Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jeffrey Epstein arrested on sex trafficking charges

Options
1…3233353738…58

Comments

  • Options
    #1022
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Never mentioned anything about things not "being wrong". It's only about what can be proven.

    He was proven/convicted before. Could well in future be proven again - if that's at all possible when he's absent, down in the burning pits of hell.

    We are of course talking about things being wrong, on various levels. Through actions, associations and the few misguided people who have/do support him.

    A 'psychopathic sadist' 'powerful billionaire*' will attract similar types.
    The question now, is will anyone else be held accountable? *Very unlikely.


  • Options
    #1023
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Nolan Savory Warden wrote: »

    A 'psychopathic sadist' 'powerful billionaire*' will attract similar types.
    The question now, is will anyone else be held accountable? *Very unlikely.

    The best we can hope for is that the civil cases go well and info on some living people who may also be guilty comes out.
    They won't get into any legal trouble but will probably have an impact on them professionally. Civil cases can allow circumstantial evidence so some interesting things may be relieved, however civil cases can also be settled out of court.

    On a completely different point, he signed a new will two days before he died and no one had any concern for someone who had just been taken off suicide watch doing this?


  • Options
    #1024
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Nolan Savory Warden wrote: »
    Tony EH wrote: »
    Never mentioned anything about things not "being wrong". It's only about what can be proven.

    He was proven/convicted before. Could well in future be proven again - if that's at all possible when he's absent, down in the burning pits of hell.

    We are of course talking about things being wrong, on various levels. Through actions, associations and the few misguided people who have/do support him.

    A 'psychopathic sadist' 'powerful billionaire*' will attract similar types.
    The question now, is will anyone else be held accountable? *Very unlikely.


    What does this post actually mean? Mebbe my brain is fried, but what is this poster actually saying?


  • Options
    #1025
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    tuxy wrote: »
    The best we can hope for is that the civil cases go well and info on some living people who may also be guilty comes out.
    They won't get into any legal trouble but will probably have an impact on them professionally. Civil cases can allow circumstantial evidence so some interesting things may be relieved, however civil cases can also be settled out of court.

    On a completely different point, he signed a new will two days before he died and no one had any concern for someone who had just been taken off suicide watch doing this?
    Sounds about right, it would be very difficult for anyone to up against a billionaire regardless.

    It's a huge story in the wider context that gives foundation to an absoloute huge array of conspiracy theories. Not to mention a likely forward advance for a dozen more, sell-out Icke books/tours.

    Perhaps the most significant outcome will just be reputation destruction to his inner circle and close assosicates/friends. E.g. Can you imagine the shame the windsor clan are projecting upon Andy, they must be mortified by all this.
    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    Mebbe my brain is fried
    Maybe so.


  • Options
    #1026
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Nolan Savory Warden wrote: »
    tuxy wrote: »
    The best we can hope for is that the civil cases go well and info on some living people who may also be guilty comes out.
    They won't get into any legal trouble but will probably have an impact on them professionally. Civil cases can allow circumstantial evidence so some interesting things may be relieved, however civil cases can also be settled out of court.

    On a completely different point, he signed a new will two days before he died and no one had any concern for someone who had just been taken off suicide watch doing this?
    Sounds about right, it would be very difficult for anyone to up against a billionaire regardless.

    It's a huge story in the wider context that gives foundation to an absoloute huge array of conspiracy theories. Not to mention a likely forward advance for a dozen more, sell-out Icke books/tours.

    Perhaps the most significant outcome will just be reputation destruction to his inner circle and close assosicates/friends. E.g. Can you imagine the shame the windsor clan are projecting upon Andy, they must be mortified by all this.
    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    Mebbe my brain is fried
    Maybe so.

    Nope.. brain not fried... original post simply incomprehensible. ..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1027
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    Nope.. brain not fried... original post simply incomprehensible. ..
    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    Mebbe my brain is fried,

    Well If you have to ask (mebbe?), if your brain is fried, chances are that it is somewhat.

    Thanks for your useful contribution in the 'subtle art of distraction and misdirection' anyway, very insightful, well done on the derailment.


  • Options
    #1028
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Unless he did it every couple of days over a period of time, I see Epstein's signing a new will 2 days b4 he died as additional proof that he intended to shuffle off his mortal coil (s).

    So he suicided. Either he did it entirely on his own or he paid someone to help him. Either way, he intended to die, and any help came from persons paid by him and not from some extraneous power, such as Clintons, Trumps, Illuminati, The Family or whatever. ..

    Just let's puts that BS to bed and move on with prosecuting his partners in crime...


  • Options
    #1029
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Nolan Savory Warden wrote: »
    He was proven/convicted before.

