• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

Quite frankly, if friend of mine got into trouble and ended up in prison, I am sure I would write to them and visit them. If their crime was unspeakable, like Epstein's, then I would probably take the trouble to confront them in person to say, what were you thinking but I'm sorry, I can no longer be your friend. Why is that considered a likely tale when Andrew did just this with Epstein?
 
They didn't say they were teetotal they said they didn't drink, and might have the odd martini when out and about (hello? Good manners?)

I think it's been a long time since accepting alcohol you don't want was required anywhere for good manners. Nowadays, people can politely say, "water, still, no ice, please" and consider their responsibilities to etiquette well-discharged.

And what 1%-er can't un-ass a Shirley Temple or Arnold Palmer for visiting royalty?

"Honor demanded that I spend some time mentoring this nouveau-riche amateur, and educate him on the ways of the true global elite. I accepted a martini from him once, because he didn't know any better and I didn't want to embarrass him in front of the other guests. But rest assured, I corrected his mistake in private, and he never committed that same gaffe again! ... I kinda wish I'd said something to him about the child-molestation."
 
Quite frankly, if friend of mine got into trouble and ended up in prison, I am sure I would write to them and visit them. If their crime was unspeakable, like Epstein's, then I would probably take the trouble to confront them in person to say, what were you thinking but I'm sorry, I can no longer be your friend. Why is that considered a likely tale when Andrew did just this with Epstein?

If it were a life-long friend then maybe a cup of coffee or a meal. But probably not. I have lots of friends I haven't talked to in over a year. My experience is that among adults it is not common to explain why we are no longer friends or why we haven't talked in a bit.

But even if I felt it necessary, I would not stay at their home, hotel, place of business or palatial estate.

And let's remember we are talking about a convicted sex offender. I have broken off friendships for much, much less.
 
He is trying to suggest the photograph is doctored,
I thought he said - effectively - that it's a scan of a film photograph, and people who looked at it couldn't say whether it was doctored or not. Presumably the original negative would clarify the matter.

maybe he has never gone upstairs in Maxwell House.

People seem to be missing the fact that this the house in question, where it seems the photo was taken:



With the garage obviously on the ground floor, I would expect the main living space to be on the first floor, and the bedrooms upstairs. I doubt anyone who visited socially would have hung out in the garage, but being on the first floor only would still mean they'd not been upstairs to the second.
 
Last edited:
Now some discrepancy about when Prince Andrew first met Epstein. Prince Andrew was claiming it was 1999, but now a letter from 2011 written by his private secretary says it was the early 90s.

A claim by Prince Andrew during his controversial BBC interview to have first met the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 1999 has been thrown into doubt after it emerged that the duke’s previous chief of staff said the two men met in “the early 1990s”.

The claim was made by Alastair Watson, the prince’s private secretary for nine years until 2012, who wrote a letter to the Times in 2011 in order to reject reports that the Duke was a friend of Saif Gaddafi, son of the former Libyan dictator.

Addressing reports at the time about the prince’s relationship with Epstein, Watson said the two men were introduced in the early 1990s and that “insinuations and innuendos” about Andrew were without foundation.

That would suggest he had the job between 2003 and 2012. How would he know about events in the early 1990s other than by hearsay?
 
Last edited:
What rubbish.

If they said they don't eat meat how many bacon sandwiches a week are they allowed?

You need to distinguish between the literal and the vernacular.

If someone tells you, 'I don't wear a hat' and someone manages to produce a photo of that person wearing a sombrero, on holiday in Marbella with a fierce sun blazing down, are they lying or are you being obtuse, pretending you did not understand what they meant?
 
You need to distinguish between the literal and the vernacular.

If someone tells you, 'I don't wear a hat' and someone manages to produce a photo of that person wearing a sombrero, on holiday in Marbella with a fierce sun blazing down, are they lying or are you being obtuse, pretending you did not understand what they meant?

Most people would say I occasionally drink or I socially drink, as I do when asked. I would not respond that I don't drink.
 
You need to distinguish between the literal and the vernacular.

If someone tells you, 'I don't wear a hat' and someone manages to produce a photo of that person wearing a sombrero, on holiday in Marbella with a fierce sun blazing down, are they lying or are you being obtuse, pretending you did not understand what they meant?

And if someone says "I'm not a convicted sex offender" but you find just one case where they were convicted is that not lying?
 
You need to distinguish between the literal and the vernacular.

Prince Andrew needs to distinguish between the literal and the vernacular. "I don't drink" was supposed to be a rebuttal to the allegation that he drank at an Epstein party. It only works as a rebuttal if it's literally true that he doesn't touch the stuff. Politely declines when offered. Orders an Arnold Palmer when everyone else is ordering cocktails. Opts for water instead of wine, etc.

If it turns out that he does, in fact, drink on occasion? Out of politeness, perhaps? Then the rebuttal fails and we're back to the unrebutted allegation.
 
I thought he said - effectively - that it's a scan of a film photograph, and people who looked at it couldn't say whether it was doctored or not. Presumably the original negative would clarify the matter.



People seem to be missing the fact that this the house in question, where it seems the photo was taken:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_335705dd59d92d5166.jpg[/qimg]

With the garage obviously on the ground floor, I would expect the main living space to be on the first floor, and the bedrooms upstairs. I doubt anyone who visited socially would have hung out in the garage, but being on the first floor only would still mean they'd not been upstairs to the second.
I am fairly sure he said he had never been upstairs in the house. Although that could according to Vixen's vernacular mean he has never been upstairs apart from a few times to shag young girls to be polite.
 
I am fairly sure he said he had never been upstairs in the house. Although that could according to Vixen's vernacular mean he has never been upstairs apart from a few times to shag young girls to be polite.

OK, OK, let's just take a litigious ex-call girl's word for it that Andrew literally tore off her clothes and raped her on Ghislaine Maxwell's bed. In fact, he is so stupid he posed for a happy photo with her before so doing.
 
OK, OK, let's just take a litigious ex-call girl's word for it that Andrew literally tore off her clothes and raped her on Ghislaine Maxwell's bed. In fact, he is so stupid he posed for a happy photo with her before so doing.
He is certainly stupid but she says they had sex in New York, in a London Club toilet and on a private Island. I don't think they did it in this particular house but you might be right.
 

Back
Top Bottom