AOL conveniently left out the homosexual nature of the attack and subsequent murder.
Liberal publications always slander the heterosexuals for their anti-gay bias but seem to always leave out any negative stories related to gays (and Muslims).
Typical slanted Marxist press.
My, my. Seems to be quite a lot about gays in the news lately. The story’s bad enough as reported in AP, but for a cherry on top, he was trying to bust Bandar’s cherry, and the lowly peon refused to put out. Hutzpa.
Here is the BBC link that someone was kind to provide, but whose post I can no longer find: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11492867
According to the article:
“Before his trial began at the Old Bailey, Prince Saud bin Abdulaziz bin Nasir al Saud made strenuous efforts to keep the question of his homosexuality secret.
The 34-year-old prince admitted he had assaulted his manservant, Bandar Abdulaziz, but denied murder.
His barrister, John Kelsey-Fry QC, argued the question of sexuality was irrelevant to the case and pointed out homosexual acts were a “mortal sin” under Islamic sharia law.
Mr Kelsey-Fry said if the prince was outed as a homosexual he could face execution in his native Saudi Arabia.
Jonathan Laidlaw QC, prosecuting, argued that if he was convicted and recommended for deportation after serving his sentence he would be able to claim asylum in Britain by arguing that his life was in danger, whether or not he actually was gay.
He said it was not for a defendant “to edit the prosecution evidence”.
Bandar Abdulaziz, who was found beaten and strangled to death in the Landmark Hotel, in central London Bandar Abdulaziz was an orphan
Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia expert with Human Rights Watch, said homosexuals had in the past been executed but it was usually for rape and he said a prince would be immune from court action.”
But if he’s sentenced to life in prison, shouldn’t he be dead after serving his sentence? I’m just sayin’.