Maxwell has given up 8 names

hollydolly said:
I doubt he'll be able to prove she's lying, given that she's already had a 1/2 million pay-off from Epstein...and if she can prove he's guilty she stands to pocket anything between £5 & £10 million from PA himself...

https://nypost.com/2020/12/05/epstein-accuser-got-half-a-million-from-abuser-court-docs/
Click to expand...
Holly, in the U.S. courts, the accused does not have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the accuser. If this were not so, more people would be broke today. It's a good law and one that fully illustrates, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
rgp said:
But again, why is it that the few photos taken [that have been shown] from 21? years back .... all seem to show the girls, smiling , laughing, posing , etc ? No signs of stress duress , any sort of force used etc.
Click to expand...
I don’t care how the girls were acting.

They were GIRLS, underage GIRLS, not consenting adults, who were used for sex and God knows what else. Being passed around among a batch of strange men would be psychologically scarring at the very least, whether or not they realized it at the time. The men, on the other hand, didn’t care at all what happened to their prey. Make no mistake, those men were abusers in every way. To hell with their reputations.
 
CarolfromTX said:
I don’t care how the girls were acting.

They were GIRLS, underage GIRLS, not consenting adults, who were used for sex and God knows what else. Being passed around among a batch of strange men would be psychologically scarring at the very least, whether or not they realized it at the time. The men, on the other hand, didn’t care at all what happened to their prey. Make no mistake, those men were abusers in every way. To hell with their reputations.
Click to expand...


To a point I agrree but ...... where is the evidence that it even occurred ? 21 years ago.

I just have a problem , arresting, prosecuting etc .... on accusation alone .
 
Lewkat said:
Holly, in the U.S. courts, the accused does not have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the accuser. If this were not so, more people would be broke today. It's a good law and one that fully illustrates, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
The only element, I'm talking Ohio law now, the defendant has to prove, and only by a Preponderance, is an Affirmative Defense, that is, if s/he wishes to assert one at trial. Exceptions for self defense listed. If the defendant wishes to assert an Alibi, notice must be given in advance, but, an Alibi is not an AD.

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2901.05

I'll check the Federal Rules.
 
rgp said:
To a point I agrree but ...... where is the evidence that it even occurred ? 21 years ago.

I just have a problem , arresting, prosecuting etc .... on accusation alone .
Click to expand...
I can understand. But if there are pictures, that’s evidence. I just think these are powerful men and no one is willing to dig deep enough. Look at what happened to Epstein. After the Kavenaugh hearings, I am loath to trust a single testimony, but surely there are flight manifests and other things. Somebody flew those guys to pedophile Island. But then again, scumbags are good at covering their tracks. And paying people off. Or making them commit suicide.
 
Don't you feel sorry for Prince Andrew?...

Prince Andrew was said to be tearful after the Queen removed his honorary military titles, it was claimed tonight.

The Duke of York, who can no longer be known as His Royal Highness 'in any official capacity', is expected to write to his former regiments to express his remorse at having to leave, the Sunday Mirror reported.

'The Prince was tearful when told the news even though he had expected it. He feels that he has let so many people down, not least his mother, during her Platinum Jubilee year,' a senior defence source said.

The news comes as the prince was said to have hosted a shooting party for about 12 friends and relatives on Friday - a day after the monarch's decision to remove the titles.

The group is understood to have gathered at his Royal Lodge home before heading off for the shoot in Great Windsor Park, Berkshire.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ft-tears-Queen-told-titles-stripped-away.html
 
I have to say this is beginning to irritate me .. the 'victim' seems to be revelling in her ''celebrity status''.. in many ways..she seems to be enjoying the fact that she's become world wide known, and the name which will go down in history as the person who tore asunder parts of the Royal family at the end of the Queen's reign.. ( not supporting PA in any way).... but to put it in persepctive, she says she was forced to have sex with PA 3 times when she was 17 ( under age it may have been in the country where it occurred, but barely).... trouble is no-one 'forced her'', she wasn't locked up and forced to perform sexual acts... ... number 2.. even if she felt obliged which she clearly did because she was being paid by Epstein to work as a prostitute..and was paid well for it... she wasn't however.. forced by PA to have sex with him...

She's already had a payout of £1/2 million from Epstein, it seems to me, that's she's enjoying the fame (infamy) far too much....

Here she is surrounded by her legal team...

52973683-10406565-Ms_Roberts_pictured_with_legal_team_claims_she_was_forced_to_sle-m-45_1642282799091.jpg
 
Last edited:
Alligatorob said:
That is the important thing. We generally agree that under some age people are not able to competently give consent, no matter how happy they seem at the time.
Click to expand...
There's one part that's confusing.
As an example, there's a case in the news about two 16-year-olds both charged with first-degree murder of one of their schoolteachers. With the facts available so far, it was a well-planned, premediated murder. They're set to be tried in adult court, and deemed responsible for their actions.
However, if instead of killing the woman they'd had consensual sex with her, they'd be presented as 'victims.' And, instead of referring to them throughout the news articles as 'teens' and 'students,' they'd be called 'children.'

So why is it in criminal cases when the individuals are minors they're considered responsible for their actions, but not considered responsible when they're involved in sexual activity?
 
JaniceM said:
There's one part that's confusing.
As an example, there's a case in the news about two 16-year-olds both charged with first-degree murder of one of their schoolteachers. With the facts available so far, it was a well-planned, premediated murder. They're set to be tried in adult court, and deemed responsible for their actions.
However, if instead of killing the woman they'd had consensual sex with her, they'd be presented as 'victims.' And, instead of referring to them throughout the news articles as 'teens' and 'students,' they'd be called 'children.'

So why is it in criminal cases when the individuals are minors they're considered responsible for their actions, but not considered responsible when they're involved in sexual activity?
Click to expand...
Good question it's often confused me too...

Another example is that the media will state a young teen aged 19 will have suffered some trauma... but when the same age is the attacker..they suddenly become a Man or Woman ,,which of course they are..
 
Lewkat said:
If Andrew's case sees the inside of a courtroom, his lawyers will go after his accuser guns blazing. She'd better have concrete evidence that he did what she claims, eg: pictures, videos, audio tapes, written words, etc. Otherwise she'll have egg on her face. When I first saw that picture of her posing with Andrew I just thought it was another photo-op situation. She'll have to name all the other men she was involved with during the Epstein sojourn as well. This case just gets nastier by the day.
Click to expand...
If you heard of the so-called "recovered memory movement" that started around 1980 or thereabouts, 'evidence' and 'proof' aren't necessary. Too often, all it took were accusations for falsely-accused individuals to end up with long prison terms- not to mention lives/careers/families/etc. destroyed. And that recovered memory stuff has not gone away.

And now the "me-too movement" on top of it. I was kinda stunned when I read an interview from an actress who said she'd been sexually assaulted at age 17- describing the incident as a guy grabbed her arm and pulled her hair, which by no means was a "sexual assault."
 
hollydolly said:
I should hardly think so... after over 20 years....

I was abused myself as a young teen, and believe me I didn't offer my services like her, nor get paid for them .. and even I don't go around with a stunned look on my face ... wonder why she's not suing the other individuals she had sex with..
Click to expand...


Maybe they had little/no money ?
 
Back
Top