Prince Andrew 'fails to cooperate' with FBI

[CathyorClaire]

www.thesun.co.uk/news/10832298/prince-andrew-provides-zero-cooperation-after-fbi-ask-to-interview-him-over-epstein-links/

No surprise there, then.

Do we think he'll hold out for the threatened subpoena or will the renewed public spotlight mean he jumps before he's pushed?

He isn't hiding with his mum, he lives at the Royal Lodge and the royal family always go to Balmoral in the summer. The queen has said nothing about this business which I think is right The truth will out eventually.

Even complete shits are allowed family holidays

Not when they should be working with the authorities regarding something as serious is human trafficking, they should not be off on a jolly little holiday !

Is this post some kind of a sick joke?

@Roussette

Yes, it means that he needs to be in a Palace and not travelling where he can be accosted. It is said he was driven rather than flew because of media photos, but I think it's more likely that he could've been approached at an airport but they can hardly flag the car down can they?

This is all very James Bond or Mr. Bean, take yer choice!

The paper serving kind of reminds me of those American films where someone has to be given the papers in hand (so they won't claim they did not receive them in the post). I remember an episode where the person pretended to represent a certain company, and when the accused took out his hand to shake it, he quickly gave him the papers in that hand while simultaneously taking a friend took quick pic of him receiving the papers. With the ' you've been served' saying.

I guess no one would be close enough to Andrew to do that, unless they infiltrate his workers. lol.

I am sure many privileged people don't open their own front doors and also have 24/7 security

I'm sure many privileged people don't and do but just like the royals they also screen and restrict who has access to said front door and those behind it.

The papers are to be served in person. If they can't get access to the premises to do it maybe we'll see be-suited process servers stalking the DoY across the Scottish moors.

@Oldbutstillgotit

I agree however Andrew has only stepped back from Royal duties and it keeps getting leaked that he is keen to return ( doubt he ever will especially if Charles and William have their way ) whereas Harry has quit .

Spot on.

This is exactly the hook the palace will hang this on.

I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong but PA is in Scotland therefore I think it would have to be Scottish Sheriff Officers who serve any documents. If I am right I am sure his lawyers are aware …..

Puzzled, you would love to know whether the Queen thinks 'common oiks are out to get him' or whether she wonders about his judgement and character. I was recently thinking that in this country there will have been quite a lot of mothers visiting sons in prison in the last month - in prison for all sorts of reasons. I don't suppose all of those mothers think that their sons are blameless innocents. I expect some of them have trenchant views about their boys and their lives, but they haven't thrown them out completely and they still speak to them. Surely most of you know families where some of the grown up children have turned out pretty well (whatever that means) and the same parents have produced another quite dodgy child, and you look on and wonder how it can happen like that. After the Panorama interview he withdrew from public life, and I shouldn't think that decision was his alone.

On one of the threads someone suggested that Andrew might not have told his mother everything. I think it possible that many men around 60 years of age might not have told their 90 something years old mothers the full facts of their sex lives.

@Oldbutstillgotit

I agree however Andrew has only stepped back from Royal duties and it keeps getting leaked that he is keen to return ( doubt he ever will especially if Charles and William have their way ) whereas Harry has quit .

There is a huge difference between stepping back and saying, The senior role is not attainable due to certain things. I am willing to go down from senior management (which I did not actually apply for, but was appointed) to a more junior post (like my cousins), and I will help if needed. VS Being forced to step down completely due to your associations with child traffickers, sleeping with trafficked girls and carrying on associating yourself with convicted nonces and traffickers. So your patronages decided to drop you like a hot potato.

You must be having a laugh if you think Andrew is better than Harry. Doesn't matter how much he wants to return.

@ Mummy194
“You must be having a laugh if you think Andrew is better than Harry. Doesn't matter how much he wants to return”

Woah ! At NO time have I ever said that Andrew is better than Harry . If you can quote me , please do . Like the vast majority of people I think Andrew is a despicable piece of shit . What I am saying is that the 2 situations are different and I am constantly bewildered why H and M are dragged into threads about PA and vice versa .
As for suggesting H and M volunteering to move to a junior role , I cannot believe that is your take on the whole sorry mess . They wanted to pick and choose what they did - a film premier , yes please , a visit to a pie factory in Perth - no thanks !

They wanted to pick and choose what they did - a film premier , yes please , a visit to a pie factory in Perth - no thanks !

When did they ever say this.

They clearly said, they would like to step down from senior royals, earn their own money (like the cousins) and help when needed (again like the cousins).

Oh please let's not go down the H&M route on this thread about PA. It's never ending and there's another thread going that people can post on with the usual incessant criticism.

It's so easy for any thread about royals to end up on and on about them.

He could disguise himself. It's amazing what a good wig, beard and pair of glasses can do.

@Mummy194

Even complete shits are allowed family holidays

Not when they should be working with the authorities regarding something as serious is human trafficking, they should not be off on a jolly little holiday !

Is this post some kind of a sick joke?

I doubt he has much to tell them, frankly. The FBI gave bigger fish to fry than a chap who had a selfie taken with a girl at Maxwell's house in London, which he doesn't even remember.

