The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3601  
Old 01-27-2020, 05:04 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,157
What on earth is the strategy for dealing with this? Does Andrew think if he doesn't respond, it will just go away? I can't understand why he didn't just agree to be interviewed but stipulate it must be in the UK. If he has nothing to hide, it would be the best PR move for him. If he does have something hide, avoiding scrutiny isn't going to keep it hidden. It just heightens speculation about what his secrets are.

I hope senior royals are putting pressure on him to co-operate because this could drag out for years and be a constant embarrassment to the BRF, distracting the media & public from their work.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3602  
Old 01-27-2020, 05:28 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndral View Post
I suspect Andrew promised to cooperate because he arrogantly believed they’d never dare question him. They tried, he and/or his legal advisors resisted most likely thinking the fact he was asked and did not cooperate would not become public knowledge, and now the US atty. has made Andrew’s resistance public knowledge.
I assume this means Andrew will not be visiting the USA in the near future.
He probably won't.
But there really isn't much the FBI can do about it, should he visit USA.
He has diplomatic immunity, so they can't arrest him or force him to give testament.
He can be denied entry into USA though.

And even if FBI could detain him for questioning I cannot imagine they would. Arrest the son of a foreign head of state of a country that is a close ally? The State Department would have a fit! Keep in mind that Andrew is not wanted, nor are there at present direct evidence to arrest him. (Otherwise we would surely know by now!)
The British government would be forced to react in the strongest possible way in such a scenario.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3603  
Old 01-27-2020, 05:43 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13,387
I'm quite frankly not surprised Andrew hasn't been willing to give evidence or interviews to the FBI after his car crash of an interview with Emily Maitlis...
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
Reply With Quote
  #3604  
Old 01-28-2020, 03:41 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,157
A lawyer representing women who say they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein has urged Prince Andrew to co-operate with an investigation into the financier.
(...)
"I'm glad that Geoffrey Berman has gone public to try to embarrass Prince Andrew, who made one statement and then behind closed doors is doing something very different. The five Epstein victims who I represent are outraged and disappointed at Prince Andrew's behaviour here."

Buckingham Palace said the prince's legal team was dealing with the issue and it would not be commenting further.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51277647


Interview with the lawyer on BBC Newsnight:
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...41963731193857

Interview with the lawyer on Sky News this morning:
https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status...61221958029312
Reply With Quote
  #3605  
Old 01-28-2020, 04:29 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Let me get this right.

It's acceptable for the US to refuse to extradite someone accused of causing the death of teenage motorcyclist Harry Dunn in England, but Prince Andrew MUST go to the US to give evidence? Both individuals 'enjoy' Diplomatic Immunity.

Does anybody else see this as strangely 'unequal' ?
Reply With Quote
  #3606  
Old 01-28-2020, 05:07 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,246
I think both individuals are trash and hiding behind their privilege.
Reply With Quote
  #3607  
Old 01-28-2020, 05:32 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Let me get this right.

It's acceptable for the US to refuse to extradite someone accused of causing the death of teenage motorcyclist Harry Dunn in England, but Prince Andrew MUST go to the US to give evidence? Both individuals 'enjoy' Diplomatic Immunity.

Does anybody else see this as strangely 'unequal' ?
He could answer questions from London but has so far ignored them after saying he would help.
Reply With Quote
  #3608  
Old 01-28-2020, 05:52 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,105
I have also read that 'they' have refused to make his RPO's available for questioning. Does anyone know if this is true or just media stories?


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #3609  
Old 01-28-2020, 06:45 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Let me get this right.

It's acceptable for the US to refuse to extradite someone accused of causing the death of teenage motorcyclist Harry Dunn in England, but Prince Andrew MUST go to the US to give evidence? Both individuals 'enjoy' Diplomatic Immunity.

Does anybody else see this as strangely 'unequal' ?
It most certainly is unequal. The person accused of causing Dunn's death is accused of a crime. Andrew has not been accused of a crime. According to the U.S.-UK extradition treaty:

"The treaty is a “dual criminality” treaty. No one can be extradited by either country unless the offense for which extradition is requested is a crime in both countries and carries a prison sentence of at least one year."

https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relatio...dition-treaty/
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #3610  
Old 01-28-2020, 06:59 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I have also read that 'they' have refused to make his RPO's available for questioning. Does anyone know if this is true or just media stories?


