To think that Buckingham Palace SHOULDN'T have named Prince Andrew's accuser?

[aermingers]

I've just heard on the news that Buckingham Palace has named the person who has accused Prince Andrew of sex crimes against her. I can't find any confirmation online. But is it just me who thinks this is deeply wrong? Okay it may be technically legal because she's making the allegations in the US - but surely as potentially the victim of a sex crime they should have the decency not to name her? I'm really shocked, it just smacks of malice. And they can't even be certain she's not telling the truth.

Surely its the accused who should not be named. (Ie. innocent until proven guility)

I hope that the authorities in the US can get to the bottom of whether the woman is a true victim of child abuse or a liar. (yes, not all accusations of rape are true, it is why we have trial by jury)

That's absolutely shameful. And will only fuel the fire, imo.

I have avoided this story but I think in any case like this, both should be given anonymity until the case has been heard in court.

It's a civil case though rather than a criminal prosecution. It is a different thing.

I agree with you woowoo neither the accused or the accuser should be named

THe BBC website says it is the Mail on Sunday who has named her.

No mention of the Palace.

The case is against US prosecutors who are accused of not doing enough to help the victims of Epstein by accepting a plea deal.

The woman has not been named in court papers in the US, so she obviously has some right to a level of anonimity. Yes there is an argument that men should have their names protected in cases like this too. But that's not really the point here, the point is the fact that Buckingham Palace have named her publicly.

Even ITV decided not to report the name the publicly and other news outlets seem to have taken the same decision, which to me shows exactly why Buckingham Palace have got it so badly wrong.

I find it shocking than an allegation of child rape can ever be anything other than a criminal matter. Child rape is not like a parking ticket.

They haven't named her, she is part of a wider case that is being well publicised in the US.

Andrew was named as someone the girl was forced to have sex with and this was obviously picked up by all News sources.

Having said that, they got it badly wrong by staying good friends with a convicted child sex offender.

The name has hit the UK media (it's on the BBC website).

But I can't see anything that says it was released by the Palace. Do you have a link for their role?

They HAVE named her. It's just been on the ITV news and they categorically stated that Buckingham Palace has issued a statement which names the woman concerned.

ReallyTired, it was initially part of a criminal case, but the prosecuters in the US agreed to drop most of the charges if he just pleaded guilty to a couple, which he did and he was jailed for 13 months.

The current case deals with the fallout of the plea deal and is against the prosecuters for apparently not representing the best interests of the victims when they accepted the deal.

And when I say they haven't named her, I mean she had already been publicly outed.

He's accused of having sex with her at 17 and knowing she was being coerced etc.

How does he defend himself without their being publicity?

I don't have a link because it was on TV news, will go and see if I can find one. But that is what they said, Buckingham Palace has named her.

He really does need to answer why he thought it appropriate to stay good/close friends with a child sex offender/rapist, though.

The palace haven't named her, their statement was devoid of any specifics - it was just a denial.

The case is a civil case - part of a long running g suite of civil cases by 4 (alleged) victims. This one specifically accuses [whichever part of US -don't know if it's state specific] of having entered into a plea bargain with JE that they should not have done.

She - ie Jane Doe 3 - spoke to the MoS some years ago, I am not clear whether she has spoken to them again recently.

Have you got a link to the BBC story?

But she was named in the US.

Just googled and they have named her in a recent statement.

Being friends with a sex offender is not the same as being a sex offender. I suppose its possible that Andrew had no idea that his friend was a sex offender when they first became friends. The mistake Andrew made was not to drop his friend like a brick when he learnt he was a sex offender.

Paedophiles look like normal people and are often extremely respectable priest, headmasters, teachers or in other positions of authority. They are often charming and popular people like Jimmy Saville or Rolf Harris.

I suppose its possible that a member of the Royal family could be a child abuser, but I think that their body guards would find out if they were having sex with children. The Royal family don't enjoy the same level of freedom as the average paedophile because of security concerns.

Has she been named in the US? The only thing I have heard is 'Jane Doe 3'. I know another woman has been named because she has spoken publicly.

Ok, I take it back, the MoS are saying that BP have issued a 2nd denial, naming her -

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895719/No-did-not-sex-girl-Palace-sensation-Prince-Andrew-denies-sexual-contact.html

The Mail appears to have reprinted most of an interview that the named woman gave to the National Inquirer.

Not totally clear what the timelines are, but it seems the identification of the National Inquirer interviewee with JaneDoe3 was made by the press earlier this evening. And that the Palace has made two statements, one denying sexual contact with unnamed minor (17 is under Florida age of consent) and one denying sexual contact with the named woman.