Who are the six victims that were listed in the December document the prosecutor filed to obtain the original detention order against Andrew Tate?
Two of those six are Jasmina and Biatrice, who have stated emphatically and publicly that they are NOT victims.
Two of the victims the Moldovan woman, the addict who reported Andrew’s “raping” her to the “voluntary police” and went home to wherever, and the California bitch on the videos from the CCTV at the Tate residence, the woman whose probably mythical boyfriend is supposed to have called the US Embassy?
But who are the remaining two? Is another victim the old slapper in London who tried to convince the police Andrew had in some way hurt her when, in fact, he just told her to clean up her own vomit and then fired her when she did not?
Why did Nicola Nicolai suggest there may have been an employment dispute?
What about the Ukrainian woman who received help from one of the Tate brothers at the border and later in Romania? The Romanian police raided her home one day at six am, taking away her telephone. The woman made a video in which she said both the brothers helped her and some of her family members. (Tristan Tate went to the border with shoes and coats to help out refugees.) Since men cannot leave Ukraine, those family members would all be female. Are they all victims?
UPDATE: A Romanian judge has ruled that two “victims” who say they are NOT victims really are “brainwashed” because a psychologist says they are. In a real court of law, that point would have to be decided based on extensive interviews and testing by at least one psychiatrist who would then need to testify under oath and be cross-examined, not by a report from a psychologist. It’s amazing that so many online Tate Haters still maintain that this circus is a fair trial.
It’s time to review the material from the time of the arrest. This interview that Frank Valchiria put up is a good place to begin that project.
Conundrum Andrew Tate 