law standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
---
2. Jurisdiction and statutes
If the alleged acts happened on U.S. soil (e.g., New York, U.S. Virgin Islands) and the victims were underage, federal prosecutors can charge him. For many child-sex crimes under federal law, there’s no statute of limitations.
If the alleged acts happened in the U.K. and the victims were minors, U.K. prosecutors can bring charges. Rape has no time limit there either.
If the alleged acts happened in multiple countries, each jurisdiction can in theory bring its own case.
---
3. Diplomatic / practical barriers
Prince Andrew does not have sovereign immunity (he’s not head of state), so in theory he can be indicted and extradited.
In practice, extradition of a royal to face charges abroad would be politically explosive; the U.K. government would have to sign off.
Prosecutors need more than “his name appears in files” — they need corroborated evidence (flight logs, messages, photos, etc.) tied to each alleged crime.
---
4. Civil vs criminal
Survivors can always file civil suits in U.S. or U.K. courts seeking damages — like Virginia Giuffre did.
A civil judgment does not equal prison time but can produce disclosure of evidence that later supports criminal charges.
---
Bottom line
If the files + testimony produce solid, corroborated evidence of sexual acts with minors, and prosecutors decide to act, Prince Andrew could indeed be indicted and tried in the U.S. or U.K. There is no time bar on those charges in either jurisdiction.
The obstacles would be political (extradition, diplomatic fallout) and evidentiary, not legal.
= new reply since forum marked as read
