Why do i get the impression he wouldn't "regret" the friendship if this recent scandal hadn't erupted or especially if Epstein hadn't been charged at all? From the sound of it his only regret is the fact that it has caused controversy and that it's is embarrassing for the British royal family.
Prince Andrew (Allegations of Famous People Engaged in Bad Sex Part 57)
Why do i get the impression he wouldn't "regret" the friendship if this recent scandal hadn't erupted or especially if Epstein hadn't been charged at all? From the sound of it his only regret is the fact that it has caused controversy and that it's is embarrassing for the British royal family.
FromBelgiumWithLove
Unregistered
The Guardian has a long, thorough recap of the whole Epstein affair: Jeffrey Epstein: inside the decade of scandal entangling Prince Andrew.
Unusually, neither article uses the word "paedophile".
anglolawyer
Banned
Craig, my friend, read that piece again. That is not the Telegraph (a right wing organ) going for him at all. It's a paper giving him an opportunity to eat humble pie in the hope the whole thing will blow over.
To require such an exalted personage to eat humble pie is tantamount to
for though the reputation of this dish may be founded on false suppositions, it is proverbially a comestible offered to persons of modest social status.
anglolawyer
Banned
Well, I get your take on it but all these references to 'a source close to' Prince Andrew just makes me think the article was a chance for him to say his piece.
Will he do so, in any substantive way? I don't think he's done enough along these lines yet.
Well it's a more thoughtful and in-depth article, not cheap eye catching click-bait, so abusing the term peadophile isn't as important in order to generate traffic.
Last edited:
I don't have enough information to guess yet.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
He could eat a bird instead. I hear there are some appropriate tame specimens at the Tower of London, which brings us back to the question how much damages this does to the monarchy.
If the Prince devoured these birds, [url="http://www.hrp.org.uk/TowerOfLondon/stories/theravens]the monarchy would fall.[/url]
And in fact they do like booze. I recall a tame one in Scotland that resided in the courtyard of a country pub. It drank the dregs of beer from the bottles put out in crates to be returned, and sometimes became too drunk to fly, and collapsed in a heap.
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,681
I'm guessing not guilty. But that is by no means a certainty.
Holding out for more information.
We'll see.
anglolawyer
Banned
Guilty of what? As far as i know he has not been criminally charged for anything and only been sued.
FromBelgiumWithLove
Unregistered
He hasn't been sued for anything, either.
But there are new developments. The lawyers for Virginia Roberts have come up with more paperwork. They are now apparently trying to get criminal charges filed against Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and possibly others. Bill Clinton is also somehow involved, but as yet she's not claiming to have had sex with him - just that he was around while she was having sex with lots of other men.
Some of the papers can be found at Radar Online.
The lawyers have also sent an amusing letter to Prince Andrew, which is reproduced by the Daily Mirror. It includes a picture - that one single picture showing Andrew and Ms. Roberts together at a party. It demands that he turns up to be "interviewed" by them, "under oath". The letter is dated January 14th, and a reply saying when and where he will turn up is demanded "by no later than January 19, 2015". What will he be "interviewed" about? Well, claims. And "details of those claims have been widely reported in the British press (with varying degrees of accuracy) as have your denials of the claims, so I assume that it is unneccessary for me to be any more specific about the proposed areas of our inquiry."
That letter, according to them, was returned as having been "refused by the recipient". It's addressed to "His Royal Highness The Duke of York, Buckingham Palace". That the clerical staff at Buckingham Palace might not accept mail for people who don't live there is no doubt much too simple an explanation for this.
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,681
is it normal for lawyers to demand the (not yet) accused to come to their offices for an "interview"?
I'm a complete noob when it comes to legal matters, but I've never seen this in courtroom drama's.
I'm a complete noob when it comes to legal matters, but I've never seen this in courtroom drama's.
FromBelgiumWithLove
Unregistered
IANAL either, but it certainly all seems very strange.
My inexpert first guess would be that they're trying to suggest this is a subpoena, which of course it isn't, so they came up with the imaginative concept of "an interview under oath". As to why they think a British citizen who is not a party in any legal proceedings, let alone legal proceedings in Britain, should feel the need to testify under oath at the not-so-polite demand of some American lawyer is anybody's guess. (A demand, it transpires, they sent to Buckingham Palace through Federal Express, who returned it to them as undelivered. Do they genuinely assume all members of the royal family live there, in a sort of Southfork Ranch setup?)
Added strangeness: (1) They continue to refer to their client, Virginia Roberts, as "Jane Doe #3", yet then helpfully include a picture of her in the letter, and refer to press reporting, in which she is of course mentioned by name. And oh yes, they release that letter to the press. (2) If I understand the current state of things correctly, not just Andrew, but also Ms. Roberts isn't as of yet a party in any legal proceedings, anywhere. Her lawyers are merely trying to get an American court to add her as a party in an earlier, ongoing suit against Jeffrey Epstein.
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
anglolawyer
Banned
This sort of examination is (or was) called an 'interrogatory' over here. You can apply to the court for leave to serve interrogatories outside the jurisdiction and by some bilateral arrangement the other country will then compel the individual to answer questions in that country and send the answers back to the serving country. Something like that. It's unusual enough for me never to have had anything to do with these in 35 years but it may be going on all the time in the commercial world or some other sphere in which I don't practise for all I know.
FromBelgiumWithLove
Unregistered
Cross-border law can certainly become very complicated. A friend of mine specialized in maritime law, and he was always dealing with cases involving, say, a ship under the flag of country A bumping into a ship under the flag of country B in the territorial waters of country C. Add to that that both the crews and the owners of those ships usually aren't from either A, B or C, and often don't reside in the country of their citizenship. Sometimes things could be solved by bluffing: one could get people to testify even though they weren't under any obligation to do so, what mattered was having them believe they were, or that it would mean less ongoing trouble for them if they did.
But in this instance, there doesn't yet seem to be a case of any kind involving Prince Andrew at all. Just legal smoke and mirrors.
Given how central a position he held in a multitude of conspiracy theories involving networks of high-powered British paedophiles, I can't wait what they will come up with now that they no longer have to fear libel suits. The David Icke forums should be fun to watch for a while.