Gay Saudi prince 'murdered servant in ferocious attack'

[Shroom Man 777]

Saudi prince 'had a gay massage' before hotel 'murder'
Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud The prince admits killing his servant but denies murder

A Saudi prince accused of murder received an "erotic" massage from a gay masseur, the Old Bailey has heard.

Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud, 34, admits the manslaughter of servant Bandar Abdulaziz in central London's Landmark Hotel, on 15 February.

But he denies murder and a separate count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Mr Al Saud insists he is not gay - but male masseur Louis Szikora said he gave the prince a two-hour "sexual massage".

The massage is said to have happened three days before Mr Abdulaziz, 32, was found strangled in an alleged murder with a "sexual element".

The court was told Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud had carried out several assaults on the victim before he died.

When the body was found the prince claimed his aide had been attacked and robbed three weeks before his death.

But the jury was told Mr al Saud carried out the killing - and injuries including bite marks to Mr Abdulaziz's face showed the "ferocity of the attack to which he had been subjected".

The court heard that before the massage the prince and his servant drank a bottle of Moet champagne and six shots of Sex on the Beach cocktails.

Mr Szikora called the prince "very dashing" and a "thorough gentleman".

He said: "The man I met ultimately did want sexual massage but it is like mixing Nigel Havers with Omar Sharif. You have to build some rapport. You don't walk in the door and then jump on them.

"I don't know what's on their mind. They could be nervous."

He explained: "Middle Eastern gentlemen are not as open about what they want as people in the West, so I have to build that kind of rapport.
'Client confusion'

"Once I felt the rapport was warm I felt able to continue."

The masseur said that Mr Al Saud had requested him personally after seeing him on an "extremely homoerotic" website.

He added that both of them were naked by the end of the massage.

But John Kelsey-Fry QC, defending, suggested he may have got Saud "confused with some other client".

Mr Szikora said: "I don't agree. He told me he is called Saud."

The case continues.

Sometimes... love just bites. YEEAAAAHH!!!!

This is bizarre, but we all know how people of homophobic natures are themselves prone to these kinds of things, sometimes with violent tendencies. So if we can catch Teabaggers teabagging each other in restrooms, then I guess a Saudi Prince getting jerked off before flipping out and killing the crap out of his servant isn't that unexpected. Man, it would've been awesomer if this happened with Saudi King Abdullah himself - when he was kissing cheeks and holding hands with Dubya.

Why aren't we hearing more of this? This is awesome, it should be trumpeted to the world!

[Solauren]

Why are we not hearing more of it?

Cause the Saudi's have Oil.

[Thanas]

Why should we hear more about it? It is not any different than a US captain of industry getting a blowjob and then going on a murdering spree.

[Gil Hamilton]

To be fair, if it was the executive of a huge American company having a gay tryst and then murdering someone, and then getting caught, it would be HUGE news in the United States. Of course, this cat isn't American and changes are the Saudi government/police aren't going to talk about a Saudi royal choking the his servant to death in the midst of a homosexual act, so I doubt much of this will be heard in the US.

Then again, royal in repressive country caught screwing and killing his manservant doesn't really register that much on my "give a shit"-o-meter. It's a freakshow story; one where the Prince will deny it, the Saudi royal family will tell the police to drop the issue, and they will. Whoop-ti-doo.

[Akhlut]

I don't know how much influence King Saud has in the UK, though, Gil. If the UK is really insistent on prosecuting, I don't know how much Saudi Arabia can do about it.

[K. A. Pital]

It is more of a news, because Saudi Arabia is a theocracy with a law that states gays must be put to death. Which makes it a bit different from America, you know.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't know how much influence King Saud has in the UK, though, Gil. If the UK is really insistent on prosecuting, I don't know how much Saudi Arabia can do about it.

You know, I missed the "in London" part. This is alot more interesting a story if a Saudi royal murdered his manservant in a foriegn country. Yeah, that could be a kerfuffle.

[Teebs]

I don't know how much influence King Saud has in the UK, though, Gil. If the UK is really insistent on prosecuting, I don't know how much Saudi Arabia can do about it.

