NonceUponATimeInEpsteinAndAndyLand

People shouldn't lie during jury selection but they do. It's stupid to be talking about it afterwards.

It does give valid grounds for a mistrial if proven. Maybe the judge won't have the guts to call it though.
 
Drainy said:
People shouldn't lie during jury selection but they do. It's stupid to be talking about it afterwards.

It does give valid grounds for a mistrial if proven. Maybe the judge won't have the guts to call it though.
Click to expand...

Apparently now they are offering Maxwell defense, to remove two of the lesser counts (something like 10 years jail time less), if they accept to carry on with the sentence procedure next, instead of repeating the whole fecking trial again, so the victims won't have to suffer psychological damage from going through all of it again.
 
George Owen said:
Apparently now they are offering Maxwell defense, to remove two of the lesser counts (something like 10 years jail time less), if they accept to carry on with the sentence procedure next, instead of repeating the whole fecking trial again, so the victims won't have to suffer psychological damage from going through all of it again.
Click to expand...
No way her lawyers accept that

Maxwell could face a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison.


  • Count 1: Conspiracy to entice a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts - maximum sentence of five years
  • Count 2: Enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts - maximum sentence of five years
  • Count 3: Conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity - maximum sentence of five years
  • Count 4: Transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity - maximum sentence of 10 years
  • Count 5: Conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors - maximum sentence of five years
  • Count 6: Sex trafficking of minors - maximum sentence of 40 years
Click to expand...

If they drop count 6 then sure her lawyers will deal but without that they will surely push for a retrial
 
George Owen said:
Apparently now they are offering Maxwell defense, to remove two of the lesser counts (something like 10 years jail time less), if they accept to carry on with the sentence procedure next, instead of repeating the whole fecking trial again, so the victims won't have to suffer psychological damage from going through all of it again.
Click to expand...

Appalling situation. Though from further information I gather it was error from the juror on this occasion rather than deception so I was mistaken on that, just to correct myself.
 
dal said:
Can they extradite him, is that ethical?
Click to expand...
No I don't think so for a Civil case

the next step would be to take a deposition I believe... and I cant see his lawyers wanting him sweating on camera saying he cant sweat therefore it cant have been him...

With the case being dismissed the price of settlment has probably gone from a few million dollars to tens of millions though - that said Im sure all us tax payers will end up finding it anyway
 
sun_tzu said:
No I don't think so for a Civil case

the next step would be to take a deposition I believe... and I cant see his lawyers wanting him sweating on camera saying he cant sweat therefore it cant have been him...

With the case being dismissed the price of settlment has probably gone from a few million dollars to tens of millions though - that said Im sure all us tax payers will end up finding it anyway
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

This is almost becoming hand over the face for some of the patriots.
 
FI6ubdPXEAAJsYW
 
Tarrou said:
gutted for her
Click to expand...
I'm no royal fan, but I do feel sorry for her in this instance. I'd be devastated if one of my children turned out to be an "alleged" paedophile sex pest.
 
dal said:
Can they extradite him, is that ethical?
Click to expand...
sun_tzu said:
No I don't think so for a Civil case
Click to expand...

Ethical or not, countries are not really legally bound by a treaty and there is zero chance a member of the Royal Family is getting extradited.

Remember Anne Sacoolas? The American woman wanted in connection with a RTC in the UK, the US flat out denied the request for her to be extradited.
 
The Boy said:
I'm no royal fan, but I do feel sorry for her in this instance. I'd be devastated if one of my children turned out to be an "alleged" paedophile sex pest.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose it's worth bearing in mind that the girl would have been of legal age in the UK. It's really more that he's an all round slimy, unethical cnut. But that's nothing new really, she's had 61 years to get used to that idea. https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...s-trade-jeffrey-epstein-gaddafi-a9212841.html
 
The Boy said:
I'm no royal fan, but I do feel sorry for her in this instance. I'd be devastated if one of my children turned out to be an "alleged" paedophile sex pest.
Click to expand...
You would, but as the accompanying DM Reporter tweet said, deeming the queen the real victim in Andy's rape trial is very Daily Mail.
 
Beans said:
But if the legal age had been 17 they would have gotten someone younger, no? The whole thing was about underage prostitution.
Click to expand...

