Epstein files

[The Future’s Blue!]

So basically it needs a victim/s to testify to stand any chance of any convictions

The system is disgusting and why the super rich can still do whatever they want.

 

[Franny 1234]

He is.

I’ve often wondered what prison food must taste like to someone like Maxwell, Weinstein or Epstein (not that he will have had much!) having previously eaten the finest food imaginable. It’s a long way to fall.

Epstein first sentence he lived like a king doing 12 hrs a day so called work outside the jail 6 days a week.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Epstein first sentence he lived like a king doing 12 hrs a day so called work outside the jail 6 days a week.

You are quite correct mate, although I don’t expect that was his (somewhat brief) experience the second time round!

 

[Franny 1234]

You are quite correct mate, although I don’t expect that was his (somewhat brief) experience the second time round!

Got what he deserves in the end.
Whether it was by himself or some cover up job.
The world's a better place without him.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I mean, it's not the kind of think you'd do if you wanted to confirm suicide, but if you wanted to cover up a murder...

 

[I'm With Stupid]

So basically it needs a victim/s to testify to stand any chance of any convictions

That sounds like bollocks, otherwise you'd never be able to get a conviction for any child abuse. But it wouldn't surprise me to hear the billionaire-owned media pushing this narrative.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Yes I’d say so
I took the decision to not put anything into my body myself,I didn’t need ‘my brother’ or anyone else,it’s a personal decision not one for your brother
It’s interesting to see the take up of vaccines amongst medical professionals recently
My wife was bullied,threatened with being sacked,pressured beyond belief by ‘health professionals’ into having vaccines and massively regrets it as do thousands of other NHS workers
It’s a decision I don’t regret ,my decision not my brothers or any other person moronically spouting ‘trust the science’ over and over again

You should take a walk around your local cemetery and look at the number of graves where they didn't make it to eleven.This will be because of diseases such as smallpox / typhoid / measles etc

Im old enough to remember fellow pupils at school wearing leg braces because of polio......


Trust the science.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

That sounds like bollocks, otherwise you'd never be able to get a conviction for any child abuse. But it wouldn't surprise me to hear the billionaire-owned media pushing this narrative.

It’s broadly correct. It’s slightly different in the US but the principles are the same, insofar as the rule of hearsay (with certain exceptions) means that the evidence of a witness isn’t generally admissible unless it is given live in court, and thereby the accused has the opportunity (usually through their legal representative) to ask questions of that witness in order to challenge their evidence. There many are exceptions to the hearsay rule in the US, in rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

www.law.cornell.edu

The exceptions in this jurisdiction are more far reaching:

The exceptions to the rule of hearsay evidence | Bindmans

As stated in our previous article, hearsay in criminal cases can be identified using the approach set out in R v Twist [2011] 2 Cr App R 17 and the statutory framework established by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA). The general rule is that hearsay statements are inadmissible unless they...

www.bindmans.com

Hearsay is a hugely misunderstood concept, but the overarching principle is that they have to be ‘here to say it’.

That doesn’t mean a conviction can’t be secured without eyewitness testimony (Lucy Letby) and there is nothing necessarily wrong with circumstantial evidence, but often the absence of a live eyewitness means a prosecution isn’t sustainable.

The rule is ultimately there to protect people who are accused of crimes and to ensure they get a fair trial.

 

[hilts]

So basically it needs a victim/s to testify to stand any chance of any convictions

From a distance it doesn't seem like the yanks are keen to bring down the evil that infects them.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

From a distance it doesn't seem like the yanks are keen to bring down the evil that infects them.

I was thinking that yesterday with all those Congressmen pontificating about the British establishment and how our institutions are flawed. I thought the cunts had some serious brass neck saying that.

 

[Palerider]

It’s broadly correct. It’s slightly different in the US but the principles are the same, insofar as the rule of hearsay (with certain exceptions) means that the evidence of a witness isn’t generally admissible unless it is given live in court, and thereby the accused has the opportunity (usually through their legal representative) to ask questions of that witness in order to challenge their evidence. There many are exceptions to the hearsay rule in the US, in rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

www.law.cornell.edu

The exceptions in this jurisdiction are more far reaching:

The exceptions to the rule of hearsay evidence | Bindmans

As stated in our previous article, hearsay in criminal cases can be identified using the approach set out in R v Twist [2011] 2 Cr App R 17 and the statutory framework established by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA). The general rule is that hearsay statements are inadmissible unless they...

www.bindmans.com

Hearsay is a hugely misunderstood concept, but the overarching principle is that they have to be ‘here to say it’.

That doesn’t mean a conviction can’t be secured without eyewitness testimony (Lucy Letby) and there is nothing necessarily wrong with circumstantial evidence, but often the absence of a live eyewitness means a prosecution isn’t sustainable.

The rule is ultimately there to protect people who are accused of crimes and to ensure they get a fair trial.

When emotions are high we need the law to avoid the mob lynching the accused. Which is good. On the other hand we all know that rich men and women can buy the best lawyers to put enough doubt into the mix so that they do avoid justice. Which is bad.

 

[M18CTID]

Or buy a bag a gear off some random down the boozer which has been cut with rat poison.

Yeah, but they were probably bullied into buying it mate ;)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Yeah, but they were probably bullied into buying it mate ;)

Or their ‘brother’ made them do it…

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

When emotions are high we need the law to avoid the mob lynching the accused. Which is good. On the other hand we all know that rich men and women can buy the best lawyers to put enough doubt into the mix so that they do avoid justice. Which is bad.

All of that is correct but if you are going to have rules they need to apply to everyone and those with the most resources are always going to exploit them the most effectively.

 

[Salford_Blue]

Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie have given an interview saying that in just two hours of reviewing unredacted documents, they found the names of six prominent men who's names had originally been redacted, that are seriously implicated in crimes. They hinted at one being a 'government official' (country or location unknown).

They have requested the DOJ un-redact the documents for the public.

In my humble opinion, if ever these individuals are investigated and put under oath, they will fall like dominoes to save their own skins.

They'll give Trump up in a heartbeat.

And that for me, is what Trump is most concerned about.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie have given an interview saying that in just two hours of reviewing unredacted documents, they found the names of six prominent men who's names had originally been redacted, that are seriously implicated in crimes. They hinted at one being a 'government official' (country or location unknown).

They have requested the DOJ un-redact the documents for the public.

In my humble opinion, if ever these individuals are investigated and put under oath, they will fall like dominoes to save their own skins.

They'll give Trump up in a heartbeat.

And that for me, is what Trump is most concerned about.

That **** on the right needs to read up on his history, saying the the British Monarchy is more under threat than ever before.

Apart from that time it was abolished and the King had his head removed from its body, obviously.

 

[cityontheup]

That sounds like bollocks, otherwise you'd never be able to get a conviction for any child abuse. But it wouldn't surprise me to hear the billionaire-owned media pushing this narrative.

It does sound bollocks but have the DOJ even bothered to speak to any of them. As others have said it stinks.

 

[mosssideblue]

It does sound bollocks but have the DOJ even bothered to speak to any of them. As others have said it stinks.

Didn’t several lodge complain to the FBI only for them to be swept under the carpet?

 

[cityontheup]

Didn’t several lodge complain to the FBI only for them to be swept under the carpet?

No idea mate, like u say it’s all under a very large carpet

 

[Odd socks]

I'm expecting a computer wizz kid to break the system and publish the whole series of files in another country.
The fucking low life will all claim it's fake files though.