I think we have a few issues here.
Ball was sentenced, and the sentencing judge noted in his sentencing remarks that he had received testimonials "from some 17 individuals, from widely differing walks of life, each of whom provides a picture of you at various stages of your long life, including currently, and each of whom has, in detail, described your immense positive qualities: a charismatic, empathetic, humble, holy man. Each of them urges me to show you the kindness and mercy which you, in their experience, had shown to them and others, often in the most extreme of circumstances." The names of those 17 testimonial-makers were not stated. The official record of the sentencing remarks is available here:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/r-v-ball-sentencing.pdf
This is standard procedure in the case of sentencing. If the procedure there is the same as it is here, these testimonials would each have stated the maker was aware of the crimes Ball had committed and, typically, would say it was out of character for the man they knew. The judge goes on to mention that he has to achieve justice not just for his victims but also for Ball: a man who had done a lot of good, often at the same time he had done a lot of harm.
It also appears to be the case that back in the 1990s, there were numerous phone calls and "two thousand letters of support...including letters from cabinet ministers and Royal Family". This was said in court at the Old Bailey by prosecutor Bobbie Cheema-Grubb QC, who went on to say that those persons might not have known of the full facts of the case.
The member of the Royal Family was not named in court, and a spokesman for Charles has stated, "The Prince of Wales made no intervention in the judicial process on behalf of Peter Ball."
This is not idle gossip, they are statements made by judicial and legal officers in Court, and I think the circumstances go well beyond speculative, unsubstantiated, gossip. Charles is known to have been a supporter of Ball, and I would like to know what his spokesmen meant by "intervention" and "judicial process". I think the fact that Charles may have made a submission on sentencing, or in the past during the initial investigations, is a valid subject for discussion on this forum, though not, perhaps, in this particular thread.
