cartoon

















IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.





Enter what you see:
This image contains a scrambled text, it is using a combination of colors, font size, background, angle in order to disallow computer to automate reading. You will have to reproduce it to post on my homepage Tip: Reload page if you have difficulty reading characters
Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home arrow Forums
Messageboards
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
Your Views Messageboard
Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"
Name:
Subject:
Boardcode:
B I U S Sub Sup Size Color Spoiler Hide ul ol li left center right Quote Code Img URL  
Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons
B) :( :) :laugh:
:cheer: ;) :P :angry:
:unsure: :ohmy: :huh: :dry:
:lol: :silly: :blink: :blush:
:kiss: :woohoo: :side: :S
More Smilies
 Enter code here   

Topic History of: The sweating and the pizzas
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author Message
Jo Someone has come forward to support Prince Andrew's no-sweating claims, and it looks as if he might have diary entries to back it up.

The witness who says he KNOWS Andrew can't sweat: Former U.S. intelligence officer who partied (and wrestled) with the prince swears the bizarre claim at the heart of his defence in his sex abuse case is true

"His memoir was based on copiously kept diaries of his years at Fergie's side. And he has returned to those journals again to remind himself of Prince Andrew's condition. If Starkie's recollections are correct, then the prince's inability to sweat pre-dates his alleged encounter with the then 17-year-old Ms Roberts by at least nine years."

Judging from the comments under the article, most readers aren't buying this, but one person says "The problem here is that he has already been found guilty in the "trial by media". Any new evidence to support him will be disbelieved and treated as either dishonest or distorted memories. The opposite is true of his accuser, who has changed her story on multiple occasions as her "memories" clarify."
hedda Honey wrote:
hedda wrote:
I don;t see Andrew as being arrogant. Possibly making misjudgements though.

Remember he is reputedly the Queen's favourite.

Pretty sure the pizza event will be recorded (how long do they keep records?) and even his kids would back it up.

Now reading many readers are supporting him in the tabloids but then so many others are idiotic..many actually thinks he will be "convicted" and don;t seem to understand it's a civil action.

The threshold is lower than in a criminal case but still needs solid evidence. In the O.J.Simpson case they had physical evidence.

The Goldman family won a $60M judgement against O.J 20 years ago. They've never received a penny.

Even if this woman was to win she' would have to sue in a UK court if she wanted a financial settlement. US civil case decisions carry no weight in the UK.

I imagine any Royal has their funds so tied up in various Trusts that they could never be touched by anyone.


It seems that they destroy security records after a certain time, and they only knew about pizza express from the old calendar.
Beatrice has "no recollection" of it, so they say.

I even wondered if the stupid interview was him talking in code to someone?
Pizza express-deliver the goods?
Sweating problem- no sweat/don't worry etc? But that sounds just as far fetched as the rest of it.

As I remember it, the civil case for Simpson had no unadulterated evidence, but they carried on anyway because the whole civil action thing is a shile of pite, in my opinion.


The Simpson case had 2 dead bodies which is what I am referring to and a lot of circumstantial evidence.

Andrew's case only has claims.

Very much doubt Beatrice said anything to anyone about her father';s case.

Royals are trained from birth about talking to strangers
and even good friends. In fact they are not above "leaking" incorrect information to a suspected pal to see if it goes further and if it does..they are frozen out for life. Believe me, I know someone it happened to.

Instead the media..as the Mail did yesterday..engage in an orgy of "palace insiders" ( Sid & Doris Bonkers who live in a council flat not from from Buckingham Palace and who once met an under footman in the pub).."unnamed close friend of Eugenie's" ( Sid & Doris' son Derek Bonkers who ..like me..saw her pass by in a car once) and so on.

Total bullshit.
Honey hedda wrote:
I don;t see Andrew as being arrogant. Possibly making misjudgements though.

Remember he is reputedly the Queen's favourite.

Pretty sure the pizza event will be recorded (how long do they keep records?) and even his kids would back it up.

Now reading many readers are supporting him in the tabloids but then so many others are idiotic..many actually thinks he will be "convicted" and don;t seem to understand it's a civil action.

The threshold is lower than in a criminal case but still needs solid evidence. In the O.J.Simpson case they had physical evidence.

The Goldman family won a $60M judgement against O.J 20 years ago. They've never received a penny.

Even if this woman was to win she' would have to sue in a UK court if she wanted a financial settlement. US civil case decisions carry no weight in the UK.

I imagine any Royal has their funds so tied up in various Trusts that they could never be touched by anyone.


It seems that they destroy security records after a certain time, and they only knew about pizza express from the old calendar.
Beatrice has "no recollection" of it, so they say.

I even wondered if the stupid interview was him talking in code to someone?
Pizza express-deliver the goods?
Sweating problem- no sweat/don't worry etc? But that sounds just as far fetched as the rest of it.

As I remember it, the civil case for Simpson had no unadulterated evidence, but they carried on anyway because the whole civil action thing is a shile of pite, in my opinion.
hedda I don;t see Andrew as being arrogant. Possibly making misjudgements though.

Remember he is reputedly the Queen's favourite.

Pretty sure the pizza event will be recorded (how long do they keep records?) and even his kids would back it up.

Now reading many readers are supporting him in the tabloids but then so many others are idiotic..many actually thinks he will be "convicted" and don;t seem to understand it's a civil action.

The threshold is lower than in a criminal case but still needs solid evidence. In the O.J.Simpson case they had physical evidence.

The Goldman family won a $60M judgement against O.J 20 years ago. They've never received a penny.

Even if this woman was to win she' would have to sue in a UK court if she wanted a financial settlement. US civil case decisions carry no weight in the UK.

I imagine any Royal has their funds so tied up in various Trusts that they could never be touched by anyone.
Jo His accuser must be loving how he's being expected to prove his innocence and no-one's looking at the holes in her story. Or at how she was said by one of Maxwell's accusers to have recruited her and to have had sex with Epstein in front of her, surely grooming/normalisation taken to the extreme (not even Maxwell seems to had been accused of that). If the civil case in the US continues to go her way, she'll be laughing all the way to the bank and he might ultimately find himself in jail.