Prince Andrew

#1,051
If the Queen “retires“, Charles and William will not protect Andrew. Andrew might be looking to get whatever concessions are available to him and his daughters, as time is running out.
He and Fergie were truly the worst of the litter.
I would bet that in the future, he will be indicted in the USA. (New York AG James is pretty fearless)
or Federal charges...
No wonder, he looks scared.:amuse:
 
  • Like
Reactions: wilding, etudes, Grande Latte and 2 others
#1,052
limom said:
If the Queen “retires“, Charles and William will not protect Andrew. Andrew might be looking to get whatever concessions are available to him and his daughters, as time is running out.
He and Fergie were truly the worst of the litter.
I would bet that in the future, he will be indicted in the USA. (New York AG James is pretty fearless)
or Federal charges...
No wonder, he looks scared.:amuse:
Click to expand...
sometimes when a spouse passes in old age the other passes shortly after. I'm sure the queen is very sad and this is a huge loss for her but she seems pretty tough. no one goes on forever but I don't think she's likely to become ill and step down in the near future. I love that the family is planning to step up and help more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: purseinsanity and jennlt
#1,053
sdkitty said:
sometimes when a spouse passes in old age the other passes shortly after. I'm sure the queen is very sad and this is a huge loss for her but she seems pretty tough. no one goes on forever but I don't think she's likely to become ill and step down in the near future. I love that the family is planning to step up and help more.
Click to expand...
Agreed that she is a tough bird. Plus, her mother lived until 101.
So, who knows?
She has yet to publicly appear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lanasyogamama, etudes, jennlt and 1 other person
#1,054
sdkitty said:
sometimes when a spouse passes in old age the other passes shortly after. I'm sure the queen is very sad and this is a huge loss for her but she seems pretty tough. no one goes on forever but I don't think she's likely to become ill and step down in the near future. I love that the family is planning to step up and help more.
Click to expand...
Yes, especially those in happy marriages that lasted a long time. Hopefully that won't happen here, but I can't imagine what it is like losing the love of my life after knowing him for 83 years or so. Unfathomable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jennlt, sdkitty, CarryOn2020 and 1 other person
#1,056
Piers Morgan on Randy Andy!

She's certainly in a very different class to her son Prince Andrew, whose long-time friendship with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein has cast one of the worst shadows over the Royal Family in modern times.

Andrew insists he is completely innocent of any impropriety regarding Epstein, who took his own life rather than face justice for a shocking litany of appalling sex crimes against underage girls.

He has also emphatically denied claims that he himself had sex with Virginia Roberts, who says she was trafficked by Epstein, on three separate occasions, including when she was 17, and therefore still a minor under US law.

Following a disastrous interview with BBC Newsnight in November 2019, in which he failed to show any sympathy for Epstein's victims, Andrew was forced to announce he was stepping down from public duties 'for the foreseeable future'.

He said then: 'I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide has left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure. I can only hope that, in time, they will be able to rebuild their lives. Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required.'

Well, law enforcement agencies including the FBI made it very clear very quickly they were extremely keen for Andrew to help with their investigations.

But in January 2020, the New York state attorney, Geoffrey Berman, accused the Prince of 'zero cooperation' and not responding to multiple requests by the FBI and US lawyers for an interview.

Andrew, through 'Palace sources', feigned bemusement at this allegation, insisting he was 'more than happy' to talk to them.

Yet oddly, 16 months after his public commitment to do so, he still hasn't done so.

And forgive me for my own bemusement, but if he's so happy to talk to the FBI, and has absolutely nothing to hide, than why HASN'T he talked to them?

It would be as simple as picking up the phone and saying: 'I'm ready for my interview.'

Andrew's ongoing failure to do this, and his silence over all things Epstein since the Newsnight fiasco, is deafening and damning.

Especially as he emerged from hiding this week to speak to the media about the death of his father.

In a surprising, and to my mind highly inappropriate, exchange, he marched out of a private church service straight over to a pool TV reporter who had clearly been instructed to only ask him about Philip.

'We've lost the grandfather of the nation,' Andrew said, adding that it had been a 'terrible loss' and the Queen had said her husband's passing has 'left a huge void in her life.'

