Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
kaz7 said:
Reading his legal points he has put foward is laughable , unless his can prove he cant sweat and he was at the pizza place , going to visit a sex offender after he was convicted then his defence will get laughed out of court on the first day
Click to expand...
Why would proving he was at Pizza Express make any difference?
Its like saying someone couldn't be shitting on a motorway embankment because he was watching United get trashed 6-1
Err, - perhaps two things can happen in one day
 
According to the US media, Randy Andy's defence is going to be an argument that it would be morally wrong to pay a sex trafficker...

If that's the case doesn't that mean he's admitting to it?
 
stevemacca said:
Why would proving he was at Pizza Express make any difference?
Its like saying someone couldn't be shitting on a motorway embankment because he was watching United get trashed 6-1
Err, - perhaps two things can happen in one day
Click to expand...
Agree..
I did a job in Newcastle once, stayed overnight. I went out, had a Macca's for tea, then went to about 3 pubs, then ended up in a nightclub till 2am, it can happen !!
 
At this point, one can only assume he thinks attack us his best form of defence, and his status might somehow protect him.

His biggest problem will be the “jury of his peers” can be no such thing, and men won’t like him for being a supposed effete nonce and his “charm” will be lost on any woman they dare put on a jury, because they can probably ALL see him being part of an elite group that passes around under age girls for their pleasure.

It’s too bad the chamber isn’t a choice, because if he’s done what he’s accused of, and I know NO-ONE who thinks he isn’t guilty as sin, he deserves it!
 
stevemacca said:
Why would proving he was at Pizza Express make any difference?
Its like saying someone couldn't be shitting on a motorway embankment because he was watching United get trashed 6-1
Err, - perhaps two things can happen in one day
Click to expand...
Because that is his defence on the newsnight interview , he wasnt with the girl he was with his daughter in woking
 
ChicagoBlue said:
At this point, one can only assume he thinks attack us his best form of defence, and his status might somehow protect him.

His biggest problem will be the “jury of his peers” can be no such thing, and men won’t like him for being a supposed effete nonce and his “charm” will be lost on any woman they dare put on a jury, because they can probably ALL see him being part of an elite group that passes around under age girls for their pleasure.

It’s too bad the chamber isn’t a choice, because if he’s done what he’s accused of, and I know NO-ONE who thinks he isn’t guilty as sin, he deserves it!
Click to expand...
He's in for a bit of a wake up call isn't he? Lol
 
kaz7 said:
Because that is his defence on the newsnight interview , he wasnt with the girl he was with his daughter in woking
Click to expand...
Not much of a defence though is it? "I was a 45-minute drive away at a children's birthday party" doesn't preclude him from being in a London nightclub several hours later.

It's amazing he even tried that excuse the first time; he certainly won't be relying on it in court!
 
Narcissists believe that they cannot lose and this is why he wants a jury. I hope ALL of the evidence emerges, post-trial, into the public arena: for too long, privilege has meant a lack of justice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
ChicagoBlue said:
At this point, one can only assume he thinks attack us his best form of defence, and his status might somehow protect him.

His biggest problem will be the “jury of his peers” can be no such thing, and men won’t like him for being a supposed effete nonce and his “charm” will be lost on any woman they dare put on a jury, because they can probably ALL see him being part of an elite group that passes around under age girls for their pleasure.

It’s too bad the chamber isn’t a choice, because if he’s done what he’s accused of, and I know NO-ONE who thinks he isn’t guilty as sin, he deserves it!
Click to expand...
I think that your comments combined with the removal of all his honours will be his defence. I may be a cynic but I believe that losing his honours was tactical. His last stance will be that he cannot get a fair and unbiased jury. Bluemoon, papers around the world, TV broadcasters etc have all decided that he is guilty and told the world. His own mother has let the world know that she thinks him guilty or at least has fed that line and further influenced public opinion. Their cannot be a single person in the USA that doesn't have a negative opinion and being known globally as Randy Andy for decades isn't great for his reputation.
 
Blue Llama said:
I think that your comments combined with the removal of all his honours will be his defence. I may be a cynic but I believe that losing his honours was tactical. His last stance will be that he cannot get a fair and unbiased jury. Bluemoon, papers around the world, TV broadcasters etc have all decided that he is guilty and told the world. His own mother has let the world know that she thinks him guilty or at least has fed that line and further influenced public opinion. Their cannot be a single person in the USA that doesn't have a negative opinion and being known globally as Randy Andy for decades isn't great for his reputation.
Click to expand...
I thought at first this idea might have legs - i.e. convince the entire world that he is guilty and then avoid getting convicted because a fair trial is impossible.

But thinking about it, all they have to do is pick some randoms from Idaho who have never heard of the UK, or indeed any other country, and he's stuffed.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I thought at first this idea might have legs - i.e. convince the entire world that he is guilty and then avoid getting convicted because a fair trial is impossible.

But thinking about it, all they have to do is pick some randoms from Idaho who have never heard of the UK, or indeed any other country, and he's stuffed.
Click to expand...
That would need the trial to be in Idaho or equivalent and even then I am not sure they will not know the story. But either way it still gives him an excuse to say that he was prepared to go to the USA to stand trial but that he has decided against it on advice from advisors that he will not get a fair trial.
 
Blue Llama said:
That would need the trial to be in Idaho or equivalent and even then I am not sure they will not know the story. But either way it still gives him an excuse to say that he was prepared to go to the USA to stand trial but that he has decided against it on advice from advisors that he will not get a fair trial.
Click to expand...
There's a certain idaho resident on here who I'm sure would relish the job
 
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