I disagree. I imagine he has a bucketload of stuff he could tell them. However, he doesn't want to, does he?
He stayed in all of Epstein's properties, he flew on his plane, he was on the island where the girls were shipped out to, he had financial dealings with Epstein when he paid off some ex wife debt, and he has been best friends with Maxwell for decades.
He can't pretend he knows nothing.

It's not like he went to one party once and met him once. He availed himself of Epstein's properties and 'hospitality' all over the world.

He can't pretend he knows nothing

Come on now, Roussette - he thought they were all perhaps staff, and lives in places where people were moving about all the time, remember?

Plus of course he's used to moving around lots of houses, doesn't particularly remember Giuffre, is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing and probably thought Epstein's/Maxwell's attentions were merely a reflection of his princely wonderfulness

@Puzzledandpissedoff

You've nailed it there!

has not been charged with any crime, he is perfectly entitled to go on holidays

What on earth are you talking about, VG just filed formal charges against him.

I doubt he has much to tell them, frankly. The FBI gave bigger fish to fry than a chap who had a selfie taken with a girl at Maxwell's house in London, which he doesn't even remember.

You surely know it's more than that. He was with her at more than just a London house. Don't you recall the caretaker who saw him canoodling with a half naked VG at the peado island pool.

'What on earth are you talking about, VG just filed formal charges against him.'

Isn't it a civil suit so he isn't 'charged' with anything?

www.findlaw.com/litigation/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-vs-criminal-cases-key-differences.html

Again, I'm certainly not defending him but he is obviously just following expert legal advice regarding his residence and lack of public statements.

Mummy: Don't you recall the caretaker who saw him canoodling with a half naked VG at the peado island pool.
........
I saw the man interviewed saying he saw a guy canoodling with a young blonde girl, then when he saw the photograph of VG and PA, he decided it was them from however many years ago. Hardly reliable.

I'm not saying it wasn't, just that it is not proof. It's all far too vague.

@Plumtree391

Mummy: Don't you recall the caretaker who saw him canoodling with a half naked VG at the peado island pool. ........ I saw the man interviewed saying he saw a guy canoodling with a young blonde girl, then when he saw the photograph of VG and PA, he decided it was them from however many years ago. Hardly reliable.

I'm not saying it wasn't, just that it is not proof. It's all far too vague.

He was not vague. He clearly stipulated that he was shown the latest picture of VG - as grown up and changed, so therefore could not identify her as the girl in the pool.
Later on he saw pics of a young VG as he known her as a girl and could now recognise her from her younger days as she was a regular. He sounded quite sure.

Yes Janiie it's a civil case - he hasn't been "charged" with anything. Some people may need to research a little more about the difference - no-one defends or likes Andrew as he is clearly an unpleasant character but some of the speculation is plain daft.

Civil cases are ultimately about trying to settle before reaching Court and awarding damages (money) and decision on who pays the costs. So each side try to prove they have evidence that will stand up in a potential Court case (no certainty it will go to Court) and offer damages (money) to the other side to prevent further expense and reputational damage of going to Court and the risk of paying the other side's costs if the Judge awards against you (no jury as not a criminal case).

However, in this case the damage to the RF and Andrew's reputation is already out there so they have no reason to settle/offer damages to VG, IMO. I can't imagine any legal team advising Andrew to respond or offer damges/settle before a court case (civil cases are about awarding damages - not putting someone in prison etc).

Currently no criminal charges have been put to Andrew.

The nonsense about not being able to be arrested whilst with the Queen etc - he won't be arrested regarding a civil case - he can only be arrested regarding a criminal case. Unless the criminal charges are brought, he won't be arrested for questioning.

VG has either very deep pockets/backers or legal team working for free or like high profile cases.

I believe trafficking was going on for sure and that Andrew would be wise to share what he knows.

Trouble is: if the RF treat Andrew as guilty before a case they may prejudice the outcome. I think the legal advice would be to say nothing currently. Remembering that the balance of probabilities etc for guilt in a civil case is much lower than with a criminal case. There has to be good solid evidence for a criminal case, civil cases don't require so much. The legal advice would be for the RF not to treat Andrew as if he is guilty (as no criminal charges have yet been brought or Maxwell's case even tested in a criminal court as of yet) would be the legal advice.

From a PR point of view it's all very different. I don't like Andrew at all and happy to see him gone for good but I understand why the current legal advice he is receiving results in nothing being said.

That's why people don't get involved in Andrew threads - no-one likes him or supports his views but there are criminal investigations at play (Maxwell) and to prejudice criminal cases befor they happen can be used regarding "fair trial".

Lots are getting confused about the differing cases that are happening - I think waiting for the outcome of the criminal case and the less press speculation prior to that the better. In the UK we don't allow lots of press speculation until until after the trial.

The current papers waiting to be served (whether they're even finalised yet?) on Andrew- are regarding a CIVIL case ...) and entirely separate from criminal case. You don't get arrested in a civil case so "being with the Queen" has no impact on papers being served for a civil case. I suspect the papers aren't ready yet. If he is avoiding being arrested for a criminal case then that's something else but I haven't seen any speculation regarding that.

It's odd anyone thinks he is about to be arrested. He isn't.

It's about serviing civil papers to him whilst with the Queen.