LaRae

Have you seen post #3591 in this thread? It is a case of a national security and about disguising security routines, so that criminals can't learn anything about the police.... or so they say....
Reply With Quote
  #3611  
Old 01-28-2020, 07:13 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
If he as innocent as people love to claim then why isn’t he cooperating like the palace claimed he would?

Just as a general point which is not about Andrew, because readers here who are residing in the United States may one day be asked to talk to the police themselves: In America, it is strongly suggested by many legal professionals not to talk to the police, even if one is innocent.


A Law Professor Explains Why You Should Never Talk to Police

Quote:
James Duane doesn't think you should ever talk to the police. Not just, "Don't talk to the police if you're accused of a crime," or, "Don't talk to the police in an interrogation setting"—never talk to the cops, period. If you are found doing something suspicious by an officer (say, breaking into your own house because you locked yourself outside), you are legally obligated to tell the cop your name and what you're doing at that very moment.

Other than that, Duane says, you should fall back on four short words: "I want a lawyer."

In 2008, Duane, a professor at Virginia's Regent Law School, gave a lecture about the risks of talking to police that was filmed and posted to YouTube. It's since been viewed millions of times, enjoying a new viral boost after the Netflix documentary Making a Murderer spurred interest in false confessions. His argument, which he's since expanded into a new book called You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, is that even if you haven't committed a crime, it's dangerous to tell the police any information. You might make mistakes when explaining where you were at the time of a crime that the police interpret as lies; the officer talking to you could misremember what you say much later; you may be tricked into saying the wrong things by cops under no obligation to tell you the truth; and your statements to police could, in combination with faulty eyewitness accounts, shoddy "expert" testimony, and sheer bad luck, lead to you being convicted of a serious crime.

Duane's book details several outrageous incidents just like that around the country, clearly showing the many ways the system is stacked against suspects. These include a proliferation of poorly written laws that make nearly anything a potential crime, rules that allow prosecutors to cherry-pick only the most damning parts of police interrogations at trials, and a little-known 2013 Supreme Court ruling allowing prosecutors to tell juries that defendants had invoked the Fifth Amendment—in other words, telling an officer you are making use of your right to remain silent could wind up being used as evidence against you. For that reason, Duane thinks that you shouldn't even tell the police that you are refusing to talk. Your safest course, he says, is to ask in no uncertain terms for a lawyer, and keep on asking until the police stop talking to you.

[...]

[VICE:] What has the response of law enforcement been to your speeches and your work?

[James Duane:] Believe it or not, the numerous responses that I have received from police officers and even more often from former police officers has been overwhelmingly positive. I've received a great number of emails, and I've spoken privately and publicly to many police officers about the whole subject, and almost without exception, they all say, "It's true. What you say is true."
Here is the above mentioned YouTube video:

Reply With Quote
  #3612  
Old 01-28-2020, 07:54 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Just as a general point which is not about Andrew, because readers here who are residing in the United States may one day be asked to talk to the police themselves: In America, it is strongly suggested by many legal professionals not to talk to the police, even if one is innocent.

This may indeed be the best course - but note that the lecture you have cited was given by attorneys at a law school. Let's remember that attorneys also have more to gain financially should every arrested person say “I want an attorney.” / “Talk to my attorney.”
Reply With Quote
  #3613  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:09 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addapalla View Post
This may indeed be the best course - but note that the lecture you have cited was given by attorneys at a law school. Let's remember that attorneys also have more to gain financially should every arrested person say “I want an attorney.” / “Talk to my attorney.”
If someone is arrested, the first thing that person hears is being "Mirandized". The very first sentence is what this lecture was advising people to do and why its prudent to do so. A person can waive his Miranda rights and talk but its not advised.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you."

Returning to Andrew, he's not been accused of a crime but his being interviewed may help the investigation into the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Andrew is not *required* to cooperate or talk to anyone but, in his own words, he's stated that he would be willing to help the investigation.

Andrew ostriching and ignoring the request to be interviewed is, IMO, making him seem as if he really has something to hide. He can't be forced to "spill the beans" but it surely doesn't look good for him if he fails to cooperate.

This is not going to go away any time soon.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #3614  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:27 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,037
An FYI, for what it's worth.

The story on US CBS network this morning was that Andrew has gone back on his word. And that these are hard days for Her Majesty.