It was? I don't profess to know the ins and outs of it but on the face of it I'd guess slimy, horrible princey cnut wanted to bang vulnerable blonde girl. I doubt he'd have checked her passport to see whether she was 15 or 17.
 
TwoSheds said:
Well I suppose it's worth bearing in mind that the girl would have been of legal age in the UK. It's really more that he's an all round slimy, unethical cnut. But that's nothing new really, she's had 61 years to get used to that idea. https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...s-trade-jeffrey-epstein-gaddafi-a9212841.html
Click to expand...
Aye he’s been called Randy Andy for years. I gather it’s nothing new for the Royals. Just now that they’ve to actually deal with the bad publicity in the current climate.
 
Widow said:
Ethical or not, countries are not really legally bound by a treaty and there is zero chance a member of the Royal Family is getting extradited.

Remember Anne Sacoolas? The American woman wanted in connection with a RTC in the UK, the US flat out denied the request for her to be extradited.
Click to expand...
yes - he could just not attend the trial to defend the charges but at that point would almost certainly be found guilty

Given the timescales involved I think they will be looking to settle before any depositions are taken due to the potential (probability) of his video evidence emerging at some point

so thats 4 months to find a settlement which I suspect the lawyers on on with right now ... several millions of dollars and an NDA in April would be my guess
 
@sun_tzu

It's a civil trial so it will be decided on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond all reasonable doubt, chances are he'd be found liable whether he attended or not. I agree that we'll probably see a settlement with an NDA attached.

As for a disposition, there is zero chance he'll make himself available for questioning so a settlement is the best the plaintiff can hope for.
 
Anyone know where that photo of Andrew with the girl came from? Its a 20 y/o print, someone just been keeping it safe 'until the time came'?
 
Simbo said:
Anyone know where that photo of Andrew with the girl came from? Its a 20 y/o print, someone just been keeping it safe 'until the time came'?
Click to expand...
I have wondered the same. It's a dynamite pic - his hand on her bare waist and old Ghislaine grinning behind them like the Madam of some house of ill-repute.

edit - just did a quick search, it seems that Virginia Roberts (as she was then) asked Epstein to take it!
 
TwoSheds said:
It was? I don't profess to know the ins and outs of it but on the face of it I'd guess slimy, horrible princey cnut wanted to bang vulnerable blonde girl. I doubt he'd have checked her passport to see whether she was 15 or 17.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was perhaps mostly about blackmail. One implication is that Epstein may have gotten Clinton on film with an under aged girl, and this was used as leverage to prevent Clinton from forcing Israel to accept a peace settlement with Palestine in the late 90s.

Whitney Webb has written various articles on many facets of this story, here's a link to one of them.

https://mintpressnews.cn/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-spy-story-jeffrey-epstein-scandal/261172/30
 
Beans said:
Yes, it was perhaps mostly about blackmail. One implication is that Epstein may have gotten Clinton on film with an under aged girl, and this was used as leverage to prevent Clinton from forcing Israel to accept a peace settlement with Palestine in the late 90s.

Whitney Webb has written various articles on many facets of this story, here's a link to one of them.

https://mintpressnews.cn/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-spy-story-jeffrey-epstein-scandal/261172/30
Click to expand...

We were talking about Prince Andrew's motivations / culpability not some alleged Israeli plot. That would have very little relevance to whether he's guilty or not and what of.
 
TwoSheds said:
We were talking about Prince Andrew's motivations / culpability not some alleged Israeli plot. That would have very little relevance to whether he's guilty or not and what of.
Click to expand...
I was explaining why they chose children, the point was having blackmail material on the Prince, and that's why they choose under age women, making it child rape and thus a more powerful tool.
 
Beans said:
I was explaining why they chose children, the point was having blackmail material on the Prince, and that's why they choose under age women, making it child rape and thus a more powerful tool.
Click to expand...

Well that's as may be but Prince Andrew's the one who stuck his dick in her so it's his responsibility to try to check her age, that she's not been trafficked etc etc. But as I said, she wasn't under age in UK law so to call him a paedophile seems a bit OTT. A slimey, immoral scummy arms dealing bellend, well that's a different story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.