Prince Andrew named in Pedophile case....Royal Family becoming EXPOSED!!!

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: Tangerine

Completely agree which is why it is still a problem. The elite lawyers have many loopholes they can jump through to save their buddies (and themselves) from prosecution.

Couple that with blasé attitudes from the general public who just play 'the girl is to blame' or 'the girl is lying' card and these criminals pretty much have free reign.

They believe they are invincible. Above the law.

Victims speaking out are the only way to stop them. I hope an adequate investigation is carried out in this case but, as in most cases like this, it is unlikely there won't be, silence money and threats will be dealt to the girl and the ignorant masses will go back to pointing the finger and blaming the girl for wanting a quick buck.

Unfortunately society is sick. I wouldn't have wanted to believe it years ago either before i worked with certain victims of these crimes.

You do realize, don't you, that lawyers are sworn agents of the court and are legally bound to represent their clients zealously? Everyone is legally entitled to a defense. Would you really have it any other way? Don't blame the lawyers. I agree with the rest that you said except that SOME of the accusers are lying. Apparently, this particular accuser has a long history of accusing people without any supporting evidence. That, too, allows human trafficking to continue. Do we want to go back to the age of witch trials in which someone pointing the finger at someone leads to torture, lynching, and burning without a lick of evidence being presented? Yes, society is sick and some (not all) of the sick people are accusers.

a reply to: artistpoet

Yeah but the other guy she has accused has waived his rights and stuff and said she has to do it on oath.
Lets see if she does or not.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Sorry to sound so dumb but what does waiving one's rights actually mean in law

a reply to: artistpoet

It means waiving any form of defence against the charges that may exist in law or statute. They have "Stepped out from behind" legal protections provided to them opening them up to criminal or civil penalties that they would not otherwise face. It is a big deal and a bold move.

a reply to: Leonidas

Thank you for explaining that
2

a reply to: artistpoet

The lawyer who has also been accused has wavered his Statute of Limitations which is from google.

A statute of limitation is a law which forbids prosecutors from charging someone with a crime that was committed more than a specified number of years ago. The general purpose of statutes of limitation is to make sure convictions occur only upon evidence (physical or eyewitness) that has not deteriorated with time.

If she comes forward and accuses him in public.
I don't think she has said anything on oath about him and the Prince.

Oh and ty Leo I just expanded I had to look it up .

a reply to: boymonkey74

Thanks for taking the time the trouble to explain that

So as far I see it she needs evidence as you say physical or eyewitness

I imagine if she was really a sex slave and abused it would be hard to prove as what witnesses would there be apart from other "Sex slaves" who may have been present coming forward ... I doubt any other participants would blow the whistle supposing it was true

I am not saying it is true of course ...

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: artistpoet

Yeah but the other guy she has accused has waived his rights and stuff and said she has to do it on oath.
Lets see if she does or not.

I sincerely hope that if she is found to have falsely accused Dershowitz of this heinous crime she suffers a serious legal penalty. If this turns out to be the case, she has done a tremendous disservice to people who have really been trafficked and that is an abomination.

a reply to: Tangerine

That is the real harm. If she is proven to have falsely accused people, others will point to this incident as "proof" that "men get falsely accused all the time". Totally irrelevant.

It as, one of her accused has put it, put back the cause of abused women reluctant to come forward.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: artistpoet

It means waiving any form of defence against the charges that may exist in law or statute. They have "Stepped out from behind" legal protections provided to them opening them up to criminal or civil penalties that they would not otherwise face. It is a big deal and a bold move.

Im not saying this is the case here but that move could be a technique i have heard of. The accused has the girl threatened that if he is found guilty she or a loved one will be 'dealt with'. She knows if she tells the truth he will be definitely found guilty. She is faced with this impossible dilemma. She is then offered silence money.

I sincerely hope that these accusations aren't true don't get me wrong but flawed humans exist in every corner of society, lawyers, royals included.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: artistpoet

Yeah but the other guy she has accused has waived his rights and stuff and said she has to do it on oath.
Lets see if she does or not.

I sincerely hope that if she is found to have falsely accused Dershowitz of this heinous crime she suffers a serious legal penalty. If this turns out to be the case, she has done a tremendous disservice to people who have really been trafficked and that is an abomination.

I agree with you completely. It is only because I care so much about this issue that I may have been coming across as one sided. Plus I've heard too much it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were true.

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: artistpoet

It means waiving any form of defence against the charges that may exist in law or statute. They have "Stepped out from behind" legal protections provided to them opening them up to criminal or civil penalties that they would not otherwise face. It is a big deal and a bold move.

Im not saying this is the case here but that move could be a technique i have heard of. The accused has the girl threatened that if he is found guilty she or a loved one will be 'dealt with'. She knows if she tells the truth he will be definitely found guilty. She is faced with this impossible dilemma. She is then offered silence money.