    Who? Prince Andrew?

    Read the exchange before replying. I'm not talking about Epstein.


  • Options
    #1030
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    None of us is arguing before a court of law here.

    That doesn't matter.


  • Options
    #1031
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Who? Prince Andrew?
    Read the exchange before replying. I'm not talking about Epstein.
    Mainly JE (already proven/convicted). But there was also some talk from a lady that Andy also acted improper i.e. groping, and possibly other acts [Virginia ROBERTS].

    Likely that's as far as it goes as too powerful, difficult to prove (word against word), and located in different country.

    His reputation damage has already been done regardless, simply by close association with the convict (JE).

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7373083/GUY-ADAMS-details-Prince-Andrews-toxic-fixation-Jeffrey-Epstein.html
    The hundreds and thousands of comments seem to clearly reflect this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1032
    Hobosan
    Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭Hobosan


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    None of us is arguing before a court of law here.
    Tony EH wrote: »
    That doesn't matter.

    Objection!


  • Options
    #1033
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Hobosan wrote: »
    Objection!

    Overruled.


  • Options
    #1034
    JMMCapital
    Registered Users Posts: 373 ✭✭JMMCapital


    He got off easy like jimmy saville.. I still think the clintons were involved in this for sure! Hillary is insane, wouldn’t put it past her. Bill used his jet 26 times. Prince Andrew was seen with Epstein in Central Park with him in 2011, his first conviction/charge was in 2008-2009 I believe so he well knew what he was involved in and was more than likely in on it too. Don’t mind me I love drugs


  • Options
    #1035
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Nolan Savory Warden wrote: »
    Mainly JE (already proven/convicted). But there was also some talk from a lady that Andy also acted improper i.e. groping, and possibly other acts [Virginia ROBERTS].

    Likely that's as far as it goes as too powerful, difficult to prove (word against word), and located in different country.

    His reputation damage has already been done regardless, simply by close association with the convict (JE).

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7373083/GUY-ADAMS-details-Prince-Andrews-toxic-fixation-Jeffrey-Epstein.html
    The hundreds and thousands of comments seem to clearly reflect this.

    Again. I'm not talking about Epstein, upon whom there's already been a case drawn, and a conviction.

    I'm talking about Prince Andrew's involvement and, as of yet, it has been secondary involvement at best.

    And until better evidence is produced, it remains secondary involvement.


  • Options
    #1036
    JMMCapital
    Registered Users Posts: 373 ✭✭JMMCapital


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Again. I'm not talking about Epstein, upon whom there's already been a case drawn, and a conviction.

    I'm talking about Prince Andrew's involvement and, as of yet, it has been secondary involvement at best.

    And until better evidence is produced, it remains secondary involvement.

    He was pictured with Epstein in Central Park ‘11 - 2 years after his first charge I believe he was well aware and involved. Then again innocent till proving guilty as they say.


  • Options
    #1037
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    JMMCapital wrote: »
    He was pictured with Epstein in Central Park ‘11 - 2 years after his first charge I believe he was well aware and involved. Then again innocent till proving guilty as they say.

    Yup strong extradition treaty between the US and UK so no issue having him sent to face the music in the U.S if it comes to it......
    I assume him being a royal wouldn't have any impact on the law.


  • Options
    #1038
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Again. I'm not talking about Epstein, upon whom there's already been a case drawn, and a conviction.
    I'm talking about Prince Andrew's involvement and, as of yet, it has been secondary involvement at best.
    And until better evidence is produced, it remains secondary involvement.
    Where is your evidence that Andy only had 'secondary involvement' (at best)?

    While nothings certain, there remains more questions than answers. An unsolved mystery. It will likely remain a great unknown, but anyone of reason can comprehend the speculation, unless they simply don't want to - for some reason.

    By far, the single biggest question is why 'hang out' with a convicted P. Anyone of sane mind would remove all and every association of such types.

    QJsHg4Y.png
    The tabloids seem to be having a field day/week all the same. Next week of course, it will be back to reality TV, and the price of butter.


  • Options
    #1039
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    JMMCapital wrote: »
    He was pictured with Epstein in Central Park ‘11 - 2 years after his first charge I believe he was well aware and involved. Then again innocent till proving guilty as they say.

    Again though, that doesn't matter.

    A photograph with someone, no matter how nefarious they are means nothing in a legal case and it can be demolished with the greatest of ease.

    It's not illegal to be friends with a felon or a criminal.

    Producing photos of somebody with somebody is not a smoking gun.


  • Options
    #1040
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Nolan Savory Warden wrote: »
    Where is your evidence that Andy only had 'secondary involvement' (at best)?

