Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
So I have not really kept up with this so please excuse me if I am missing something here.
First part:
I fail to understand why he is being labelled as a Pedo/Rapist etc, that is Andrew when from what I can see no seems to be able to prove he did anything?
The commentary on TV etc never mentions any police reports, DNA, the only thing that seems to be mentioned is "Her Words" and a "Photo" that they say people cannot confirm if it's legit or fake??
If that is all there is, then this is another case of a Man being found guilty of something just because a women says so and it's wrong, annoying and quite frankly sickening that again another man has his life ruined because of an allegation.
Second Part (Probably more important):
There is though the other side of it, that there are reports he paid her off after the first time she accused him and made her sign an NDA?
If that is the case, that makes him look real guilty to me because, I am sorry but no man knowing it will basically end his career, reputation etc sign an NDA and payoff a false accuser, so that makes me think there was something that happened??
The mainstream media and anti-royals seem to be saying that "Because he was friends with epstein he is guilty" but if that is the case, why are they not saying the same for everyone that was friends with him, why is it only Andrew?
Am I missing something here, is there more to this than what is being shown on the news etc or is it something that we will probably never know fully what was going on?
|
"I fail to understand why he is being labelled as a Pedo/Rapist etc, that is Andrew when from what I can see no seems to be able to prove he did anything?”
And that’s fine, at worse, absolutely worse, Andrew slept with a girl who was 17 at the time. Now let’s assume that is true - he denies it, but she was over 16 so the ‘pedo’ label is obviously wrong, ‘rapist’, well you would need to show that he knew that the girl was being coerced into doing it, and it was ‘against her will’. If you can't show that, then ‘rapist’ is inappropriate.
""Her Words" and a "Photo" that they say people cannot confirm if it's legit or fake??”
No the photo does seem genuine, so we can conclude that Andrew did meet and knew Guthrie. What else happened is speculation. But any claim that ‘he had never met her’, is palpably wrong.
But it’s the lying, there is simply too much evidence that Andrew kept up some kind of relationship with Epstein even when it became obvious of the type of person he was, but this was denied.
It’s the steady trickle of revelations, things denied and then shown to be likely to be true, that eventually build up and lead to what happened to him. Now I’ve never met the man, he could well be the nicest and most naive person in the world. Or he’s a self-absorbed narcissist who regards himself as better than anyone else and is simply deserving of respect, because!
OK his actions in 1982, yes he did put himself in a position of danger, and could have cried off, so some credit there, but then again did everyone else who was serving at the time.