Well considering he's admitting to manslaughter and is being charged with murder, it looks like the UK is pretty keen.

[Norseman]

It is more of a news, because Saudi Arabia is a theocracy with a law that states gays must be put to death. Which makes it a bit different from America, you know.

Only if they confess or if there are four male witnesses to the act itself. That particular bit of Sharia law is why there's a thriving gay scene in Iran.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It is more of a news, because Saudi Arabia is a theocracy with a law that states gays must be put to death. Which makes it a bit different from America, you know.

I don't think it's right to call the KSA a theocracy. The priestly class does not hold any direct power unlike in Iran or in Taleban ruled Afghanistan. It's an absolute monarchy where the ruling dynasty maintains close relationship with the religious establishment and strongly endorses a single religion. In an way not that different from Imperial Russia or many other European states in the 17th century.

[Phantasee]

So he won't get a death sentence in the UK, but he might get one in KSA? Hilarious.

Also: Thanas, you make it sound like something that has happened on the regular.

[Thanas]

Also: Thanas, you make it sound like something that has happened on the regular.

What?

[Phantasee]

Also: Thanas, you make it sound like something that has happened on the regular.

What?

Why should we hear more about it? It is not any different than a US captain of industry getting a blowjob and then going on a murdering spree.

Has this happened more often than I think?

[Sarevok]

It is more of a news, because Saudi Arabia is a theocracy with a law that states gays must be put to death. Which makes it a bit different from America, you know.

I don't think it's right to call the KSA a theocracy. The priestly class does not hold any direct power unlike in Iran or in Taleban ruled Afghanistan. It's an absolute monarchy where the ruling dynasty maintains close relationship with the religious establishment and strongly endorses a single religion. In an way not that different from Imperial Russia or many other European states in the 17th century.

I do not how you define theocracy but take a look at these pages from the Saudi nations constitution. Linka

Some choice quotes.

Article 1
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.

Article 6

Citizens are to pay allegiance to the King in accordance with the holy Koran and the tradition of the Prophet, in submission and obedience, in times of ease and difficulty, fortune and adversity.

It appears to my not at all lawyer eyes that the kingdoms constitution was formulated to use islam as a means to enforce submission to the monarchy. To me it does seem to be a theocratic state in practice. But I would be happy to be corrected on this matter by people more learned than I am.

[Serafina]

Sarevok, by that logic you could argue that the medieval european kingdoms were theocracies, too - they were also set up to use religion in order to enforce loyalty to the king (Dei Gratia and all that).
You have a theocracy if the ruler is also the highest religious authority around. Apparently, that's not the case here - it doesn't say that the king is the islamic equivalent to the pope, it says "god says you should obey the king". Unless it gives that king special religious authority too, it's not a theocracy.

[K. A. Pital]

Sarevok, by that logic you could argue that the medieval european kingdoms were theocracies, too - they were also set up to use religion in order to enforce loyalty to the king (Dei Gratia and all that).
You have a theocracy if the ruler is also the highest religious authority around. Apparently, that's not the case here - it doesn't say that the king is the islamic equivalent to the pope, it says "god says you should obey the king". Unless it gives that king special religious authority too, it's not a theocracy.

In a certain way the medieval monarchies were theocratic. Often they evolved under dual-power rules (the Russian Empire, which people brought up, had a perverse history of the Church being de-facto the second real government power in the state).

[Marcus Aurelius]

In a certain way the medieval monarchies were theocratic. Often they evolved under dual-power rules (the Russian Empire, which people brought up, had a perverse history of the Church being de-facto the second real government power in the state).

The problem with that is that it makes pretty much all historical monarchies which enforced a single state religion theocracies "in a certain way". I think it widens the definition of theocracy too much. Like Serafina wrote, theocracy means that the main religious authorities in the country are also the de facto highest rulers of the country.

[Drooling Iguana]

The problem with that is that it makes pretty much all historical monarchies which enforced a single state religion theocracies "in a certain way". I think it widens the definition of theocracy too much. Like Serafina wrote, theocracy means that the main religious authorities in the country are also the de facto highest rulers of the country.