I sincerely hope that these accusations aren't true don't get me wrong but flawed humans exist in every corner of society, lawyers, royals included.

In what case have you heard of a an accused lawyer waiving his legal rights? I'd be interested in knowing the specifics and I'm betting that you can't name such a case.

Now you're suggesting that Dershowitz has threatened her and is bribing her. Wow.

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: artistpoet

It means waiving any form of defence against the charges that may exist in law or statute. They have "Stepped out from behind" legal protections provided to them opening them up to criminal or civil penalties that they would not otherwise face. It is a big deal and a bold move.

Im not saying this is the case here but that move could be a technique i have heard of. The accused has the girl threatened that if he is found guilty she or a loved one will be 'dealt with'. She knows if she tells the truth he will be definitely found guilty. She is faced with this impossible dilemma. She is then offered silence money.

I sincerely hope that these accusations aren't true don't get me wrong but flawed humans exist in every corner of society, lawyers, royals included.

In what case have you heard of a an accused lawyer waiving his legal rights? I'd be interested in knowing the specifics and I'm betting that you can't name such a case.

Now you're suggesting that Dershowitz has threatened her and is bribing her. Wow.

a reply to: daftpink

This is why the law is blind.
It has to be.
Innocent until proven guilty is a right for anyone and until people have been found guilty or even publicly accused I will presume innocent.
Nerf was right the media and ats are exactly the same in the way they assume guilty.
Sad really.

a reply to: daftpink

Not a tactic, I don't know what "you have heard" in other cases.

In the case of this accused, he has challenged the Lawyers as well as the accused. He openly acknowledges that what he is saying would open him up Defamation if is not true. He has stepped out from behind privilege. He is calling for the charges to be made in court where everyone would be under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury. He has openly challenged the accused and the lawyers to repeat their accusations in public knowing the consequences to everyone.

A lawyer doesn't waive his own rights lightly. The Civil, Criminal, Professional and financial penalties are immense.

a reply to: Tangerine

Now you're suggesting that Dershowitz has threatened her and is bribing her. Wow.

Here is a reply I posted earlier in the thread

a reply to: stumason

I do not necessary think it "stinks" that "these women" all settled out of court ... One cap does not fit all
By which I mean ... it does not necessarily mean the women you speak of were only after money.

For one thing if they did not have a good case why would those accused settle out of court

But mostly I speak from my own experience of bringing a case before a Barrister ... my evidence was water tight.
The case not only showed police corruption at a high level but also collusion with my city council, my solicitor but also a government body ... Ombudsman

Why did I settle out of court you may ask ...

1. My solicitor refused to represent me if I went forward with the case ... it is common knowledge that many solicitors fix the outcome of a court case between themselves ... I speak from actual experience

2, What decided me to quit this prosecution was that a friend/witness's young daughter was threatened
I did not mind my own safety but would not put any others at risk

I had a shotgun put in my face literally

So all is not as black and white as you seem to believe

a reply to: stumason

The age of consent in my state was lowered a good while back. In most states, (I think) it's still 18. It was here also until our court system got bogged down by statutory rape cases, and so many teenage boys had "sex offender" on their records. I mean, sixteen year old girl has consented to sex with her 18 y/o boyfriend, they break up a few weeks later, and Boom! He's charged with rape, and she is as guilty as he is. So we lowered the age of consent to 16, as did a lot of states.

So many 15 year old girls are sexually active now. But not sure I like where this is going. I think 16 is a good age to draw the line. It's a slippery slope.

You cant consent to rape, regardless of age.

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Tangerine

Now you're suggesting that Dershowitz has threatened her and is bribing her. Wow.

Here is a reply I posted earlier in the thread

a reply to: stumason

I do not necessary think it "stinks" that "these women" all settled out of court ... One cap does not fit all
By which I mean ... it does not necessarily mean the women you speak of were only after money.

For one thing if they did not have a good case why would those accused settle out of court

But mostly I speak from my own experience of bringing a case before a Barrister ... my evidence was water tight.
The case not only showed police corruption at a high level but also collusion with my city council, my solicitor but also a government body ... Ombudsman

Why did I settle out of court you may ask ...

1. My solicitor refused to represent me if I went forward with the case ... it is common knowledge that many solicitors fix the outcome of a court case between themselves ... I speak from actual experience

2, What decided me to quit this prosecution was that a friend/witness's young daughter was threatened
I did not mind my own safety but would not put any others at risk

I had a shotgun put in my face literally

So all is not as black and white as you seem to believe

You have not answered my question. Please do so. You claimed that Dershowitz's strategy has been used before. In what case has an accused lawyer waived his legal rights? I'd be interested in knowing the specifics and I'm betting that you can't name such a case.