[quote DeliriaSkibbly]@chaosrabbitland
So tell me, why is it that the best defence Andrew has been able to come up with is either to have the case slung out on a dubious technicality OR to rely on "I can't sweat your honour" and "I was at Pizza Express your honour" ?
"I can't sweat" is not proving much use. The judge has ordered disclosure, Ms Giuffre's lawyers have asked for medical evidence and he can't provide it. How strange.
"I was at Pizza Express" as an alibi is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard because he can't provide any witnesses - NOT EVEN HIS OWN DAUGHTERS - who remember him being there. Given we're talking about the Queen's son and not Fred Jones who works in Asda this seems quite unlikely. Unless, of course, he wasn't there.
Why is it that he cannot advance any other defences ? Why is his case so flimsy ? There's one very obvious answer to that. I'm sure you can work it out.[/quote]
oh i will agree with this , which is why i think he would have been much better to have just admitted yes i slept with her , but she never gave me the impression she wasnt willing , never said she was there under duress , i had thought she was paid to be there , or whatever
by denying hed ever met her of course hes left himself over a barrel
if he had admitted it ,the onus was then on her to prove he knew she was trafficked and unwilling and he then slept with her against her will anyway
his case is flimsy because of his denial her met her ever , her case that he knew she was trafficked is just as flimsy , he just makes it look stronger because he denys he ever met her which we all know yes he did