Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
ganganvince said:
Evidence that he was a sweaty sod would point to dishonesty but he is under no obligation to provide any information that could incriminate himself, that is the role of the accuser beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial and to a lesser extent of balance of probability in a private prosecution.
Click to expand...

Sorry you need to read up on this, you are confusing things. A private prosecution is still a criminal trial.

This is a civil claim for damages.

It is all part of the discovery process, if he declines to provide evidence which he could reasonably provide to back up his claims then the court will be entitled to infer why he has chosen not to, i. e. because it doesn't exist.

Even if the records were destroyed he could ask his doctor at the time to provide an affidavit.

He chose to reveal this "fact" about himself despite him already having an alibi that he could rely on. If it was a credible alibi, why add the extra detail?
 
Andrew keeps looking for ways to stop it going to court. It's obvious he's fucked as he's trying every technicality our lawyers (were paying for them) can find.
 
mat said:
Andrew keeps looking for ways to stop it going to court. It's obvious he's fucked as he's trying every technicality our lawyers (were paying for them) can find.
Click to expand...

Appears to have got his wish - however the allegation still stands and he had not defended himself publicly so the whiff of nonce will still surround him

www.bbc.co.uk

Prince Andrew accuser’s 2009 deal with Jeffrey Epstein made public

It shows Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone who could be described as a "potential defendant".
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
bluethrunthru said:
Appears to have got his wish - however the allegation still stands and he had not defended himself publicly so the whiff of nonce will still surround him

www.bbc.co.uk

Prince Andrew accuser’s 2009 deal with Jeffrey Epstein made public

It shows Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone who could be described as a "potential defendant".
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Didn't he say he wasn't a close friend of Epstein's... now he is relying on deal struck by his friend?

The courts should throw this agreement out because it concealed criminality and should never have been binding.

Sweaty nonce.
 
denislawsbackheel said:
Exile.
Click to expand...

St Helena would be a good place to put him. Although cut his cock off before he dies.

Absolutely dreadful family.

If it was a member of the general public whose child was accused of repeated sex crimes and hanging out with nonces they would be getting absolute dog's abuse?

Why is the Queen immune from scrutiny about how she raised her children?
 
Surely the broadness of that agreement can be argued? Holy fuck. If agreements like that can be signed then society is fucked. A paltry 500k. What was she thinking?
 
Fode N The Hole said:
St Helena would be a good place to put him. Although cut his cock off before he dies.

Absolutely dreadful family.

If it was a member of the general public whose child was accused of repeated sex crimes and hanging out with nonces they would be getting absolute dog's abuse?

Why is the Queen immune from scrutiny about how she raised her children?
Click to expand...
I think that you seem to have decided upon his guilt. Further to that, you have probably decided his guilt prior to any charges being levelled.

The sort of abuse that is being said happened and did happen is heinous but I would rather due process be followed than some random Royal hater on the internet deciding anyone's fate.
 
DrBlueBob said:
I think that you seem to have decided upon his guilt. Further to that, you have probably decided his guilt prior to any charges being levelled.

The sort of abuse that is being said happened and did happen is heinous but I would rather due process be followed than some random Royal hater on the internet deciding anyone's fate.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. He cannot face charges because of the statute of limitations, this is a civil trial. He will never be found guilty of any crimes.

I reserve the right to thank what I like of a family who have servants to squeeze their toothpaste for them and use the press to brief against other members of their own family.

Furthermore people can make their own judgements about someone who seeks to rely on an out of court settlement agreed by a dead paedophile, after playing cat and mouse with the lawyers serving papers on him.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Irrelevant. He cannot face charges because of the statute of limitations, this is a civil trial. He will never be found guilty of any crimes.

I reserve the right to thank what I like of a family who have servants to squeeze their toothpaste for them and use the press to brief against other members of their own family.

Furthermore people can make their own judgements about someone who seeks to rely on an out of court settlement agreed by a dead paedophile, after playing cat and mouse with the lawyers serving papers on him.
Click to expand...
Good for you.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
St Helena would be a good place to put him. Although cut his cock off before he dies.

Absolutely dreadful family.

If it was a member of the general public whose child was accused of repeated sex crimes and hanging out with nonces they would be getting absolute dog's abuse?

Why is the Queen immune from scrutiny about how she raised her children?
Click to expand...
She didnt raise any of her children, get with it.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
You appear to have something on your nose... looks like chocolate?
Click to expand...
You appear to have.....
Whatever my fellow Blue. If, and it does look iffy, he has committed crimes that rank as the worst sort that one can commit, then he should indeed suffer the consequences. My point being that you have predetermined his guilt based upon prejudice.

Not the way the justice system should work.

As for myself, I will let things play out.
 
DrBlueBob said:
You appear to have.....
Whatever my fellow Blue. If, and it does look iffy, he has committed crimes that rank as the worst sort that one can commit, then he should indeed suffer the consequences. My point being that you have predetermined his guilt based upon prejudice.

Not the way the justice system should work.

As for myself, I will let things play out.
Click to expand...
How the fuck does it look iffy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top