Andrew then revealed: 'My father said to me on the telephone a few months ago, 'We are all in the same boat and we must always remember that, but occasionally we, the family, are asked to stand up and show compassion and leadership'. And unfortunately, with my father's death, it has brought it home to me, not just our loss, but actually the loss that everybody else has felt, for so many people who have died and lost loved ones during the pandemic. And so, we are all in the same boat - slightly different circumstances because he didn't die from COVID, but we're all feeling a great sense of loss.'

Hmmm.

I have no wish to criticize a son's feelings on the loss of his father.

But there was something suspiciously pre-meditated and calculated about these supposedly impromptu comments.

And frankly, for Andrew to try to garner the nation's sympathy, using the pandemic as a tool to do so, stank of someone trying to deflect public attention from his own shameful situation.

To understand the full magnitude of the Prince's brass neck, consider today's revelation by the Daily Mail's royal editor Rebecca English that Andrew has demanded he be allowed to wear an Admiral's uniform for the funeral on Saturday.

He was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015 and was due to be promoted to full Admiral on his 60th birthday last year, but 'offered' to defer it until he cleared his name and returned to public duties.

Obviously, he hasn't actually earned either of these titles. He retired from the Navy in 2001 after reaching the lesser rank of Commander.

Yet his request to attend the funeral as an Admiral when he has so far failed to either clear his name or return to public duties is completely outrageous.

How dare he 'demand' anything given his refusal to be interviewed by the FBI about a very serious sex crime investigation?

And of all the things Her Majesty the Queen has to think about this week, the question of what uniform Andrew should be allowed to wear should be so far at the bottom of the list of priorities that it has barnacles clamped to it.

Let me be clear: I have no idea if Andrew's guilty of any criminal offences, or whether he witnessed or has knowledge of any that Jeffrey Epstein committed, or any that his other great friend Ghislaine Maxwell may have committed.

But what I do know is that Andrew's disinclination to expose himself to an FBI interrogation, under oath, about any of it raises significant question marks about his innocence.

And if he wants to tell the world that his father urged him to show 'compassion and leadership' in one of their final conversations, then he could start by showing compassion to Epstein's poor victims and leadership by telling the FBI everything he knows.

Until or if he does, Prince Andrew remains a royal unfit for purpose, and I don't see want to see any more media interviews with him or hear about any more of his 'demands' to wear a bloody Admiral uniform.

www.dailymail.co.uk

PIERS MORGAN: Prince Andrew needs to speak to the FBI

PIERS MORGAN: Forgive me for my own bemusement, but if he's so happy to talk to the FBI, and has absolutely nothing to hide, than why HASN'T he talked to them?
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Love
Reactions: Annawakes, justwatchin, Sol Ryan and 10 others
#1,060
from Jan., 2020:

Can Prince Andrew be forced to co-operate with an investigation in the US?
There are two broad types of legal "investigations" involved.
Firstly, the criminal investigation being conducted by the FBI into Jeffrey Epstein.
Secondly, investigations being undertaken by lawyers acting for accusers of Jeffrey Epstein who are seeking compensation in civil claims against his estate.

Prince Andrew is not under any legal obligation to assist the FBI or lawyers representing Epstein's accusers.
However, under something known as "Mutual Legal Assistance" (MLA), both prosecutors and the lawyers acting for Epstein's accusers can issue a formal request for the prince to give evidence (known as a deposition) in the UK.
In relation to the criminal investigation, this would take place at a magistrates' court, almost certainly Westminster Magistrates Court, where it is customarily done.
Prince Andrew would be sworn in and asked questions. The hearing would take place before a judge in private. However, he could exercise his right against self-incrimination and choose not to answer.
In relation to the civil claims, there is a similar process. Again, a formal letter of request must be issued under MLA. The High Court would then appoint an examiner - either an experienced barrister or a "master", a judge who deals with procedural matters before a trial.
Prince Andrew would be required to attend a place and answer questions on oath in a private hearing. Questions would be put by lawyers representing Epstein's accusers, and Prince Andrew would be entitled to legal representation. Again, he could exercise his right against self-incrimination and not answer.

