It's his lawyers. Unfortunately the Americans will play dirty to get the win that they need. At this point I wonder if its the case that is in mind here or just the win in the courts.
The defendant lawyers will have to use the same tactics to win
Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.
- Thread starter Tefal
- Start date
The defendant lawyers will have to use the same tactics to win
Well saidThe woman was previously by her own free choice, living for six months with another known sex trafficker, and later working as a "spa attendant" <cough> at Donald Trump's Mar a Lago resort. She'd previously lived on the streets for some time. Whilst working for Epstein she herself went on a grooming mission to Thailand in order to procure a Thai girl Epstein fancied.
Yet you portray her as some innocent who was, quite unbeknown to her, being used? Far from it, even an hour's casual research shows this woman to have been street wise, morally bankrupt and "up for it".
She was a prostitute in all but name already, in my opinion, eyes wide open to all that was happening and happy with her perceived rewards.
She had unfettered opportunities to seek help if she was being coerced against her will, instead, when in Thailand trying to procure another bint for Epstein, she marries a martial arts instructor shortly after meeting him, and starts another chapter of her life.
Only later does she smell the opportunity to make more money on the back of her acquaintances, is paid off, signing a none disclosure agreement, that she then renagdes upon.
Only the most naieve or agendered could find sympathy for her.
You said "You need to stop seeing the world as so black and white and learn some nuance." I chortled...
Is he not allowed to lawfully seek information for his defence? How is that victim blaming or attacking her? If someone makes accusations then they should be tested in court. They can't be tested in court unless the defendant has access to evidence they feel is relevant.
The alternative is to prevent someone properly defending themsleves and I hope you agree that is not acceptable.
Soldato
C'mon now Chris... Don't you understand that Guiffre only did these things as a result of the manipulation, coercion and grooming she was subjected to
Hurf's method of arguing is that everyone must agree with him or you are either:
Choose 1 or more from the above and add in some emotionally triggering language to strengthen a post that would otherwise not stand on its own merit.... You know, the way tabloid media outlets act.
- Naive
- Un-intelligent
- See everything black and white
- Part of the problem (rape apologist, child abuser etc)
- Ignore any posts that makes a reasonable argument against him then return a few days later to rehash the same point.
FTFY.
Indeed seems to me by going this way he's got something to hide.
Sickening way to defend yourself, however it didn't help Ghislaine so hopefully won't help him either.
Soldato
C'mon now Chris... Don't you understand that Guiffre only did these things as a result of the manipulation, coercion and grooming she was subjected to
Hurf's method of arguing is that everyone must agree with him or you are either:
Choose 1 or more from the above and add in some emotionally triggering language to strengthen a post that would otherwise not stand on its own merit.... You know, the way tabloid media outlets act.
- Naive
- Un-intelligent
- See everything black and white
- Part of the problem (rape apologist, child abuser etc)
So, you're suggesting that she knew exactly what she was doing and who she was doing it for and now that Epstein's dead and she's run out of money she's going to play the eternal victim card in order to get paid off again?
Soldato
To be fair, guilty or innocent, surely it's your legal teams' job to do everything and anything to prove your innocence, moral compasses be damned?
Soldato
Can anyone who has a problem with this case explain the difference between this and the groomed girls by Muslim men up north. There is no difference.
How do you know there is no difference? Many of the men have been convicted in a court which had access to the evidence. We know from that the girls were groomed, plied with drugs and alcohol and raped. In the case of Andrew we don't yet know whether he is innocent or guilty and whether her accusations of grooming and trafficing are true. They might be or they might not be. That's for a criminal court to decide and until that time the accused is innocent by default. Are you suggesting he must be guilty simply by the accusation and that we must believe any accusation?
The offender is white and a lot of posters itt hate women and love licking boots.
Permabanned
Many differences, Princes, billionaires, private jets, private islands versus private hire taxi drivers, takeaway shop workers, and it was often a "family affair". Morally some of the girls would be similar, only the price they put on their bodies varied, but also the subtleness and rewards of the Epstein groomings and sheer vulgarity and cheapness of the Muslim groomings differed wildly. Few come out of these affairs looking good, but some came out of them with a shed load of money and a wild rock star ride for a while...I have heard no evidence the Epstein girls were plied with drink and drugs and physically abused, only plied with money, celebrity bedfellows and a good time.
As prostitution goes the Epstein girls were in a class apart, the grooming gang ones were not so lucky, and probably many given little to no choice.
