OneMoreFarang

Personally I think Andres thought something like: Why should I spend my time with answering questions of the police from a country far away? If they want to arrest me then bring it on.

Really? As far as I see he signed a statement so that the case doesn't drag on forever. It's like if my gf accuses me I looked at another girl. Option a: "sure, sorry, I don't do it again" Option b: nagging, nagging, nagging....

It seems he is a little clumsy. And for that reason people don't believe him. Does that mean he is guilty? I don't think he ever had a realistic chance to convince "the public" that he was innocent. Why was it up to him to prove that anyhow? Why didn't "the public" ask his accuser: Where is the evidence for your accusations?

I wonder how you and the UK public would have reacted if he would have used the UK intelligence and security services to check all the girls which he would possibly consider to have sex with.

And because of that terrified palace we will never see the case in a court of law. I would have liked to see all the evidence that shows Andrew is guilty. And I would have liked to see if anybody who accused him of being guilty would have apologized if it was not proven that he is guilty.

I hope they are happy with their way of life. And I hope they won't complain in Thailand or any other country about all those unfair regulations with work permits, visas, paying taxes, etc. It is easy to work in Thailand or many other countries for a month or two. It is not so easy to do that same i.e. for a year in the same place. If they have i.e. a baby, what will they do? Still move every couple of month to another country to another hotel? All that doesn't mean people shouldn't try to live the way they want. But it is also a good idea to look at reality and the legal situation. Maybe it is more complicated then you think...

Maybe you are interested in something like this: https://shop.smarthome-europe.com/en/peripheriques/5132-sonoff-smart-din-rail-power-meter-main-unit.html

1. Did he have sex with her? As far as I know she says it happened and he says it didn't happen. As far as I know there is no prove that it happened. 2. Did he know she was "trafficked"? Did he even have reason to suspect that maybe she was trafficked? He probably met thousands of girls at that time. Should he have checked all of them to avoid being accused?

No, I don't avoid those fact. I look at the situation from another angle than you do. For me it seems you look at it from a purely American legal point of view. And, without knowing the laws from over there, I guess you are legally correct. I look at the situation from a layman's point of view. Is a guy guilty because he had possibly sex with a girl in 2001 in the UK when she was 17 year old? How many other guys had sex with a 17 year old girl in that year in the UK? Are they all guilty?

I don't know how he lives. But somehow I doubt that now he has to think twice if he can afford a nice house and steak and cake everyday. He just has a couple of millions less in assets but still more than enough money to live a luxury life.

Yes, correct. But does that make him guilty in this case?

Why? If he is innocent why should he settle? Personally I think his family didn't want to see him anywhere in court because of their reputation. The settlement is no prof that he is guilt. It is only a prove that he and/or his family didn't want more publicity. And maybe he is guilty, and maybe not.

Yes, and he doesn't admit anything.

Really, does nobody believe lots of girls would line up to have sex with a prince, regardless of his age?

Do you really think Andrew used those intelligence and security service to get details about every girl he possibly shagged?

I think we can see both points. There is the law and there is reality. I.e. officially prostitution is illegal in Thailand. But people told me it exist. Lots of people disagree with certain laws. That obviously does not mean these laws don't exist. They do exist and people get into trouble for not following these laws. And at the same time: Are these laws just and up to date?

He is not a nice person and maybe an idiot. But does this make him guilty?

Likely there will be another update which will fix that problem. And maybe that new update is released already and maybe not (yet). Check all relevant drivers like USB drivers, maybe drivers for the keyboard/mouse, etc. If you want to ask the experts then do it here: https://superuser.com/

Did you ever ask a professional how much it cost to professionally respray the roof of a car (and maybe additionally some other parts)? If I would own a nice car with original paint then I wouldn't want a cheap Somchai shop to repair it and my car loses a lot of value. I understand that the OP doesn't want to spend more than necessary. But professional work is not cheap - even in Thailand.

And obviously we all believe statements which people sign after lots of lawyers made up that text and probably "optimized" it for days. Yeah, sure.

Basically behaviour reminiscent of a large portion of the expats in Thailand? No! I don't know anybody here who is "asking himself whether all of this was worth it..." And if we would ever ask that ourselves the answer would be: Sure! But in these so called politically correct times some of us try to pretend that having sex with lots of pretty young girls is not the primary reason for the existence of men. I suggest a review of biology and spreading the genes.

The concept. She voluntarily visited Epstein. She wanted to visit Epstein and his friends. How much "competence" does anybody need to decide to visit somebody? In the USA people are legally allowed to drive cars at the age of 16. Obviously they must be competent enough to do that. But then some people pretend they are not competent enough to decide if they want to visit a rich guy or not. Strange.

And did he ever have a realistic chance to defend himself? It seems a huge part of the public made up their mind that he is guilty. He did it. He is rich and lazy and an uncool guy. He must be guilty! Obviously I don't know if Andrew decided himself to make a deal or if his family convinced him that they don't need that kind of publicity. Could anybody realistically prove that Andrew had sex with her? Was anybody in that room and see it? And don't court cases normally work in the way that the accuser or prosecution has to prove that the accused did something wrong? Why does he have to prove that he didn't have sex with her? How can he prove that? Again, I am no fan of that guy. He isn't a likable person. But that doesn't mean he is guilty.

And because she said that does this mean it is true? I didn't follow all the articles about her but as far as I know nobody ever forced her to visit Epstein. Nobody ever forced her to go on a private plane with him. And nobody ever forced her to have sex with anybody. For me it seems she wanted to make money and she wanted to live the luxury life. And it seems at that time she had no problem with providing massages and/or having sex with some rich, famous and powerful guys. To bring this situation nearer to here lets imagine the following: A rich guy goes to Nana and buys lots of drinks. Then he tells some girls: I have a party tonight together with my rich friends. Who wants to come and entertain us? I am sure lots of girls will do that because they want to do that. And maybe a few days later he tells them: Today we fly with my private jet to an island for another party. Who wants to come? I am sure lots of girls will go (again). And will they, maybe 10 or 20 years later, talk about that rich guy who wanted to have sex with them. And he did it again and again and it was so horrible. And I participated again and again. It was my free will...

I think it is interesting that you describe a woman who deliberately destroys the life of a legally innocent person as smart. Words like nasty come to my mind. Nobody forced her to have sex with Andrew - if it ever happened.