You don't think it's naive to believe that Andrew and all these other bigwigs innocently presumed these girls felt no pressure to go along with whatever was proposed, or that it was peculiar and improper for teenage girls to be hanging around with mature men they had no reason to know? Do you suppose Andrew believed this girl had inveigled her way into Epstein's life, pestering him to be invited to getaways and parties and then trying to seduce these middle aged men? As for why she didn't 'hound' (your choice of words really gives away your preconceptions in this arena) anyone else, perhaps she didn't recognise other men or perhaps, yes, she decided to pursue a case against Andrew because he was high profile and it wouldn't be ignored by the press. But if he (as seems very likely) did behave as alleged, then what's wrong with making him pay, making at least one of them pay? It really feels like typical victim blaming behaviour to try and undermine her actions with this wonky logic.That's naive, I'm afraid. Andrew is stupid, which is well-known, and he is his own worst defense. He may be guilty of not thinking through how he's handed a teen for sex by his rich friend, but it's very obvious why the woman hounded him, he is an easy, rich target. Why didn't she hound anyone else if she was an unwilling sex slave and why now? The settlement payoff puts it in perspective.
Speaking of which, what's your due diligence procedure for having sex with a legal teen that lives with your rich friend and is in awe of your fame like many other girls? Do you hand her over a questionnaire that tries to determine if there is any coercion? Do you ask her if she's feeling safe with you and when she smiles and says yes, you bring in a psychologist to talk to her while you are pulling your pants down?
This was Andrew's plausible defense and it's the same for any other bigwig that slept with Epstein's girls. They can say they didn't know there's a coercion and if there's no further evidence, they walk out of the court. Which is probably why they are not prosecuted in the first place.
My due diligence for having sex with a 'legal teen' is that I almost certainly wouldn't under any circumstances, least of all in the dodgy situation of a teenage girl 'mysteriously, but I won't think too hard about it' apparently being in the social circle of my rich middle aged friends. Even when I was in my mid-twenties and a teenage girl (I presume she was about 16 or so) briefly flirted with me in a shop, I had no inclination to act upon it- she was very pretty and sweet, but I felt like a 40 year old in comparison to her. Now I actually am 40, most people under 20 look 14 . Anyone who was 'favoured' by Epstein in this way would almost certainly have been trusted by him in the first place due to being of a similar mindset (i.e. exploitative creeps with few scruples regarding sex), in other words they would have known what was up with these girls being there. Even if not, a mature man (30, 40, whatever) angling for sex with a 17 year old girl is sleazy and improper at the best of times.