"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2019 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:53, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 08:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend
several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some
fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What
he did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I
believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly
photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?


The photograph does not show sexual activity. In fact, it proves
nothing at all. There's no need to photoshop such a picture, unless
you want to display it on your wall as a proud memento of meeting a
Prince. If such things please you.

Hasving photoshopped quite a lot, the differences in shadow and height
and context all show up clearly

I think you need to explain your reasoning more carefully.

It looks to me like an image originally on film taken with a compact
camera where the inbuilt flash is to the left of the lens. This puts
shadows on the right hand side of all objects in the field of view.

If the negative still exists and is in sequence with others from that
night then it would be definitive (or show that there was a very complex
and long planned conspiracy against him).

Andrew agrees that he visited Epstein many times. The girl visited
Epstein many times. The fact that both appear on a photograph is not
proof that he had any sexual contact with her.

Especially when its faked.

Prince Andrew said in the interview that his advisers (and presumably he
can pay for good advisers) tell him that it is impossible to tell
whether or not it is faked because it is a photograph of a photograph
and you'd need to locate the original.

If you see a room in which a person cast a shadow in one direction and
another person is clearly lit up from the other side, and the person who
is in it is clearly taller than the person she is next to despite being
allegedly 6" shorter...

Are we talking about the same photo?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...nterview#img-3

She is very clearly at least 4" shorter than he is in this photo.
(and we cannot see if she is wearing heals)

And his pot belly doesnt look quite right overlapping her image.

And what is supposed to be his left hand around her body
would need a much .longer arm than his visible right arm.

The skin tones are quite different too, particularly with the hands.

And being photographed with someone who is clearly happy
to be there proves nothing about illegal activity.

And it wouldnt be surprising if he assumed she was 18
and didnt ask to see her birth certificate before ****ing her.