Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: » They might be too scared to.
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » I don't recall saying that. This case is nothing like that, Epstein is 100% proven to be guilty. I'm saying there are 1000's of victims here , and that a lot of them will never speak badly of the trips around the world and the money. I mean lets get real there are millions of young women on Sugar Daddy advertising looking for guys like Epstein to pay their way. The problem with Epstein is he targeted innocent underage people, and used his money at that point to control and manipulate them. I'm just saying many of them once in this circle wanted to stay in, they kept going back, seeking him out, seeking these benefits. That's why I think a lot of them won't speak up against him.
I don't see Jackson as a child abuser like Saville, I don't believe Wade and James's stories of horrid abuse, but I would be open to imagining Jackson could have possibly been gay, that he had loving relationships with people who by law were under age, but that it was love, not some twisted abuse like Saville's or Church abuse. If what they say is truth, which I doubt, then it was a story of love not abuse, but by law illegal. But to suggest Jackson was like Saville, a guy who would visit hospitals to abuse everyone and anyone he came in contact with is just wrong. Jackson was a good guy with a great heart, If like Rene Angelil he fell for someone and had a relationship with them while they were underage then it would not make him a monster. Wade and James talk of love a lot, if true, maybe it was just love like Rene felt for Celine.
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » The trouble is only a few girls spoke out, 1000's more enjoyed the sugar daddy ride and will never say anything negative about Epstein or Andrew or the other high rollers.
tuxy wrote: » The photos of Ghislaine Maxwell at In-N-Out Burger are photoshopped, odd.
Tony EH wrote: » Nobody ever gets arrested for having "info". Nor do they get arrested for being friends with somebody. The fact of the matter is that there is no actual case against Andrew or most of the others that Epstein was associated with and without a solid case, nobody is going to waste their time. What's going to happen here is that randy Andy will keep a low profile and, eventually, this story will just go away. A lot of people are asking questions at the moment. But, they're questions based on hot air, to be honest, and until there's a proper case, with bona fide evidence, involved on any of Epstein's associates, friends or acquaintances, that's the way it'll remain.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Prince Andrew was pictured with Esptein after 2007, when it was known he was a sex offender.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Pictured in Epstein Manhattan New York house.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Pictured with one of the young girls
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » She accused him, a court case.
Logs show Virginia Roberts flown to London, New York and Caribbean in 2001 Miss Roberts has claimed that as 17-year-old she met the duke in all three places Research by the Mail suggests the duke was in the same vicinity at the same time Palace refused to answer questions on duke's time with Epstein and Miss Roberts source
High-profile Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre described the sadistic birthday present in unsealed court documents from a 2015 lawsuit She said the millionaire bragged about paying to have the 12-year-old girls, believed to be sisters, flown in from France for one day The gift allegedly came from Epstein's longtime friend Jean-Luc Brunel Epstein invested $1million to help launch Brunel's Miami-based modeling firm MC2, in return for a 'supply of girls on tap', the suit claims Brunel allegedly supplied illegitimate visas for underage girls from foreign countries and Epstein housed them at his brother's apartment in Manhattan The model scout, 72, has denied all involvement in Epstein's alleged crimes source
The 66-year-old former hedge-fund manager was worth $577,672,654, or about $18 million more than he previously stated in court papers while futilely trying to land bail on federal sex-trafficking charges, the new documents show. He put all of his holdings in a trust, called The 1953 Trust, after the year he was born. “It’s done that way for privacy reasons,’’ a city estate lawyer told The Post. “It’s pretty boiler-plate. It’s what we call a ‘pour-over will,’ which means everything pours over to a trust. <Snip> Its executors are two longtime Epstein employees: lawyer Darren Indyke and businessman Richard Kahn. A third man, Boris Nikolic, is listed as an alternate. The executors will receive $250,000 apiece for their work on the estate, in addition to “reasonable’’ expenses related to the job, the papers say.source
Tony EH wrote: » Again, doesn't mean anything in and of itself.
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » What hanging out with a convicted P?...
Matt Barrett wrote: » Prince Andrew and Epstein were pals for decades...
Tony EH wrote: » That and the photos you posted are useless for building a case. They mean nothing in isolation and any lawyer worth their salt would dismiss them with ease. Being friends with someone, even a "convicted P", and being photographed with them is not good enough. Simple as, I'm afraid.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Never said it was. Just pointing out they've been friends for decades.
Tony EH wrote: » I think we all know this, though, Matt.
Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: » What’s the point of this “nothing to see here” handwaving. Everything has gone quiet hasn’t it? The US press hasn’t really done much investigation - with the daily mail alone getting some pictures. Nothing new about the autopsy. No interviews with prisoners, staff or medical officers. Nothing much on the continuing investigations.
raze_them_all_ wrote: » Of course you won't get interviews with people during an ongoing investigation fl
Tony EH wrote: » That and the photos you posted are useless for building a case. They mean nothing in isolation and any lawyer worth their salt would dismiss them with ease.Being friends with someone, even a "convicted P", and being photographed with them is not good enough.
MadYaker wrote: » This post (and many others by you in this thread) is disgusting you need to take a long hard look at yourself. Why do you feel the need to belittle the crimes of a serial rapist and pedophile? Hardly surprising that you’re a trump supporter. I bet you’re sad you didn’t get an invite to his island.
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » I dunno how you get that from my post. Only a few people spoke up against these guys, while 1000's more will never speak up, even though they have info and maybe proof to take a lot of these high rollers down. That is my point. You make it sound like I condone it, and I'm defending Epstein, geez. I'd hate to live with my head above the clouds, where everything is sun shine and rainbows, we live in a world where 1000's of girls seek out sugar daddies, they use sites to connect them with these guys. So many of these Epstein girls went on to big things on the back of knowing the high rollers, so they'll never come out and take these guys down. That is the point I'm making.
Nolan Savory Warden wrote: » This is not (as of yet, might be in the future) legal proceedings or a case. It's a case of 'morality and decency' for someone from a place of responsibility. Sure (it seems) you don't seem find anything wrong? with such a prominent figure being very good However ask anyone else here, there or anywhere what the think about AirMiles Andy and his associations, it will not be kind. You can only just imagine the massive embarassment he's caused.
Tony EH wrote: » It's not 'nothing to see here'. It"s about what you can prove. Because in a legal case, that is all that matters. It's not not about what one thinks or believes. It's only about what can be proven.
