It is bewildering.
At some point, he was advised to say:
- he knew Ghislaine more, Jeffrey was a plus one/helpful person to know
- he wanted to break up with his friend's friend in person
- he knew exactly where he was twenty years ago
- he was unable to sweat
- he never met Virginia, the three times they shagged never happened
- he didn't recall the photo
- he didn't regret the relationship he had with Jeffrey
I know he would have been rightly condemned but would it not have been better to say:
- he was taken in by both
- he was a mooch/cheapskate/wanted to save money on hotels
- he had been friends with Ghislaine for years so trusted she employed staff
- he regretted knowing both
- he had met many women and had photos taken with many women as a guest of honour/favour to the host
- he thought it was a shakedown
- he believed his friends' accounts
- he had shagged her but thought she was older and it was enthusiastic consent
- or insisted the photo was a fake and Virginia was lying
Instead there was this defence of "not recalling" but not actually outright denial as far as Virginia's testimony and the photo were concerned.
What the hell were the Palace's team/PR/special branch doing? Why no intervention?
- allowing the interview to go ahead
- allowing the invite of someone to Windsor who'd been arrested
- allowing Andrew to stay with Epstein after his release
Those in charge of Andrew's diary/palace officials/security detail. Why didn't they stop him? Why did nobody say mate, this isn't a good idea?
Who spun the "more honourable to break up in person" line?
Who told him to say he regretted the trip but not the relationship?
Who was in charge of his diary? Could they have still had notes of security detail two decades later? Re Pizza Express, it wasn't his daughter's birthday until two weeks later.
Worse than the sweating and the Pizza defences was his idea that he'd have remembered a shag ("positive action for a man"). God almighty, who the hell came up with that one?