@Vapeyvapevape
Will the prosecution use the News Night interview as evidence, ? I hope so as it proves PA ,IMO, to be a liar
Don't know about the US but it would have little evidential value in the UK as he was not under caution or under oath
A tv interview was used in the Jodie Arias trial so I wondered if the same could happen with PA.
Again, the stellar intelligence of Prince Andrew has outshone us all here.
He's insisted he told the truth in that interview - repeatedly (and against continued advice).
So the optics should be he's quite happy to have it used in his defence in a court of law.
It would be very telling if the plaintiff wanted to introduce the interview as evidence, and Prince Andrews team objected. After all, why object to the truth.
This is what you get when you try to fight on two fronts. There's the (US, civil, New York) universe of "reality". And there's the "Hello !" fluffy kittens oh-my-god-have-you- seen -what-Kates-wearing universe of the Monarchy and their sycophantic hangers on.
In the past, abetted by an insular press and compliant legal system, it's been possible to hold those two worlds apart.
And, to borrow a phrase, in the court of public opinion it matters not one jot for the legal nuances that might apply here.
Of course everyone is presuming the plaintiff might want to introduce the interview. It might be the reverse. The Princes team press to have it introduced as evidence, with the plaintiff and court saying "that's very kind, but it's only so much trash, and it's not like we can trust you ..."
Pondering the history here, I wonder if the Royal high jinks are kept to a fairly small coterie of sycophants, with the rest of the "regular" (fete openings etc) royal machinery blissfully unaware ? And we've got to this stage because way back when someone who didn't know "the background" ignored or failed to pass on a communication that should have been dealt with by a "specialist" department before it got this far ????????????????????????????????????????????????????