In both the civil and criminal proceedings, Prince Andrew could seek to have any formal MLA request set aside before he is deposed, on the grounds that he has no relevant or material evidence to give.
Will 'depositions' happen?
If it happens, it is all some way off in the future. Statements by US prosecutor Geoffrey Berman and lawyers for Epstein's accusers are putting moral pressure on Prince Andrew to co-operate.
That co-operation could be provided by the prince informally by agreement. This is something that his lawyers are likely to be seriously considering now.
It is significant that neither US prosecutors nor lawyers for Epstein's accusers have yet issued MLA [mutual legal assistance] requests, so there is the opportunity for the prince to co-operate informally.

What if a subpoena is issued in the United States?
A subpoena is an order to compel someone to appear in court or to submit evidence.
If that happens, there is no obligation for Prince Andrew to go to the US and submit to the subpoena.

If he did travel to the US and there is an outstanding subpoena, he could in theory be arrested for contempt of court and taken to a court to answer questions.
It is obviously highly unlikely that he would be arrested. It would be more likely that he would simply be required to go to court and answer questions. Once in court the Prince could exercise his right against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions.
Daniel Sternberg, a barrister specialising in extradition law at Temple Garden Chambers in London, said: "It is important to remember that Prince Andrew has not been charged with any offence in the US. The FBI is investigating whether he has material evidence that could assist in its criminal investigation of alleged sex trafficking.
"In the civil case brought by Epstein's victims, the close friendship between the Prince and Epstein means that the lawyers for Epstein's victims believe his evidence may be relevant to their claims.
"While there is no way to compel Prince Andrew to give evidence in the UK or the US in either the civil or criminal case, his failure to do so does not sit well with his previous public statements that he would help any appropriate law enforcement agency with its inquiries."
However the legal process develops, Prince Andrew's discomfort is likely to increase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chanbal, Mimmy, limom and 1 other person
#1,062
  • Like
Reactions: CarryOn2020
#1,063
This is perhaps going to be an unpopular opinion, but as the age of consent in the UK is 16 Andrew hasn't committed a crime unless there's evidence there have been younger girls involved. Would his own girls really stand by him if there were? I suspect that there are far worse offenders to catch in the Epstein and Maxwell net in the US for ex.

The UK has its own pe*do scandal going back who knows how long. I just have a sense that maybe Andrew is being made to catch flak for others. He already didn't have the best of reputations, doesn't seem overly bright, it's bad what he did, but in exposing him someone is perhaps hoping that the general public are going to think that the Epstein case is really about older teens not below the age of consent, i e not children, and so no public outcry for justice. Which from the info I've been reading is very incorrect.

As Epstein was clearly connected to intelligence services like Mossad and the CIA, I'm also thinking Andrew feels it's more prudent to him staying alive, not to speak :amuse:

I've waited to take up the issue because emotions are riding high after Phillip's illness and death, but there are a lot of questions to be raised concerning other members of the BRF as well. Charles was a very close friend of Jimmy Savile's for years, a man I can't even stand to look at pics of because of how utterly vile he was :sick: A demon incarnate if there ever was one on this earth.

How much did the senior royals know? The BBC knew but did nothing, on the contrary they tried to bury it.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: queennadine and CarryOn2020
#1,064
SomethingGoodCanWork said:
Are lie detector tests reliable? I'm probably wrong about this, but aren't they mainly a US thing?

And thank you to CarryOn2020 for the info above. It seems the issue is that the US authorities want information from Andrew concerning Epstein, not Andrew himself?
Click to expand...


No, lie detector tests are not reliable, which is why they can’t be used as evidence in the US. Andrew is only a potential witness at this point, he has not been charged with anything (yet). At this point the Feds want to talk to him to get info. Usually an immunity agreement is worked out in situations like this. At this point Andrew is not obligated to talk to the Feds, though he repeatedly said that he would be glad to. He can’t be subpoenaed and he hasn’t been charged with anything. After that “car crash” interview on TV, I imagine his lawyers have told him “not another word”. Or maybe just “STFU!”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cat1234, limom, CarryOn2020 and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back