Scum Found dead

[spen666]

Pled guilty to one charge of soliciting a prostitute and one of procuring a minor for prostitution under a plea deal. Prosecutors had identified over 30 underage girls, some as young as 14, who'd been procured for sex work.

I agree with you on the trial stuff but in terms of claiming he shouldn't be called a bad word, if you want to die on the hill for this one spen, it's an odd one to choose.

I have made it clear in all my posts I am referring to his right to a fair trial on the current allegations & the presumption of innocence in relation to the current trial.

He pleaded guilty to an earlier offence in 2008 & as such is guilty of those & served his punishment for the crimes convicted of. He was on the sex offender register for the rest of his life

[The fact prosecutors claimed over 30 girls were involved is irrelevant as he was only convicted of 1offence (indeed he was only ever charged with 2). The prosecution if they had evidence of 30 girls should have proceeded on that number, not a smaller number. ]

[Max B Gold]

If even Donald Trump starts trying to distance himself, you know he's a bad name.

Didn't they used to be really good mates. It's shameful that he should ditch him in his time of need.

I see he's now grassing up the Clintons via Twitter assisted by the Russian Bots!!

Just because the pair of them used to have private parties with only themselves and 50 or so young girls does not mean they were ever good mates.

When you say young girls you do of course mean underage girls, don't you?

[Redcard]

Upminster, trump is an angel compared to the Kennedys . Does Marylyn Monroe and Mary joe kopechne ring any bells.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

Didn't they used to be really good mates. It's shameful that he should ditch him in his time of need.

I see he's now grassing up the Clintons via Twitter assisted by the Russian Bots!!

Just because the pair of them used to have private parties with only themselves and 50 or so young girls does not mean they were ever good mates.

When you say young girls you do of course mean underage girls, don't you?

I cant comment on the ages of the girls but I can say with certainty they were really great girls, the best girls.

[tuffers#1]

I would indeed have defended Jimmy Saville if he had faced a trial.

That is my job and I am proud to do it.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial.

If you have the evidence that they are guilty, then why are you so upset at letting them gave a fair trial

The Nazis at Nuremberg were given a fair trial and had counsel representing them.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which Britain was a prime mover recognised the right to a Fair Trial as does the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is one of the cornerstones of a free society

When a piece of Scum like Epstein uses the U.S constitution to get away with
Peadophilia , soliciting minors etc , then make sure you defend him without your SOUL spammy666 seems like the devil really has done a deal for your soul already.

But then most legals are a bit ropey when they can be

" The Miami Herald report prompted Nebraska senator Ben Sasse to prod the Justice Department to investigate the plea deal negotiated by Acosta. The deal, in which Epstein pleaded guilty to two state charges of soliciting prostitution from a minor, granted him and his potential accomplices immunity from federal charges. In February, the DOJ announced its inquiry into “allegations that Department attorneys may have committed professional misconduct in the manner in which the Epstein criminal matter was resolved.” Also in February, a U.S. district judge ruled that because prosecutors did not inform victims of the plea or provide the opportunity to testify about it, the deal violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act"
.

https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/in ... stein.html

Fortunately we do not have trials in UK or USA based on random quotes from media.

Red card sets the position out very clearly.


It's rather worrying that some people get so wound up and angry by the idea of accused persons having a fair trial.

Yes but we do have courts that pull up those who violate the law while practising the law

" Also in February, a U.S. district judge ruled that because prosecutors did not inform victims of the plea or provide the opportunity to testify about it, the deal violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act".

[spen666]

When a piece of Scum like Epstein uses the U.S constitution to get away with
Peadophilia , soliciting minors etc , then make sure you defend him without your SOUL spammy666 seems like the devil really has done a deal for your soul already.

But then most legals are a bit ropey when they can be

" The Miami Herald report prompted Nebraska senator Ben Sasse to prod the Justice Department to investigate the plea deal negotiated by Acosta. The deal, in which Epstein pleaded guilty to two state charges of soliciting prostitution from a minor, granted him and his potential accomplices immunity from federal charges. In February, the DOJ announced its inquiry into “allegations that Department attorneys may have committed professional misconduct in the manner in which the Epstein criminal matter was resolved.” Also in February, a U.S. district judge ruled that because prosecutors did not inform victims of the plea or provide the opportunity to testify about it, the deal violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act"
.

https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/in ... stein.html

Fortunately we do not have trials in UK or USA based on random quotes from media.

Red card sets the position out very clearly.


It's rather worrying that some people get so wound up and angry by the idea of accused persons having a fair trial.

Yes but we do have courts that pull up those who violate the law while practising the law

" Also in February, a U.S. district judge ruled that because prosecutors did not inform victims of the plea or provide the opportunity to testify about it, the deal violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act".