By that definition Saudi Arabia isn't a theocracy but the UK is.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

In a certain way the medieval monarchies were theocratic. Often they evolved under dual-power rules (the Russian Empire, which people brought up, had a perverse history of the Church being de-facto the second real government power in the state).

The problem with that is that it makes pretty much all historical monarchies which enforced a single state religion theocracies "in a certain way". I think it widens the definition of theocracy too much. Like Serafina wrote, theocracy means that the main religious authorities in the country are also the de facto highest rulers of the country.

If the Russian Empire followed the Byzantine model, the Russian Tsar would have authority over the church, and would also be the highest authority in the church.

[Serafina]

The problem with that is that it makes pretty much all historical monarchies which enforced a single state religion theocracies "in a certain way". I think it widens the definition of theocracy too much. Like Serafina wrote, theocracy means that the main religious authorities in the country are also the de facto highest rulers of the country.

By that definition Saudi Arabia isn't a theocracy but the UK is.

It WOULD be, if the queen was also the de facto highest ruler. But de facto, Great Britain is a democracy, the queen doesn't have much (any?) political power. She might be the highest ruler on paper, but not in the political reality.

[Enigma]

Prince convicted of murder.

Saudi prince convicted of murdering servant in London AFP/HO – Saudi prince, Saud Bin Abdulaziz Bin Nasir al Saud, has been found guilty by a London court of murdering …
by Danny Kemp Danny Kemp – Tue Oct 19, 9:00 pm ET

LONDON (AFP) – A Saudi prince was found guilty by a London court of murdering his servant in a London hotel after subjecting him to a "sadistic" campaign of violence and sexual abuse.

Saud Bin Abdulaziz Bin Nasir al Saud, 34, a grandson of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah through his mother, was accused of beating and strangling Bandar Abdullah Abdulaziz to death on February 15.

The prince faces a possible life sentence when he is sentenced on Wednesday. The jury at London's Old Bailey, also known as the Central Criminal Court, deliberated for only 95 minutes before convicting him.

"The defendant used his position of power over the victim to gratuitously inflict violence upon him over a long period of time," John McFarlane, the Scotland Yard detective who led the investigation, said after the verdict.

"After the victim's body was discovered he made every effort to evade justice, including misleading police by alleging that the victim had been robbed and then trying to claim diplomatic immunity, which he was not entitled to in the UK."

Saud was fuelled by champagne and cocktails when he murdered the 32-year-old in a ferocious attack after the pair had returned from a Valentine's Day night out, the two-week trial heard.

The victim, also a Saudi, was left with severe injuries including bite marks on both cheeks which prosecutors said showed a clear "sexual element" to the killing.

Saud -- whose lawyers argued that he could face the death penalty in Saudi Arabia over the revelations of homosexuality aired at the trial -- showed no emotion as the verdict was read out.

The prince had denied murder and a second charge of grievous bodily harm with intent in relation to an earlier alleged assault in a hotel lift that was captured on CCTV footage. He had admitted manslaughter.

The trial heard that the two men had stayed together at London's Landmark Hotel for nearly a month as part of an "extended holiday" that had also taken them to Italy, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Morocco.

Saud had claimed the pair were friends and that he was heterosexual, but the court heard the prince had ordered gay escorts in London and had frequently looked at websites for gay massage parlours and escort agencies.

Prosecutors said he repeatedly assaulted Abdulaziz and that two brutal attacks were captured on CCTV by the hotel lift. The victim was so worn down by the violence that he let Saud kill him without a fight, they said.

Witnesses had told the court that Bandar -- an orphan who was adopted into the family of a low-ranking civil servant in Jeddah -- was treated "like a slave".

After the killing, the prince spent hours on the phone to an unidentified contact in Saudi Arabia before finally calling his chauffeur to the room, at which point the body was discovered on a bloodstained hotel bed.

Police said he had dragged the body from the bathroom to the hallway and then the bedroom "in an attempt to cover his tracks".

A post-mortem found that Abdulaziz had suffered chipped teeth, heavy blows to the head, injuries to the brain and ears and severe neck injuries consistent with strangulation by hand, the trial heard.

The prince's father, a nephew of King Abdullah, was in court for the verdict.