CBS usually fawns all over Royalty.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #3615  
Old 01-28-2020, 09:21 AM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 2,966
Andrew's legal team may even now be trying to work out the details for an interview with the FBI. Somehow I am sceptical, but anything is possible.

On the other hand, the fact that he has so far evaded requests inevitably raises the question as to why, after stating he would be happy to help if asked, he or his legal tema have decided not to participate in an interview. None of those speculations look good for him, no matter who he is trying to protect.
Reply With Quote
  #3616  
Old 01-28-2020, 09:47 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
Have you seen post #3591 in this thread? It is a case of a national security and about disguising security routines, so that criminals can't learn anything about the police.... or so they say....
I do not believe the United States Secret Service would talk about what the people they protect do either.

I do not believe the RPOs should be compelled to give evidence. I understand why some would wish them to do so, but I think it would set a bad precedent.
Reply With Quote
  #3617  
Old 01-28-2020, 10:05 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I do not believe the United States Secret Service would talk about what the people they protect do either.

I do not believe the RPOs should be compelled to give evidence. I understand why some would wish them to do so, but I think it would set a bad precedent.
In this situation, the RPOs have no "evidence" to provide actually. Evidence is used against a person that has committed a crime and the last I've heard, Andrew has not been accused, indicted or even remotely suspected of committing a crime either the UK or the US or elsewhere.

So the basic thing here is that there is nothing that Andrew has to prove or disprove. They're looking to Andrew to provide insights and information and leads to find the people they're actually looking for to prosecute.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #3618  
Old 01-28-2020, 11:11 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Returning to Andrew, he's not been accused of a crime but his being interviewed may help the investigation into the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Andrew is not *required* to cooperate or talk to anyone but, in his own words, he's stated that he would be willing to help the investigation.

Andrew ostriching and ignoring the request to be interviewed is, IMO, making him seem as if he really has something to hide. He can't be forced to "spill the beans" but it surely doesn't look good for him if he fails to cooperate.

This is not going to go away any time soon.
Yes this sums it up.

If Andrew has committed no crime & is as sympathetic to the victims as he says he is (snort), then why won't he share what he knows about Epstein's world with the FBI in their quest to nail the co-conspirators in his sex trafficking activities? Failure to do so smacks of being more deeply involved than he's prepared to admit.
Reply With Quote
  #3619  
Old 01-28-2020, 11:28 AM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Let me get this right.

It's acceptable for the US to refuse to extradite someone accused of causing the death of teenage motorcyclist Harry Dunn in England, but Prince Andrew MUST go to the US to give evidence? Both individuals 'enjoy' Diplomatic Immunity.

Does anybody else see this as strangely 'unequal' ?

Harry Dunn's family isn't being quiet about that. They are all over the news demanding this woman be returned for trial. I think she should be but she won't go willingly. I would assume that whatever diplomatic post her husband held he no longer holds. That her family has been thrown out of the country.


There was a similar case in the US not too long ago where an 11 year old boy was killed by a Ukrainian with UN diplomatic status. The boy died. The man was drunk when he killed him. And he went back to his country and wasn't held accountable.


It's why I'm against diplomatic immunity.


I don't know if Andrew has diplomatic immunity. Does the royal family have this? ...



I've read where the queen is above the law in England. That she could kill someone and wouldn't stand trial. Is that true?


As for Andrew could he be sent back to the US and stand trial as an HRH? Or would he have to be stripped of his titles?
Reply With Quote
  #3620  
Old 01-28-2020, 11:29 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,536
I’ve seen people complain that BP has its head in the sand, but really, ‪I’m not sure what they expect the Queen to do. She can’t force Andrew to cooperate (though a stern lecture would be nice)‬. It feels like he’s his mummy’s spoiled child, even now at his age...he’s just oblivious to anyone but himself.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abdication althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry baby names bangladesh british royals chittagong cht clarence house diana princess of wales dragons duke of cambridge dutch earl of snowdon facts family life future games hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill historical drama history house of glucksburg hypothetical monarchs imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery jumma kids movie list of rulers mail mountbatten nepalese royal jewels norway palestine pless prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri princess ariane princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha queen louise queen mathilde random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family snowdon spencer family thailand thai royal family tracts uae customs unsubscribe wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:19 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×