Sleeping with a 17 year old doesn't make him a paedophile though, or someone who is likely to sexually abuse his own children or any other children he may have access to. There are lots of words to decribe the sort of middle aged men who might avail themselves of easy, exploitative sex with young, vulnerable women, but incestuous or paedophilic aren't the necessarily the most obvious or appropriate ones.
If VG hadn't been trafficked and coerced the sex could have arguably been totally consensual and totally legal. Morally questionable perhaps, but legal. Young women of only 16 or 17 can and do fully and readily consent to sex with men older than them all the time. They may make some dubious choices due their understandable immaturity and naivety, but the whole point of an age of consent is they can decide for themselves, even if those decisions are sometimes questionable.
The almost impossible thing for anyone to prove here is whether Andrew did or did not believe the sex to be fully consensual at the time and whether or not he knew that she was trafficked or coerced by Epstein and Maxwell. And as he's insisting he has no memory of sex with her at all, let alone whether it was consensual or not, it's always going to be her word against his and no amount of photos with his arm around her waist will prove a thing.
I have a similar photo of me with a man I met once at a party in 1990 or whatever, he was a friends of a friend and in this photo he has his arm around me. I didn't sleep with them and never saw him again. If someone said to me 'James Smith from Epping is alleging you had sex with him' and I said 'I don't even know anyone called James Smith' and someone then plonked that photo of me with him from 20 years ago, does that make me a liar?
I might say 'Oh ok, I vaguely remember meeting him but I only remember it because of the photo. If the photo didn't exist I'd have no memory of him whatsoever. I certainly don't remember that his name is James Smith, I don't remember whose party it was, or what year it was exactly, or that he lives in Epping. Why would I? I never saw him again and I certainly didn't sleep with him.' And I'd be telling the truth.
All that proves is that I am not someone blessed with an amazing memory for remembering every insignificant person I ever met over a 30 year period. But if he insists we did sleep together that night, how can I prove a negative? I can't.
But assuming Andrew did have sex with VG on more than one occasion, there are two issues here. One is whether it was morally questionable and the other is whether it was illegal. But neither of these things point towards him being a paedophile. I think that's a term bandied around rather too readily. A paedophile isn't simply someone who has sex with someone who is under the age of consent, which as we know is completely arbitrary depending on the laws of the country or even the state in which you happen to be when the sex happens. It can be anywhere from 12 to 21.
A paedophile is someone who has a specific sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. That may include children who are technically going through puberty, but the whole point is that must still look and act like children. The minute a girl starts to look physically like a woman and behave more like a woman (which most 17 year olds clearly would do) they'd be too old to interest a true paedophile.
Some paedophiles would probably not dream of abusing their own children or grandchildren. I'm sure many would, but not all. They'd prefer to keep their prediliction well away from their family life, if only to protect themselves from being easily identified by their victims.
Also, just because a man might not think twice about having sex with a person in their late teens, (regardless of whether they are over the age of consent or technically/legally considered to be an adult or a child) it really doesn't follow that they'd be a sexual risk to their own young children.