No idea what your reply had to do with anything in this debate.

Who has been pulled up for violating the law whilst practicing law?


What is relevance of the US District Judge's ruling to the current allegations or indeed to any criminal allegations.

This ruling does not affect the validity or otherwise of the 2008 conviction which still stands. Indeed it was in a court action by the alleged victims against the prosecutor. It is irrelevant as to Epstein's guilt in either the 2008 case (proven) or the current allegations (not proven)



Why such an issue in everyone being innocent until proven guilty?

[CreamofSumYungGai]

He's not an innocent man, though.

[Redcard]

Presumed guilt is a very dangerous concept. The recent case of a guy fabricating homosexual rape and murder allegations against senior politicians demonstrates this.
Allegations remain just that until proven in a court of law, like it or lump it.

[tuffers#1]

Fortunately we do not have trials in UK or USA based on random quotes from media.

Red card sets the position out very clearly.


It's rather worrying that some people get so wound up and angry by the idea of accused persons having a fair trial.

Yes but we do have courts that pull up those who violate the law while practising the law

" Also in February, a U.S. district judge ruled that because prosecutors did not inform victims of the plea or provide the opportunity to testify about it, the deal violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act".

No idea what your reply had to do with anything in this debate.

Who has been pulled up for violating the law whilst practicing law?


What is relevance of the US District Judge's ruling to the current allegations or indeed to any criminal allegations.

This ruling does not affect the validity or otherwise of the 2008 conviction which still stands. Indeed it was in a court action by the alleged victims against the prosecutor. It is irrelevant as to Epstein's guilt in either the 2008 case (proven) or the current allegations (not proven)



Why such an issue in everyone being innocent until proven guilty?

spen666Level One Boarder

Re: Scum Found deadReportQuoteThanks

Post Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:37 pm

Innocent until proven guilty?

Not a single word of evidence had been heard in any trial against him

So you have changed your story from " any trial against him "
To convicted in 2008
Also.you ignore the fact he used the U.S constitution knowing full well , that he coukdnt be prosecuted on his party island as it was outside of a courts duristiction as per the constitution .

Still you keep peddling your expertise in U.S LAW



He was Scum , He has a right to defend himself in court of law. But so did saville cyril smith & a few other dispicable beasts who have walked on this planet.

I certainky wouldnt be banging on about the fact he was innocent & never had a word of evidence been heard in a court of law.

Quite clearly in 2008 & recently words against him have been heard in court.

Does make me & others wonder why you defend him so passionately

[spen666]

Yes but we do have courts that pull up those who violate the law while practising the law

" Also in February, a U.S. district judge ruled that because prosecutors did not inform victims of the plea or provide the opportunity to testify about it, the deal violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act".

No idea what your reply had to do with anything in this debate.

Who has been pulled up for violating the law whilst practicing law?


What is relevance of the US District Judge's ruling to the current allegations or indeed to any criminal allegations.

This ruling does not affect the validity or otherwise of the 2008 conviction which still stands. Indeed it was in a court action by the alleged victims against the prosecutor. It is irrelevant as to Epstein's guilt in either the 2008 case (proven) or the current allegations (not proven)



Why such an issue in everyone being innocent until proven guilty?

spen666Level One Boarder

Re: Scum Found deadReportQuoteThanks

Post Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:37 pm

Innocent until proven guilty?

Not a single word of evidence had been heard in any trial against him

So you have changed your story from " any trial against him "
To convicted in 2008
Also.you ignore the fact he used the U.S constitution knowing full well , that he coukdnt be prosecuted on his party island as it was outside of a courts duristiction as per the constitution .

Strangely enough he was being held in custody pending a trial for the allegations ..so kind of blows a hole in your claim


Also, if it's not a crime in a particular location it's not a crime there

Still you keep peddling your expertise in U.S LAW

Please tell me where I have ever claimed to be an expert in US Law?

Is this state law, if so which state, or is it Federal Law you suggest I claim an expertise in?

Would my being admitted as an attorney at the New York Bar (having sat the NY State Bar Exams make a difference to my claimed expertise?

He was Scum , He has a right to defend himself in court of law. But so did saville cyril smith & a few other dispicable beasts who have walked on this planet.

So what crimes were Cyril Smith or Jimmy Saville CONVICTED of?

You shoot yourself in the foot claiming people have a right to defend themselves...then immediately going on to judge those who were never given that right


Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

Or does that only apply to people you like?

I certainky wouldnt be banging on about the fact he was innocent & never had a word of evidence been heard in a court of law.

