The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Lilyflo]

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.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by sndral

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.

[HereditaryPrincess]

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...

[Lilyflo]

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

[wyevale]

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' ?

[ACO]

I think both individuals are trash and hiding behind their privilege.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by wyevale

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.

[Pranter]

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

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by wyevale

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/

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Pranter

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....

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by ACO

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

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:

Don't Talk to the Police – YouTube

[Addapalla]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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.”

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Addapalla

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.

[AdmirerUS]

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.

[Ista]

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.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by victor1319

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.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

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.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Osipi

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.

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by wyevale

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?

[Betsypaige]

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.