And wears black socks with shorts.It gets worse, apparently he used iron covers and pink castle tees
And wears black socks with shorts.It gets worse, apparently he used iron covers and pink castle tees
He hasn't tried to put any argument for his innocence, but just tried to weasel out of any charge on any technicality he could. Maybe if he had shown any gumption he could show up and proved his innocents rather than hide behind mummy's skirt. He was and stayed friends with a proven pedophile even after he was found guilty.. classy
And wears black socks with shorts.
He’s had a chance to put his side of the story. It went terribly in a pre prepared interview. ? anyoneHe hasn’t been charged with anything - the law courts haven’t charged him , the police haven’t charged him - this is a civil case being brought forward by one single lady and it’s looking like to be a case of her word against his.
Right now he is guilty by association by the media and one single photo
He’s had a chance to put his side of the story. It went terribly in a pre prepared interview. ? anyone
the use of the Epstein gagging order defence is shameful. Even his own family don’t believe him, hence no longer an HRH
Yes just suppose, he can’t remember the person but can remember where he was when he couldn’t remember the person. Very specific about what he could recallJust suppose he is innocent and has no recollection of the person why should he need to prove anything?
Trial by tabloid. Certainly sells newspapers!Just suppose he is innocent and has no recollection of the person why should he need to prove anything?
There will be no trial by jury. The civil case though. The burden of proof is less. OJ got off on a criminal trial, found culpable in a civil trial. He was hard done by also ?Trial by tabloid. Certainly sells newspapers!
And give ammo to 'Royaly Haters'.
As far as I know, US Civil cases can be 'by Jury'. Agree re burden of proof though.There will be no trial by jury. The civil case though. The burden of proof is less. OJ got off on a criminal trial, found culpable in a civil trial. He was hard done by also ?
I was on the same Lynx squadron as him at Portland in the 80’s. A few of the older guys that had also worked with Charlie in previous years said their personalities were like chalk and cheese. Not hard to guess which one they thought was the friendliest.Glad the biggest free loader in modern times has finally got his come uppance. Was on same ship as him for short time what a complete w anchor to say the least the very least.
Did he not refuse to even be interviewed by the US investigating authorities? He certainly hasn't cooperated, other than giving his side to the media.He hasn’t been charged with anything - the law courts haven’t charged him , the police haven’t charged him - this is a civil case being brought forward by one single lady and it’s looking like to be a case of her word against his.
Right now he is guilty by association by the media and one single photo
Many seem to be forgetting that although she may have been 17 when the "photo" was taken, she wouldn't have been illegal in this country (which is from where the photo being pushed about and is supposed to have been taken).Did he not refuse to even be interviewed by the US investigating authorities? He certainly hasn't cooperated, other than giving his side to the media.
Many seem to be forgetting that although she may have been 17 when the "photo" was taken, she wouldn't have been illegal in this country (which is from where the photo being pushed about and is supposed to have been taken).
It may be distasteful, but not illegal.
Not to mention Elvis and Pricilla
And Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith. QUOTE]
Well she was just 17 you know what I mean .
I'm not on his side but why would he if there was no criminal charge involving him?Did he not refuse to even be interviewed by the US investigating authorities? He certainly hasn't cooperated, other than giving his side to the media.
I'm not on his side but why would he if there was no criminal charge involving him?