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.
No way her lawyers accept that
If they drop count 6 then sure her lawyers will deal but without that they will surely push for a retrial
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.
No I don't think so for a Civil case
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Why would they want to do that. He can 'appear' in court without being extradited.
I hate extradition policy in all honesty, I’d abolish it. Too many political favours.
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.
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.
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
Suck it up.
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.
But if the legal age had been 17 they would have gotten someone younger, no? The whole thing was about underage prostitution.
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.
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.
yes - he could just not attend the trial to defend the charges but at that point would almost certainly be found guilty
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.
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.
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.
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.
I suspect they will discredit or manipulate the trial in someway instead.
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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Who’s the other out of Charles and Eddie?
Ol' jug ears. Friend of serial rapist and paedophile bishop Peter Ball.
Would I lie to you baby, would I like to you?
Imagine having to do that as a mother, so embarrassing . I’ve always thought Beatrice was an alien.
I’m glad somebody got it. Although it sounds like they would lie to us.
