Prince Andrew -Well that's a shock

Expat Smoggie said:
we shouldn't forget that there were many others in the Epstein circle, including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Bill Gates. Clinton as we all know is a serial rapist, while Gates-- according to a few in the know has kept his ex in the dark on his 20 year relationship with a Chinese woman in Beijing whom he had a child with. Trump meanwhile, like Clinton et al visited Epstein's nest back in the 80s and 90s. However, the American authorities have laid off these three-- why? no will ever know because money talks and mainstream politics is so corrupt. Does anyone really believe that he really hung himself?
Click to expand...
So how does this exonerate Andrew?
 
deganya said:
How is it different?
Click to expand...
Joint enterprise is where you both were involved in a murder but it's hard to distinguish who did the killing, ( say two people attacking another person and he dies) Andrew just visiting Epstein doesn't mean make him guilty by association, just stupid.
 
The Royal Family have gone right down in my eyes... particularly the Queen, it's like she's hiding him away

Then Prince Charles supporting those Climate Loons - protests are fine, but what they are doing is mad

But i'm 'historically' from an Irish Catholic background, so I guess my family history isn't exactly Royalist
 
Ex pfc wintergreen said:
Joint enterprise is where you both were involved in a murder but it's hard to distinguish who did the killing, ( say two people attacking another person and he dies) Andrew just visiting Epstein doesn't mean make him guilty by association, just stupid.
Click to expand...
You said there's no such thing as guilty by association, but joint enterprise is exactly that.
Your interpretation is not quite right, but I agree that just visiting Epstein doesn't make him guilty. That's why it's such a controversial law.

There are cases of people being sent down for murder, and not being involved at all. A lad gives his mates a lift to the kebab shop, hes waiting in the car, one of the lads sees someone hes in dispute with, a fight breaks out, man dies. Man charged with murder and his mates and the driver were charged with joint enterprise. Got 10 years each I think.
 
deganya said:
You said there's no such thing as guilty by association, but joint enterprise is exactly that.
Your interpretation is not quite right, but I agree that just visiting Epstein doesn't make him guilty. That's why it's such a controversial law.

There are cases of people being sent down for murder, and not being involved at all. A lad gives his mates a lift to the kebab shop, hes waiting in the car, one of the lads sees someone hes in dispute with, a fight breaks out, man dies. Man charged with murder and his mates and the driver were charged with joint enterprise. Got 10 years each I think.
Click to expand...
People are saying Andrew is guilty just because he hung around with Epstein,, that's the guilt by association I was referring to.
 
Deganya I think you might be referring to felony murder which is an American crime when someone dies whilst committing a felony the whole gang is guilty of felony murder.

Joint liability usually refers to crimes such as negligence on a corporate scale where someone dies, for instance, whilst in the care of a company. The liability can be joint if multiple people were in charge of the activity or planned the activity.

There is no such thing in legal terms as guilty by association.
 
I'm pretty sure that joint enterprise is UK law. I agree that there is no legal term as guilty by association , but joint enterprise is the nearest thing to it, as shown by the example I gave above.
 
That wouldn't be joint enterprise unless both parties planned the attack. If its incidental there is no joint venture.
 
The example I gave was the subject of a Jimmy McGovern play. And joint enterprise came into play. The driver played no part other then to give a lift.

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC One - Common

Writer Jimmy McGovern's drama based on the UK's controversial joint enterprise law.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
deganya said:
The example I gave was the subject of a Jimmy McGovern play. And joint enterprise came into play. The driver played no part other then to give a lift.

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC One - Common

Writer Jimmy McGovern's drama based on the UK's controversial joint enterprise law.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Yeah I am aware of that but much like feeling murder in the US with almost exactly the same circumstances the defendant was released after conviction.

Giving the lift in those circumstances wouldn't result in a conviction. Its a screen play not real life.

In any event we are arguing a technicality.
 
Laughing said:
Deganya I think you might be referring to felony murder which is an American crime when someone dies whilst committing a felony the whole gang is guilty of felony murder.

Joint liability usually refers to crimes such as negligence on a corporate scale where someone dies, for instance, whilst in the care of a company. The liability can be joint if multiple people were in charge of the activity or planned the activity.

There is no such thing in legal terms as guilty by association.
Click to expand...
I actually thought it was called joint entrrprise as well. There is definitely a case where a guy gave a lift to his friend to commit a burglary and his friend killed the homeowner and both the driver and the actual murderer were charged with murder. I’ll keep looking but In the meantime I have found this which is similar….

www.bbc.com

In the US, you don't have to kill to be a murderer

Police shot dead a burglary suspect, but his 15-year-old accomplice will go to prison for the murder.
www.bbc.com
 
That's felony murder fatcat and the case would have hinged on whether the accomplice took part in the initial crime. If he was just giving a lift, unaware that a crime was going to be committed they are not guilty of felony murder though some defendants have gone to jail when they need they knew nothing about the crime about to happen but that is, generally because the jury didn't believe them.

Is a draconian measure and its often abused in the states and its in line with stand your ground
 
Expat Smoggie said:
Clinton as we all know is a serial rapist
Click to expand...
Really? Do "we all know" that? There have definitely been allegations, but none of them are proven as far as I can tell.

Also, there's no evidence Clinton was actually "in the Epstein circle." He accepted trips on Epstein's private jet several times to Africa, Asia and Europe in connection with the work of the Clinton Foundation.

Don't forget that Epstein, just like Jimmy Saville and other high profile people who turned out to be paedophiles, liked to get themselves involved in and/or donate to various charitable efforts as a way to gain a veneer of respectability, because it helped to cover for their nefarious activities. It also have them a chance to hobnob with the rich and powerful which played into their highly egotistical natures.
 
Liamo said:
Don't forget that Epstein, just like Jimmy Saville and other high profile people who turned out to be paedophiles, liked to get themselves involved in and/or donate to various charitable efforts as a way to gain a veneer of respectability,
Click to expand...
That’s true but it forgets one key thing

as Andy stayed with him AFTER he was a convicted Sex offender.

Unlike saville there was no element of doubt at that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top