Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Without hard evidence, it's all hearsay though. And because saying whatever he needs to will provide a personal advantage to himself(lighter sentencing), he has incentive to. Given he's now proven to be a liar(under oath? not sure) how can a court take anything he says into account? He could provide corroborating evidence, but anything he says without backing is going to be highly dubious.
|
You say that like it doesn’t exist.
They have 14 Terabytes of photos and videos of these monsters doing every monstrous thing in the book, and we have millions of emails that are addressing the subject matter plainly.
Take Andrew to the middle of the channel and throw him over the side.
Like, what are we talking about here?
Rule of law does not apply to people with functionally infinite financial resources. It has allowed this to fester and flourish for decades (or centuries, or more) and is not equipped to stop it.
They don’t want their day in court, they just want to get away with it and never admit wrongdoing so they can go back and do it again.
Off with their heads.