[nemothekid]

>Minsky would have no way of knowing.

You are making the same defense that you are claiming "that's not his defense." You both are making the same statement that "its ok, because he didn't know.", just in a very roundabout manner.

If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.

[javagram]

> If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.

This is correct, at least for many US states (22, according to Wikipedia’s article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) ) . You can meet someone under the age of consent in a bar, see them drinking alcohol, even have them show you their license and be fooled by a fake ID, and still be liable under the law to go to jail for statutory rape.

According to that Wikipedia article though, in some other U.S. states ignorance would be a defense. Whether that’s the case for the U.S. Virgin Islands isn’t clear.

[throwaway5849]

I’m not saying it’s ok because he didn’t know. It’s certainly still rape, but I’d say the criminal in that case would be Epstein, not Minsky. If he sincerely thought she was a sex worker who’s over 18 and willing, why is he at fault? He might have done everything right and have gotten (what looked like) informed consent, for all we know.

You don’t have to agree with this idea (it’s not like we have any evidence after all), but I hope we can agree that it’s not entirely unreasonable.

[offtheisland]

>If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.

He would be convicted if he had sex with her. The evidence that he had sex with her is that she was sent to his room and he didn't report that to the authorities. That doesn't seem overwhelmingly persuasive.

[ipince]

The statement is NOT "it's ok because he didn't know". The statement is "he probably didn't know". If he did have sex with her, it's still not ok, regardless of whether he knew or not. And yes, he would still go to jail.