- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Notable Epstein Accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre Dies by "Suicide"
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:38 pm to BigPerm30
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:38 pm to BigPerm30
quote:
And as an attorney, you know her live testimony is always much more convincing than reading transcripts in court or video depositions.
Who did she accuse in her depositions that criminal charges could be brought against? Serious question.
1
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:38 pm to StevieG504
quote:
for some reason
It's my distaste for silliness.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:38 pm to VoxDawg
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Poking logical holes in illogical silliness is doing no such thing
This statement makes you an irrational hack. Yes you are poking holes but your opinion on what is illogical or silliness is just that, opinion. My opinion holds just as much weight as yours does.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:How do you know she didnt have anymore information to give? Can you say that for certain?
If "They" wanted to kill her, why wait until she spills all of the beans she had?
yeah didnt think you could answer that one. You and your silliness is so easily exposed
This post was edited on 4/25/25 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
You have to do damage control at some point, even if it's late. Good help is hard to find.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:44 pm to AuburnTigers
quote:
How do you know she didnt have anymore information to give?
Her deposition is literally online for you to read.
She gave evidence against Maxwell and they convicted Maxwell without her even testifying at trial.
During this longterm civil litigation and being questioned for the criminal investigations of Maxwell and Epstein, we're just assuming she hid all this secret information? Why? How is that the logical position?
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:So you are for certain that she didnt have any other information on any of the other clients?
Her deposition is literally online for you to read.
She gave evidence against Maxwell and they convicted Maxwell without her even testifying at trial.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:46 pm to LChama
That's what Scumocrats do
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
She is now available to cast her vote for the democrats in the midterms.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:48 pm to LChama
quote:
SFP always defending the evil side of every issue
At least he's consistent.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:49 pm to VoxDawg
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:51 pm to AuburnTigers
quote:SFP exits stage right
So you are for certain that she didnt have any other information on any of the other clients?
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:51 pm to AuburnTigers
quote:
So you are for certain that she didnt have any other information on any of the other clients?
quote:
During this longterm civil litigation and being questioned for the criminal investigations of Maxwell and Epstein, we're just assuming she hid all this secret information? Why? How is that the logical position?
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Thats two people who she gave testimony against because they were on trial.
criminal investigations of Maxwell and Epstein
Im talking about the clients. Dont avoid the fricking question. Can you be certain she didnt have info on any of EPSTEINS CLIENTS?
This post was edited on 4/25/25 at 8:55 pm
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Her deposition is literally online for you to read. She gave evidence against Maxwell and they convicted Maxwell without her even testifying at trial. During this longterm civil litigation and being questioned for the criminal investigations of Maxwell and Epstein, we're just assuming she hid all this secret information? Why? How is that the logical position?
Have you ever considered that she was allowed to nuke Maxwell but to never grenade those that are soon to be brought into the “lime light”. Do not go “strawman/whataboutism” crap on me. I have been following this pretty closely. There are to many coincidences.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
Maybe they missed their shot and just sending a message now. Maybe, just maybe, they are a-hole sociopaths with no compunction about killing someone that wronged them. Maybe she killed herself. I have no idea, but there are other possibilities to your irrelevant point.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:56 pm to AuburnTigers
quote:
Thats two people
Yes, but there is no reason why the questions would be limited to just those 2.
quote:
Im talking about the clients
Like Prince Andrew? She gave testimony against him, too.
But she didn't really have any other evidence to give about other clients.
quote:
Can you be certain she didnt have info on any of EPSTEINS CLIENTS?
The probability is extremely, EXTREMELY low.
You're basically arguing every attorney involved (including the prosecutors who were so good they convicted Maxwell without her having to testify) were completely incompetent. Every single one of them.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 8:57 pm to Warboo
quote:
Have you ever considered that she was allowed to nuke Maxwell but to never grenade those that are soon to be brought into the “lime light”.
By whom? Why?
quote:
There are to many coincidences.
Silliness personified
Posted on 4/25/25 at 9:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Her testimony was about Epstein, Maxwell and the procuring of young girls. She hadn't named any clients at this point and she certainly could have.
Isn't her damage against Epstein, et al already done?
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News