Permabanned
I find myself once again having to remind you of your words from but yesterday:
You said "You need to stop seeing the world as so black and white and learn some nuance."
Take these words aboard yourself please
I find myself once again having to remind you of your words from but yesterday:
You said "You need to stop seeing the world as so black and white and learn some nuance."
Take these words aboard yourself please
I have considered my comments and stand by them. The bias and lack of understanding some posters itt have shown is significant and it forms their opinions, for which they are wrong.
It's very important to ensure your chopper is correctly lubed no matter where it is deployed.
C'mon now Chris... Don't you understand that Guiffre only did these things as a result of the manipulation, coercion and grooming she was subjected to
Hurf's method of arguing is that everyone must agree with him or you are either:
Choose 1 or more from the above and add in some emotionally triggering language to strengthen a post that would otherwise not stand on its own merit.... You know, the way tabloid media outlets act.
- Naive
- Un-intelligent
- See everything black and white
- Part of the problem (rape apologist, child abuser etc)
I choose option 3 as hurfdurf is option 4.
I think you've lost the plot.
He never had the plot.
Soldato
How can you praise other posters for being well sourced and having engaging intelligently and yet you post such drive? Oh wait, obvious troll is obvious.
Man of Honour
I was going to compare your position with that of the notorious trial of ordeal by water in which someone was thrown into a body of water and deemed guilty if they floated and innocent if they sank. But that would be unfair. That trial gave the accused a chance of being declared innocent. Your approach doesn't. If the accused defends themself, you consider that proof of guilt and add "sickening" to "guilty".
I'll make up an example not involving sex in order to prevent the lack of thinking that happens when sex is involved.
For the sake of the hard of thinking: the following section between asterisks is an entirely fictitious example made up to illustrate a point of argument. It is not real.
*********
Imagine I accused you of stealing something from a shop in Bognor Regis at some time on the 18th of March 2000.
I state unequivocally that it was you. I am stating that I am certain it was you. I have no doubt about that. There is no possibility that I am mistaken.
You are widely presumed guilty because you are an unchosen group identity with a lower status than mine and that's how it works now.
*********
How do you defend yourself? You can't defend yourself on the basis that it was mistaken identity - I have stated that there is no possibility that I am mistaken about it being you. So your only two options for defence are that I am lying or that my memories are false. Evidence is irrelevant to that issue. Even if you can definitively prove you were somewhere else at that time ~20 years ago, you would be saying that I am lying or that my memories are false. If you can definitely prove I was somewhere else at that time, you would be saying that I am lying or that my memories are false. If you can definitely prove that the theft never happened, you would be saying that I am lying or that my memories are false. As soon as someone says something happened and there is no possibility that they are mistaken about it, the only ways in which their claim can be wrong is if they are lying or if their memories are false.
As for false memories, they are commonplace. Human memory is not a recording. It's created on the fly every time it's "remembered". It's like a "based on a true story" film, i.e. anything from completely untrue to completely true. It's not at all reliable. Inducing false memories is shockingly easy. In the most famous study, false memories were induced in about a third of subjects by nothing more than the mere presence of a cardboard cutout and a fake advertising picture. Not even any words. Detailed false memories of something that never happened. Sights, sounds, even tastes and smells in some cases. Since memories are created on the fly by a person's own mind, any degree of detail is possible. False memories can also be induced without any targetting of the subject and can be induced in what seems to be real-time. In the best known example of that, general propaganda aimed at the entire population immediately induced detailed false memories of a murder in two wholly independent eyewitnesses. During daytime, in broad daylight. With clear line of sight. At short distance. A murder that never happened, as proved by multiple independent videos. No special effects, no subterfuge, no deception of any kind. No chance of any misunderstandings. The detailed memories of the two independent eyewitnesses were entirely false, created by their own minds as a result of the relentless propaganda targeting the entire population, not specifically targeting those two people.
https://www.washington.edu/news/200...evidence-shows-false-memories-can-be-created/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/...er-attack-show-the-power-of-false-memory.html
If a subject is personally targeted, even more can be done. For example, a subject (who volunteered) had an aversion to boiled eggs induced in them by a psychologist using simple techniques to implant and reinforce false memories. In this case, a false memory of over-eating boiled eggs and being sick as a result. That was chosen because it was harmless, but that harmlessness was solely due to ethical concerns from the psychologist.