It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 32
71
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


Dodi's father owns Herrod's of London?


lol that made me laugh mate; its Harrods, lol.

Its cool, im not being arsey or anything; i see you are from the US and obviously wouldnt be expected to know.

Just the thought of a department store called Herrods made me giggle, lol




posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes Dodi's father owns Harrods ...

Also a little known fact is that
Dodi Fayed ... was the executive producer of the film
"Chariots of Fire" 1981 ...It won two "Golden Globe" awards

"Two British track athletes, one a determined Jew and the other a devout Christian, compete in the 1924 Olympics."

And here is link to prove that for Tangerine's benefit


www.imdb.com...


edit on 13-1-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo

edit on 13-1-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Can you link to that? That's illegal. Not the entrapment part, because that isn't entrapment, but the hiring underage girls to do it.


The police in many places don't always follow the rules, and they try to justify a lot of things to help hurt child trafficking, but I don't think personally that violating law to help something is an effective police strategy. I do hope that whatever they do, gets the traffickers of kids put behind bars forever though and I would just shoot the bastards myself, so it's better to let the police handle it..

I couldn't locate the original article, but I did find a ton of other examples of this by looking up entrapment stings for solicitors of prostitution and in most every state the laws are similar in that the police can get around entrapment as long as their own actions do not coerce some to commit the crime. Example, A guy approaches a female undercover officer with cash in his hand and asks for you know, is probably going to get laughed out of court for trying to offer a defense of entrapment or police coercion.

I think maybe the original article may have said the female officers were just ""posing as underage prostitutes"" to catch the child predators who only go for the underage ones, but that sounds like big time entrapment too, but the child predator needs no coercion to commit these crimes, so in that case, It can't possibly be entrapment. The laws vary in every state with some being way more severe for crimes like these than others. Plus there are federal laws about child trafficking that are felonies as well

A defense will have to show evidence or get a Jury to see it as entrapment by showing that without police coercion, the crime would not have taken place.
But then the prosecutor will ask the jury to find the defendant innocent, if everyone on the jury would have agreed to commit this same crime in the exact same scenario.

Getting a jury to all agree to that will be usually difficult at best.

Defense are better off looking for due process violations by police in these stings, and civil rights being violated to get their clients off the hook, rather than just yelling entrapment.

There are also numerous examples of the police not always following the rules to get busts and the way they implement their stings using undercover officers. But they aren't dumb, and so I am sure they got their little star chambers set up right in some places, (figuratively speaking).

Getting the slime ball pimps who target young girls for this kind of societal tragedy is who needs to be loaded up and hauled to the land fill without a proper burial.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Just for the hell of it...

Here is Epsteins pic and details on the Public Sex Offenders Registry.

usvi.nsopw.gov...



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Tangerine




You had no problem bringing up this topic. Now you're claiming you won't provide a valid source for your claim? Here that sound? It's the flush of your credibility.


This is not a court room where you are playing at defence lawyer of the accusation of murder
If it were you would have watched the documentary I posted but you did not

I could spend many years building a case ... to show how the Royal Courts are not impartial when it comes to accusations against the Royal Household ... but I believe you are not interested and I would be wasting my valuable time and energy
because you are not impartial

I already stated that I thought this discussion between you and I was straying off topic and agreed to disagree
However you persist and make it personal by trying to discredit me without even knowing me

This is not a court room ... If you can not be bothered to watch the documentary fine by me






Like I said, you watched it and can't cite the evidence you claim was in it.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




Care to show a valid source for that claim?


In the doc which covers the actual court inquiry with reconstructions / photos etc
Watch the Doc if you are interested



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Dear Tangerine

The evidence is in the doc
Watch it if you are interested



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Tangerine

Dear Tangerine

The evidence is in the doc
Watch it if you are interested



As I've said before, you watched the video and can't cite any of the evidence so I have to conclude there was none to be cited.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: hellobruce




Care to show a valid source for that claim?


In the doc which covers the actual court inquiry with reconstructions / photos etc
Watch the Doc if you are interested


Did the court inquiry conclude that Diana was assassinated on the order of Prince Charles? No.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: hellobruce




Care to show a valid source for that claim?


In the doc which covers the actual court inquiry with reconstructions / photos etc
Watch the Doc if you are interested



Did the court inquiry conclude that Diana was assassinated on the order of Prince Charles? No.


I would say that that means nothing in our twisted justice system.
edit on 15-1-2015 by and14263 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
Did the court inquiry conclude that Diana was assassinated on the order of Prince Charles? No.


I would say that that means nothing in our twisted justice system.

True, hearsay and false claims mean nothing in the justice system, exactly as they should. Or do you think they should mean something?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I just meant that whilst rapist are getting 6 months and financial fraudsters 6 years I cannot trust anything resulting from the justice system.

So if they say Diana wasn't assassinated I cannot believe that.

Justice is a game played by lawyers.

I hope that makes sense to you. I'm sorry if you think my posts are heresay and false claims, not everything can have evidence, hence why my original Diana thread was in RATS.




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Article in the Independent today

Virginia Roberts: 'Sex slave diary' published containing alleged intimate details about Prince Andrew

www.independent.co.uk... eged-encounter-with-fifth-in-line-to-throne-9978015.html



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




Did the court inquiry conclude that Diana was assassinated on the order of Prince Charles? No


I have never said Charles had her "Bumped off"
I did claim Diana had written a letter saying that Charles was planning an "Accident" for her.
I provided links to that letter
My gripe with the inquiry is that this letter was illegally withheld for many years by the police.
The two officers involved subsequently or coincidentally both received Knighthoods

The verdict of the Inquiry was ... Unlawful killing by following vehicles ... and also you said ...the negligence of Diana's driver
I have been trying find the inquiry verdicts actual wording
I know the jury were careful how they worded their verdict
Unfortunately I can not find the final verdicts actual wording ... only the reports in the MSM which did not publish the actual wording ...

So if you say the verdict mentioned the negligence of Diana's driver ... I would appreciate if you provided me with proof of this ... IE The original wording of the verdict

Thank you in advance


edit on 15-1-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
Article in the Independent today

Virginia Roberts: 'Sex slave diary' published containing alleged intimate details about Prince Andrew

www.independent.co.uk... eged-encounter-with-fifth-in-line-to-throne-9978015.html

That one's gone but here's one: Click



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

Thank you for posting link ... mine got 404d



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Well... this disappeared quickly...



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18882294]

Article in the Independent today

Virginia Roberts: 'Sex slave diary' published containing alleged intimate details about Prince Andrew


That one's gone but here's one: Click



Nothing new there! I read all of that a couple of weeks ago.

The same old thing is being regurgitated again and again for the

purpose of sensationalism and the sales of newspapers.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: eletheia




Nothing new there! I read all of that a couple of weeks ago.

The same old thing is being regurgitated again and again for the

purpose of sensationalism and the sales of newspapers.


I'm not sure if there is anything new in the book which has only just been published.

Your right of course in saying all the publicity will help sell books ... I wonder what will be deemed libelous in the book ...



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Lawyers ask for a formal interview under oath with Andrew





top topics



 
71
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join