Jump to content

Prince Andrew says he has no recollection of meeting Epstein accuser


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes, yes....and Epstein killed himself with all the cameras malfunctioning at exactly the right time, while the guards were fast asleep and......... a partridge in a pear tree.......

Well he would say that would he not, can't recall the photo and does not remember screwing a 17 year old 'sex slave' on more than one occasion. Not having any recollection does not mean it never happe

Hard to recollect things that happened when you were stoned, and the little strumpet had you handcuffed, blindfolded, and ball-gagged.

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Well if he is charged the trial will be held according to laws at the time of alleged offence

So if someone was found guilty of murdering someone in 1960s, would he be hanged?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 6:10 PM, Mavideol said:

have to say after (wasting 15 minutes of my time) listening to his mumbling for around 15 minutes couldn't bare it for any longer and the poor guy should have kept his mouth shut, sometimes silence is better than a fake statement and the interview did more damage than good to the crown, mommy must be very disappointed

And he certainly need to lose some weight around his fat neck. What is he....60? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, wgdanson said:

So if someone was found guilty of murdering someone in 1960s, would he be hanged?

He is correct, laws are not retrospective. More precise details are needed but on the face of it, Prince Andrew could be charged under the later rules on consent if the offence took place after they were introduced but as the alleged events took place before those rules - they don't apply.  Punishments are not retrospective.

 

Just a comment, and not particularly to yourself - Thailand has some pretty draconian laws on defamation. I'm not sure if they apply when the subjects of that defamation are outside Thai territory but they certainly do apply to people making 'defamatory' remarks who are within Thai territory, regardless of their residency status. Some comments made on here are getting pretty close to what may be considered to be defamatory.  Members may wish to consider that both Thailand and England have Royal Families and they do know each other.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KhaoYai said:

He is correct, laws are not retrospective. More precise details are needed but on the face of it, Prince Andrew could be charged under the later rules on consent if the offence took place after they were introduced but as the alleged events took place before those rules - they don't apply.  Punishments are not retrospective.

 

Just a comment, and not particularly to yourself - Thailand has some pretty draconian laws on defamation. I'm not sure if they apply when the subjects of that defamation are outside Thai territory but they certainly do apply to people making 'defamatory' remarks who are within Thai territory, regardless of their residency status. Some comments made on here are getting pretty close to what may be considered to be defamatory.  Members may wish to consider that both Thailand and England have Royal Families and they do know each other.

I think the judicious use of the word allegedly maybe in order though he isn't covered by 112 and the story is being covered by the Thai press. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

But are the Thai Press making defamatory comments?

The chances of His Royal Highness The Duke of York suing anyone are as close to zero as is possible. In fact in a civil case the burden of proof is lower and I have no doubt he would be doing a 'David Irving' if he ever did. If he is indeed innocent of any crime he should move heaven and earth to provide both the British and US authorities of any evidence he has and do it under oath , and soon.

 

The civil standard is 'the balance of probabilities', often referred to in judgments as "more likely than not".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/11/boris-johnson-must-waive-any-claim-of-immunity-for-prince-andrew/

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, roo860 said:

 

IMG-20191119-WA0010.jpg

"That looks like a fake to me or I have no recollection of being upstairs with those people." 

 

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to a felony charge of solicitation of prostitution involving a minor, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison; he served 13, and was granted work release, which allowed him to commute to an office outside the jail six days a week. He also registered as a sex offender.

 

2010

 

Image result for prince nadrew rolf harris"

 

 

E7DD9DD5-B076-410F-B6A4-B9748C5318B5.jpeg

Edited by beautifulthailand99
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

The chances of His Royal Highness The Duke of York suing anyone are as close to zero as is possible. In fact in a civil case the burden of proof is lower and I have no doubt he would be doing a 'David Irving' if he ever did. If he is indeed innocent of any crime he should move heaven and earth to provide both the British and US authorities of any evidence he has and do it under oath , and soon.

I am aware that there is little chance of him suing but if he did, the proof is there to see and I'm not convinced the law on defamation doesn't apply. I don't think the US authoriries wish to speak to him regarding any offence he may have committed - rather about the activities of Epstein.

 

As for the British authorities, well nothing has been mentioned about any potential crime yet but in the light of her announcement just yesterday, Victoria Roberts may be called on to either make a formal complaint or retract her statement. She would have to consider though, that in doing so, her activities before and after the alleged offence took place would come to light, as would just how she became involved with Epstein.

Edited by KhaoYai
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...