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?

'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'

Yes i linked earlier papers have to be checked to ensure in line with Hague regulations but according to mn's legal experts they can't serve them because he's hiding with mummy. It is all quite bizarre and blatantly not true.

'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'

Yes that seems to be the common thread, none of the witnesses seem reliable. The celebs that attended Maxwell's parties clearly all had low morals but we can't charge people with that can we.

@Cacacoisfarraige

This is all about money. VG’s lawyers want money and are putting the squeeze on. She may struggle with credibility in court so her lawyers would rather it was settled beforehand.

You realise that civil cases are tried in court right?

Do you think the OJ trial was all about the money too?

All this twisting in knots to talk about charges and so forth in order to defend Andrew. Let's call him the accused.

He is accused in the court of law is what matters - you can call it what you want, yonks ago the legal system was not so overwhelmed that they did not divide things up into civil and criminal. If you report to the police and go to court, you don't want to perjure yourself or find yourself locked up for lying, so I don't think it's easy as 'all about money'.

Disgusting way to view victims, btw. Women don't go around nilly willy making sexual abuse accusation, it takes a lot from them to come out.

@Cacacoisfarraige

This is all about money. VG’s lawyers want money and are putting the squeeze on. She may struggle with credibility in court so her lawyers would rather it was settled beforehand.

I don't understand why he doesn't sue her back.

You don't have to explain to me what yonks means. As I said, this is serous enough to go to court, so not an empty accusation just thrown out there.

Andrew is more than just someone who took the Lolita express, unlike other celebrities (man and women) who Epstein took for 'business meetings'. He is being accused by one of the victims. Stop minimising it !

@Cacacoisfarraige you are so reasonable in your responses. Pointing out the judicial terminalogy is so inconvenient it seems.

You don't know any of that mummy194. Let's wait for evidence shall we? if everything is proven then fine, you just can't go declaring people guilty based on allegations.

As I said, this is serous enough to go to court, so not an empty accusation just thrown out there

Anyone can file a civil case. It doesn't have to meet the same criteria as a criminal case.

Surely of the criminal case stood a good chance it would be brought to the criminal court. Why hasn't it. Not saying it should of shouldn't be but why not. It all sounds a bit fishy.

Mummy - sorry but nothing said indicates you recognise the difference between criminal and civil case.

Criminal and civil cases are entirely different and one isn't dependent on how busy the other system is. There's either enough evidence for a criminal case or there isn't - that's what tips whether there is a criminal case.

Plumtree - can't even begin to imagine what you mean by "why doesn't he sue her back". You only sue in a civil case if there's a chance of the other side having enough money to pay any damages awarded by the Judge. Also, you expect the person or entity you're suing to be able to pay your costs when they lose. Costs are huge. Some people that lose such cases are bankrupted. Headlines: "Andrew goes all out to try to bankrupt somone" - would not be great PR or legal advice.

Criminal case - the state legal system is paying.

Andrew is a repulsive character and currently this thread is talking about him as the accused in a civil case; he is worth suing as he has money to pay damages and costs. He may decide to offer an out of court settlement to avoid court (I think it would be bad legal advice to do that though) as no criminal case has yet been brought.

You don't sue someone with no money as they won't be able to pay any damages awarded and they won't be able to pay costs incurred on both sides. No-one is arrested and no custodial sentence is delivered from a civil case. He is the accused in a civil case currently.

[quote Cacacoisfarraige]@Mummy194

Anyone can take a civil case to court - it’s not about seriousness it’s about a lawyer willing to take the case on, again a civil case not a criminal case needing to meet CPS thresholds[/quote]
Yes that's correct. Don't want to sound like defending Andrew against anything as I've never liked him at all. However, to keep saying things that are untrue and wrong about civil/criminal cases is a bit silly.

Surely of the criminal case stood a good chance it would be brought to the criminal court

As said so often, even if there was enough evidence I honestly don't believe Andrew would ever be brought before a criminal court - not with mummy pulling strings on his behalf

So I just wonder if, believing the same, VG might have chosen the civil route in order to get some kind of resolution?

Marmalade: "Andrew goes all out to try to bankrupt somone" - would not be great PR or legal advice.
..
That's very true (though doubt his PR can be much worse than it is already), but there is a legal guy in America whom she has accused, who continually denies it vehemently and is suing her; he can't need or want money. It's a question of clearing his name. There must be ways and means.

As far as him not appearing before a criminal court because of his mother, Cressida Dick has said no one is above the law. We shall see.

Yes plumtree I agree with you.

I did think of touching on that issue - attempting to "clear his name". However, so much reputational damage has been done by Andrew himself and the fact he was friend of such awful people that there isn't any reputation to restore. I offer no opinion on whether what is claimed happened or not as I think that's what Courts are for and I don't know all the evidence. Criminal cases should go through a process and the general public shouldn't know all the details otherwise it may prejudice a case, so I reserve my opinion til then. I'm inclined not to believe Andrew because I don't like Andrew, but I'm aware that isn't how to run a legal system.

Imagine if Andrew were 100% innocent of everything Virginia said - it doesn't matter, it won't restore his reputation. He has damaged his own reputation in so many ways by choosing to live the lifestyle of hanging out with that type of friends etc and attempting to defend himself (as well as Mr Clinton etc).

So yes some chap in US wanting to counter sue - maybe he's in denial, maybe he has a case - that will be tested I guess in Court/evidence.

Or it may go on forever and end up with nobody getting anything.