I have made it clear I am referring to the current allegations which have not been heard in a criminal court. Why? Because it is true that the allegations have not been heard

I am not & have never expressed a view as to whether he did or did not do the acts alleged in the current allegations WHY? Because like you I have not heard any evidence.

Quite clearly in 2008 & recently words against him have been heard in court.

words & evidence are not the same thing.

Epstein was not proven guilty of the current allegations, irrespective of your lynch mob approach [/quote]

Does make me & others wonder why you defend him so passionately
[/quote]


I have not defended (nor condemned) him.

He is entitled like you or I to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

He has not been proven guilty of the current allegations.

I am not & have not gone beyond that. If you stop behaving like a one man lynch mob, you might just realise that

[tuffers#1]

[quote=spen666 post_id=34933 time=1565586298

What is relevance of the US District Judge's ruling to the current allegations or indeed to any criminal allegations.

This ruling does not affect the validity or otherwise of the 2008 conviction which still stands. Indeed it was in a court action by the alleged victims against the prosecutor. It is irrelevant as to Epstein's guilt in either the 2008 case (proven) or the current allegations (not proven)

[/quote]

[tuffers#1]

spen666Level One Boarder

Re: Scum Found deadReportQuoteThanks

Post Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:37

Strangely enough he was being held in custody pending a trial for the allegations ..so kind of blows a hole in your claim

L

You shoot yourself in the foot claiming people have a right to defend themselves...then immediately going on to judge those who were never given that right


Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

Or does that only apply to people you like?

I certainky wouldnt be banging on about the fact he was innocent & never had a word of evidence been heard in a court of law.

I have made it clear I am referring to the current allegations which have not been heard in a criminal court. Why? Because it is true that the allegations have not been heard

I am not & have never expressed a view as to whether he did or did not do the acts alleged in the current allegations WHY? Because like you I have not heard any evidence.

Quite clearly in 2008 & recently words against him have been heard in court.

words & evidence are not the same thing.

I have not defended (nor condemned) him.

He is entitled like you or I to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

He has not been proven guilty of the current allegations.

I am not & have not gone beyond that. If you stop behaving like a one man lynch mob, you might just realise that
[/quote]
* * * * * * * *
I have never bought a plane so i could have sex with under age minors in the air , so i could avoid the law in the U.S as per ther constitution , i have never bought an Island , where i could avoid prosecution becuase it falls outside of the county that the case is bought.

4 cases against Epstein ended because he used his wealth to avoid prosecution for being the beast he was


As for Lynch mob.

It is the 1 crime that i will never defend

Every other crime can have mitigating circumstances,
yes even murder .

But a grown adults proclivity to putting his winkle inside a minors bodies is the purest form of filth , followed by soliciting said minors to do the same for other scum also.

For me they shouldnt be allowed to have the ability to do so. Emasculation is the 1st step .

Unfortunately there are those in the world who see acts of sexual realtions between a minor & an adult as being defendable in a court of law.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

Spen, you've referred to the 'current' allegations only after you were made aware that this nonce bag was already a convicted sex offender. Your original posts overlooked that fact. I'll copy them up for you so you can see why you are getting taken to task on this.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

Innocent until proven guilty?

Not a single word of evidence had been heard in any trial against him


No doubt those calling him a monster are the same sort of people who were baying for the blood of the 9 Israelis arrested for an alleged rape of an English female.

Turns out she had made it all up.

Just because someone is accused doesn't mean they are guilty of anything

No mention that you're referring to the current allegations here spen.

[spen666]

Carry on your lynch mob mentality.

I have made it clear I am talking about the current allegations.
My first post was poorly worded.

It's still doesn't change the facts that he was convicted of only 1 offence in 2008, so claims about more offences are irrelevant.

Some on here seem to object to Epstein daring to defend himself.

It is for the prosecution to prove him guilty, not the other way round.


He was convicted I. 2008 for one offence & imprisoned & put on sex offenders register.

He has not been convicted of any of the current allegations.

That is factual.


Whether you or I wanted him to be convicted or not is irrelevant. The fact is that he has not been convicted

The fact is that in law in both the UK and USA ( and much of the world) there is a presumption of innocence.

To quote Sankey's judgment in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 is famous for iterating the duty inherent on the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In pertinent part, his judgment stated:

Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen – that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception...

[spen666]

....

As for Lynch mob.

It is the 1 crime that i will never defend

.....

That is proof of your lack of understanding of the law.

I am not defending any crime.


Indeed the current matter is an allegation at this stage. Until a court of law determine a crime gas taken place...it is an allegation.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial & the presumption of innocence.

You like a lynch mob have decided he is guilty before any trial and seek to deny an accused a fair trial.

It matters not 2hat the charge alleged is, everyone is entitled to a fair trial & it is for a prosecutor to prove the accused is guilty, not the other way round.

