They are keeping Andrew out the way, arent they?

[ssd]

On the bbc news, 3 out 4 of the queen's children wished to say something in tribute to their father...

Andrew is obviously been kept on the back burner. They must know there's only so much the less fawning of us can take.

You can’t convict someone on body language @Roussette. Fortunately the judicial system here and in the States is a bit more robust than that.

Lolol, I'm not ignorant you know! Of course they can't!
But don't you think they pick up signs from body language and tailor their questions accordingly?

You are being very silly now. Robust, of course. Investigators are trained in interview techniques all their lives.

@ImpatiensI

You think investigators don't look at body language when they interview suspects?

But you can't convict someone on their body language, which is what was said.

Juries can, and do, convict people on the basis of anything they like. I bet that more than one juror has voted guilty on the basis that they 'just didn't believe' the defendant. Body language, looking shifty etc... it all counts.

So was Epstein

No. There were serious breaches of protocol.

Maxwell is being checked half hourly.

Juries can, and do, convict people on the basis of anything they like.

No. Good grief.

Juries can, and do, convict people on the basis of anything they like

Indeed, which is why I find it quite terrifying that some of the people who post on MN could be called for jury service.

@Roussette

So was Epstein

No. There were serious breaches of protocol.

Maxwell is being checked half hourly.

You're part of the watch then are you?

What's to stop another 'serious breach of protocol' that shuts Maxwell up permanently? Not much I reckon.

Maxwell is being checked half hourly

Ah, i hadn't heard that
At least it explains why she's still alive, which I admit has always confused me ...

I've testified in court before, as the key prosecution witness in a criminal trial. The counsel cross-examining me asked questions which were a surprise to me, about things I didn't previously know about, things I couldn't see the relevance of. My reaction to and responses to all those questions, my demeanour etc., will all have been part of what determined the jury's verdict.

The suggestion that my (and the defendant's) body language / facial expressions / reactions were irrelevant is naïve in the extreme. That's not how jury trials work. And it's not how investigate interviewing works.

You're part of the watch then are you?

Sorry? What do you mean?

What a strange thing to say.

For the purposes of explaining my post... there were serious breaches of practice and protocol with Epstein. The jury is still out as to whether it was suicide or not. There were fractures to his hyoid bone that is extremely unusual in suicide by hanging. The checks that were supposed to be made at certain intervals were missed. Footage from CCTV was missing but some has now come to light. And so on...

I don't imagine the US Prison service can afford to let this happen again. But maybe you know better.

@ImpatiensI

Juries can, and do, convict people on the basis of anything they like.

No. Good grief.

Sorry, what's your problem with this?

The reasons behind jury decisions are kept secret - that's part of how our justice system works. A jury is advised by the judge, and hears all the evidence, but otherwise it's up to 12 random members of the electorate to decide which side they believe. Anything they see or hear in the courtroom, plus their prior life experience, will feed into their decision making. That's kind of the whole point of being tried by your peers.

IMO the secrecy of jury decision making processes is both a flaw and a strength of our judicial process.

'Indeed, which is why I find it quite terrifying that some of the people who post on MN could be called for jury service.'

Yes stuff they've seen on Twitter or the papers is all some on here need to be sure of someone's guilt it seems. Who cares about pesky proof and evidence.

Everything is ready in advance.

Newspapers would have been ready and they would have stockpiled the paper ready for it to be printed onto. It's them a case of filling a few gaps, clicking a few buttons, and then it's sent straight off to print!

This is the same for anyone getting older. They were caught out by Diana though!

Tbh, there's no point discussing this if people genuinely believe that an offer to submit written responses is just as good as actually agreeing to be interviewed.

If you have something to hide, you do not want to be interviewed by a skilled investigative interviewer. They will throw in surprise/off-beat questions, pick up on your reactions and probe on the basis of your 'tells'. They'll ask the same questions, worded slightly differently, maybe a couple of hours apart. They'll have researched your weaknesses (in Andrew's case, probably a weakness for flattery) and play on that. They will make Emily Maitliss (who I have a lot of respect for) look like an amateur.

Comparing that to a written response is just insane. There is probably a good reason that Andrew doesn't want to be interviewed, and I bet it isn't because he thinks a written response is 'exactly the same'.

If it was 'exactly the same' he would undoubtedly be interviewed, put it all behind him and be reinstated into the RF, if he is innocent.

if he's innocent
It's already known that he had a friendship with Epstein and stayed with him when he came out of jail, plus the photos and the Maitlis interview so the damage to RF is done. He's not coming back.

Also, I don't think a written statement is the same as questioning and never said so.

Withdrawal from public duties does not equate to not talking to the media as he left church about the death of his df.

He was talking to the media in a royal capacity and therefore representing the public face of the royals. They'd all have been briefed about press presence and would have prepared their statements in advance. It was effectively an official royal gig.

@CathyorClaire

Withdrawal from public duties does not equate to not talking to the media as he left church about the death of his df.

He was talking to the media in a royal capacity and therefore representing the public face of the royals. They'd all have been briefed about press presence and would have prepared their statements in advance. It was effectively an official royal gig.

This is complete nonsense. They went to church as private individuals. They quite obviously hadn’t prepared in advance. It wasn’t a royal gig of any sort. It was a group of people talking to the press who doorstepped them about their bereavement.

The official communications are the carefully prepared tributes that are being trickled out, not the stream of consciousness musing outside the church. Sophie’s words weren’t even to the reporter, he overheard her talking to another member of the congregation.

They went to church as private individuals

Just like they do at Christmas and Easter

Claiming they couldn't have anticipated press presence after days worth of blanket TV coverage is naive.

The Daily Mail has an article today on Prince Andrew's attempts to weasel his way back into the filthy lucre limelight.

The Daily Mail does NOT approve of HRH The Duke of York. Proving, once and for all, that a bust clock is right twice a day.

Slightly off-topic, but I think that Sophie Wessex is one of the Royal Family's biggest assets, along with Anne.

@CallmeHendricks

Slightly off-topic, but I think that Sophie Wessex is one of the Royal Family's biggest assets, along with Anne.

Yes, he seems to have nabbed himself a sensible wife. God knows how but it may be that Andrew and Charles' behaviour helped concentrate his mind.

@CallmeHendricks

Slightly off-topic, but I think that Sophie Wessex is one of the Royal Family's biggest assets, along with Anne.

She got some things wrong in the early days - I seem to recall something about her running a PR company with someone, and them boasting about their Royal connections - but she was made to give that up, and seems to have toed the line since.

@Butchyrestingface

The Daily Mail has an article today on Prince Andrew's attempts to weasel his way back into the filthy lucre limelight.

The Daily Mail does NOT approve of HRH The Duke of York. Proving, once and for all, that a bust clock is right twice a day.

They've reported similar ambition on his part in the past.

It's quite interesting they've drawn comparisons with Anne's far more restrained written statement.

No faux surprise ambushing for that one.

@Alsohuman do the British media doorstep the RF? I'm not sure they do tbh. Certainly I've never seen it apart from with Diana and with Kate Middleton before she married William.

I'd be very surprised if they decided to start after the death of PP.

Clearly they had the okay to ask the questions