    It's not MY evidence. It's THE evidence. At least the evidence that been produced so far.

    There has been nothing put forward that can used as a solid case against Prince Andrew yet.

    It has been photographs and hearsay, all of which amount to nothing really.

    The only thing that has come into play is the allegation by an, as yet, unidentified woman in America. But, still, that remains just an allegation. An allegation that's still being investigated.


  • Options
    #1041
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Nolan Savory Warden wrote: »
    Well If you have to ask (mebbe?), if your brain is fried, chances are that it is somewhat.

    Thanks for your useful contribution in the 'subtle art of distraction and misdirection' anyway, very insightful, well done on the derailment.

    It's becoming a bit more clear now...

    David Icke lizard- men disciple on board...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1042
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    It's becoming a bit more clear now...

    David Icke lizard- men disciple on board...

    Or, mebbe, that's David himself? If so, hiya David!!

    Off topic but WTF accent is that?


  • Options
    #1043
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Tony EH wrote: »
    It has been photographs and hearsay, all of which amount to *nothing really*.
    It amounts to a huge amount of reputation damage, to someone (often already refered to as 'air miles Andy') being plastered across front pages of the press.

    He who has already in the past caused other embarasments. But clearly your a very big fan of the chap, fair enough.

    So far, the allegations come from Virginia ROBERTS. Who knows if there may be other developments. However, it's more likely the media will have any developments brushed away by next week.


  • Options
    #1044
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Nolan Savory Warden wrote: »
    It amounts to a huge amount of reputation damage, to someone (often already refered to as 'air miles Andy') being plastered across front pages of the press.

    He who has already in the past caused other embarasments. But clearly your a very big fan of the chap, fair enough.

    So far, the allegations come from Virginia ROBERTS. Who knows if there may be other developments. However, it's more likely the media will have any developments brushed away by next week.

    "Reputation damage" is nothing for randy Andy.

    How old are you?

    This guy has had shit rolling off of him since the 80's.


  • Options
    #1045
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Woodsie1 wrote: »
    Off topic but WTF accent is that?
    Lol, can only imagine it as some posh royalist tone. Rather spiffing.


  • Options
    #1046
    sabat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,896 ✭✭✭sabat


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Again. I'm not talking about Epstein, upon whom there's already been a case drawn, and a conviction.

    I'm talking about Prince Andrew's involvement and, as of yet, it has been secondary involvement at best.

    And until better evidence is produced, it remains secondary involvement.

    Yeah we all know that when you go to hang out with a friend and he has a group of young teenage girls around him all the time and he says "Oh those? They're just the sex slaves" that the proper course of action is to keep coming back. Absolutely no ethical issues there.
    Even if Andrew Windsor never touched any of them in a sexual manner his mere presence on the scene makes him culpable-given his status he is adding to the critical mass of the power, both real and perceived, of that sordid little clique.


  • Options
    #1047
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Tony EH wrote: »
    "Reputation damage" is nothing for randy Andy.
    How old are you?
    This guy has had shit rolling off of him since the 80's.
    This is the singluar biggest reputation damage incident to Andy to date, is it not???
    Is front page news and TV media reporting for the last week really 'nothing'.
    Actually perhaps your right for those untouchable, is simply more water off a duck's back.

    How old are you? Do you have posters of Andy on your wall?


  • Options
    #1048
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    Nolan Savory Warden wrote: »
    Lol, can only imagine it as some posh royalist tone. Rather spiffing.

    Ive never heard maybe said that way,reading the post in my head sounds unnatural.
    Is it said fast or slow?:confused:


  • Options
    #1049
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Woodsie1 wrote: »
    Ive never heard maybe said that way,reading the post in my head sounds unnatural.
    Is it said fast or slow?:confused:


    It sure is weird, and to have been used twice. Maybe it's Zulu or something for the actual proper word: 'maybe'.


  • Options
    #1050
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    Nolan Savory Warden wrote: »
    It sure is weird, and to have been used twice. Maybe it's Zulu or something for the actual proper word: 'maybe'.

    MaybeMebbe;) Tom can give us a definitive answer


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1051
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    sabat wrote: »
    Yeah we all know that when you go to hang out with a friend and he has a group of young teenage girls around him all the time and he says "Oh those? They're just the sex slaves" that the proper course of action is to keep coming back. Absolutely no ethical issues there.
    Even if Andrew Windsor never touched any of them in a sexual manner his mere presence on the scene makes him culpable-given his status he is adding to the critical mass of the power, both real and perceived, of that sordid little clique.

    Can it be proven?

    If not, then it won't matter in a legal case.

    In law, it doesn't matter what you suspect, it doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what you believe.

    The only thing that matters is what you can prove.


Advertisement