[tuffers#1]

....

As for Lynch mob.

It is the 1 crime that i will never defend

.....

That is proof of your lack of understanding of the law.

I am not defending any crime.


Indeed the current matter is an allegation at this stage. Until a court of law determine a crime gas taken place...it is an allegation.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial & the presumption of innocence.

You like a lynch mob have decided he is guilty before any trial and seek to deny an accused a fair trial.

It matters not 2hat the charge alleged is, everyone is entitled to a fair trial & it is for a prosecutor to prove the accused is guilty, not the other way round.

Which proves your lack of understanding of a Human
Flaw/Illness.

So called crimes of paedophilia, should NEVER be treated as a crime , but as medical inefficiencies in Human dna & therefore treated by way of emasculation ,
Physical or chemical. Anyone who has this flaw & willingly carries on regardless without medical intervention can then be classed as a criminal.

Still spen you carry on deciding what the morals of law are for an adult sticking his genetalia imto a minor.

Weirdo

[Redcard]

Tuffers, I guess you avoid Muslims like the plague then, as they are permitted under Shia law to marry girls as soon as they enter puberty, which could be as young as 12. Muhammad married a girl of 6.

[Flying Hippo]

....

As for Lynch mob.

It is the 1 crime that i will never defend

.....

That is proof of your lack of understanding of the law.

I am not defending any crime.


Indeed the current matter is an allegation at this stage. Until a court of law determine a crime gas taken place...it is an allegation.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial & the presumption of innocence.

You like a lynch mob have decided he is guilty before any trial and seek to deny an accused a fair trial.

It matters not 2hat the charge alleged is, everyone is entitled to a fair trial & it is for a prosecutor to prove the accused is guilty, not the other way round.

O tempora, o mores!

If a straightforward explanation of the fundamental precept of a civilised society, the bedrock of western liberalism, is vehemently undermined then it's entirely possible that a civilised, liberal society is not what the antagonists want.

[tuffers#1]

Tuffers, I guess you avoid Muslims like the plague then, as they are permitted under Shia law to marry girls as soon as they enter puberty, which could be as young as 12. Muhammad married a girl of 6.

Does marriage mean penatrative sex or any other sex ?
Do you know what a barmitzvah means or indeed batmitzvah in judaism ?

It means entering adulthood for a man or a woman.
Basically hitting puberty .
Joseph was much much older than mary who had just had her batmitzvah

P.S i feel the same about all paedophilia
Although i never saw any of the Tommy tommy brigade outside of crewe alex' or man city or chelsea or celtic or rangers protesting there abuse of power by adults over children , or does abusing little boys not count in your eyes ?
Or Only little girls being touched by muslim men ?

I also never saw them at the norwich trial when the gamg of 6 or 7 white english people were being tried
funny that , did you protest in any way or bring that case to anyones attention ?

Funny i never saw them outside of catholic churches
While it was all going on there to.

Still you keep it up Redcard

[Lucky7]

Tuffers, I guess you avoid Muslims like the plague then, as they are permitted under Shia law to marry girls as soon as they enter puberty, which could be as young as 12. Muhammad married a girl of 6.

King John of England married 12-year-old Isabella of Angoulême

Re your observation re Muhammad it’s alleged not fact
Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234),Fill your boots and educate yourself a bit more

You sound like one of those typical I’m not a racist but

[spen666]

[....?

Which proves your lack of understanding of a Human
Flaw/Illness.

So called crimes of paedophilia, should NEVER be treated as a crime , but as medical inefficiencies in Human dna & therefore treated by way of emasculation ,
Physical or chemical. Anyone who has this flaw & willingly carries on regardless without medical intervention can then be classed as a criminal.

You are still missing the important point.


Without a fair trial how is it decided who is punished?

If. I say you are a nonce does that mean you should be castrated without any further evidence or opportunity to defend yourself?

That seems to be what you are proposing

Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights prevent punishment without due process

Yes even oppressive regimes like China, Iran and Saudi are parties to the Universal Declaration

Still spen you carry on deciding what the morals of law are for an adult sticking his genetalia imto a minor.

Weirdo

Oh and if you had engaged your brain even slightly, you may have noticed I have not expressed and view on morals.

I have stuck to stating the legal position

You don't seem to want to debate or face facts, so carry on without me

[tuffers#1]

Spen
If Epstein didnt have the money to buy the plane or the Island he would have done what he did & been caught tried & convicted.

His wealth gave him the power to abuse the justice system

That is not a Free & Fair trial,
Do you not get that point ?

He is Scum He is Dead
Good riddance.

Stop trying to justify him as some poor
misunderstood creature .
He was not .