Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Andrew's defence
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
hedda |
md wrote:
tdf wrote:
There is literally no case. It's bullshit. The photo is fraudulent.
I think it would be easy to prove that it's a fake but demeaning at the same time.
the photo is interesting as some (claimed) experts say the accuser's arm around Andrew looks odd and possibly too long.
She claims she does not have the original.
Of course to fake it one would need a photo of Andrew in that exact pose which is risky if it existed elsewhere.
The media have played terrible games here by falsely claiming Andrew says he has never met the accuser which is a blatant lie..he said he cannot remember ever meeting her..
I attended a charity party many years ago in Sydney at the home of a very rich female newspaper heiress where Prince Edward was the guest.
About 20 well heeled people had paid $5K for drinks and dinner with Edward. A photographer followed him around as he chatted to each guest and they all got a snap with him.
I think he attended 12 events on that week's visit. Meeting endless people.
I attended many years ago an event where Prince Charles launched an entire suburb of houses built by a rich property developer.
Again a snapper followed him around and every Council member got a snap with him.
The amount of people working Royals (Andrew) meet must be staggering. I don't know how they could possibly be expected to even remember what happened the week before ..hence diaries must be kept.
I bet Andrew's statement going for pizza on a certain night has been diligently checked for accuracy.
I bet his claim about "sweating" has been diligently checked with medical evidence to back it up.
But the media have played games with these statements snidely attempting to demolish them really because of their simplicity or citing a snap where Andrew was sweating & ignoring the facts of the particular medical condition.
## I'll never forget the Charles event.. as a group of us crammed into a new small 2 story terrace house with the proud new owners and Charles...as he inspected the new kitchen.. "what a wonderful invention kitchens are" he said. |
|
Honey |
hedda wrote:
Wyot wrote:
Just to clarify - as I did understand tht point - I also don't think calling the accused innocent until proven guilty is helpful. They certainly should not be called guilty, or as too often and incresingly happens, treated as such. They should be treated as "innocent" of any crime. But more neutral language on both sides pre outcome would in my view be better.
The media and Andrew haters ignore the most salient point- 2 powerful police forces and the FBI have announced they do not believe Andrew should be investigated nor have any intention of investigating him.
The FBI have however played games..as they do as they love some publicity.., by asking Andrew to be interviewed as a possible witness and he's agreed to but he has no obligation to travel to the USA especially knowing what a media frenzy that would be.
I repeat..the NYC living daughter of a former Australian prime minister has stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's house many times (and is a friend of Andrew's daughter) and was famously photographed by paparazzi..fare welling Andrew from Epstein's' front door as she holds it open...never been contacted by the FBI or any police force.
The facts and truth remain : Andrew has never been convicted or investigated for any sex crime and 2 police forces have announced they have no intention of investigating him.
No crime has been committed by prince Andrew therefore any accusation about him despite being unproved(and will not be proved or unproved by any police force) means such claims about are false. They can be no other thing but false.
To say the accusations are false may not be a popular but that is where we are at and stating claims about Andrew are "unproved"- which is also true- would be appropriate if he was being investigated or on trial.
A small group of demonstrators outside Windsor Castle about 4 weeks ago (it's on Youtube) claimed The Queen is is a Satanist Baby Eating Shape Shifting Reptile who murders children in the castle dungeons..are these "unproved" accusations? (careful there are still laws about accusing the Monarch).
No they are false and no more truthful than those about Andrew who appears in a photo ..not that anyone has ever seen the original..just as The Queen has appeared in photos with IRA members and endless rogues.
Point taken, Hedda. Yes, there are limits to how far we can stretch our neutrality in the face of nonsensical evidence.
I think the media could at least try not to call someone a victim, perpetrator or false accuser though. |
|
Wyot |
hedda wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
To say the accusations are false may not be a popular but that is where we are at and stating claims about Andrew are "unproved"- which is also true- would be appropriate if he was being investigated or on trial.
This is a clever argument Hedda; I like it in general but it is flawed in this case, I think, because there isa Court Case against Prince Andrew, brought by Guffrie. Unless we are saying that accusations can only be made or measured by criminal justice agencies it doesn't hold up in this case. There are means by which accusations can be levelled and decided outside the criminal justice system. |
|
md |
tdf wrote:
There is literally no case. It's bullshit. The photo is fraudulent.
I think it would be easy to prove that it's a fake but demeaning at the same time. |
|
hedda |
Wyot wrote:
Just to clarify - as I did understand tht point - I also don't think calling the accused innocent until proven guilty is helpful. They certainly should not be called guilty, or as too often and incresingly happens, treated as such. They should be treated as "innocent" of any crime. But more neutral language on both sides pre outcome would in my view be better.
The media and Andrew haters ignore the most salient point- 2 powerful police forces and the FBI have announced they do not believe Andrew should be investigated nor have any intention of investigating him.
The FBI have however played games..as they do as they love some publicity.., by asking Andrew to be interviewed as a possible witness and he's agreed to but he has no obligation to travel to the USA especially knowing what a media frenzy that would be.
I repeat..the NYC living daughter of a former Australian prime minister has stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's house many times (and is a friend of Andrew's daughter) and was famously photographed by paparazzi..fare welling Andrew from Epstein's' front door as she holds it open...never been contacted by the FBI or any police force.
The facts and truth remain : Andrew has never been convicted or investigated for any sex crime and 2 police forces have announced they have no intention of investigating him.
No crime has been committed by prince Andrew therefore any accusation about him despite being unproved(and will not be proved or unproved by any police force) means such claims about are false. They can be no other thing but false.
To say the accusations are false may not be a popular but that is where we are at and stating claims about Andrew are "unproved"- which is also true- would be appropriate if he was being investigated or on trial.
A small group of demonstrators outside Windsor Castle about 4 weeks ago (it's on Youtube) claimed The Queen is is a Satanist Baby Eating Shape Shifting Reptile who murders children in the castle dungeons..are these "unproved" accusations? (careful there are still laws about accusing the Monarch).
No they are false and no more truthful than those about Andrew who appears in a photo ..not that anyone has ever seen the original..just as The Queen has appeared in photos with IRA members and endless rogues. |
|
|
|
