Will he
Or
Will he not ?

I think he will do it on his terms here in the UK

'if...the legal advice was to do so'


Carefully chosen words from Andrew.

That advice might be against FBI talks.

And, to say, so - may be the next move.

And nobody else?

Where the fuck are all of the British legal beagles now who plague Twitter with their private angst and opinions/expertise?

Great British justice?

You don't want to be seen as bias I suppose?

Really? I mean you write blogs and books on other issues.

It almost looks like you have a grand scheme...
From what I have heard lately, somebody has found out.

From what I have seen so far - Prince Andrew interview (near all), reported snippets of the what's her name? Virginia or was it something else? on Panorama and another documentary concering the man himself "Epstein". Well I for one liked Prince Andrew's interview, he has given his statements and side of his lack of involvement. Mainly friends from university days of Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein case seems to have more mystery and evidence of criminal behaviour of US law enforcement than anything of substance of Epstein's behaviour. (e.g. cell video footage not available with a long sage to go with it) The witnesses, who may well be telling the truth, are in fact showing all the typical behaviour of opportunists and false accusers including obtaining the backing of US popularity seeking lawyers with the one goal "money".

As for the BBC and Panorama of which I can not give a fair hearing as the BBC restrict their progams to UK residents and BBC license fee payers. From the little that was reported of the program was one key witness from many years ago receiving board, food and worldwide travel. Income I did not see reported. Nor any mention that the key witness did not want the job, lost other opportunities because of the job or was she in fact better off than she would of been otherwise. So nothing to support the accuracy of the testimony on the BBC. Thus the BBC Panorama as reported later has one key storyteller who could be anyone, from anywhere telling anything. Perhaps in fairness no one has contradicted that she did work for Epstein or at least part of the workforce. So until someone shows otherwise that can be accepted as one a]most likely reliable fact, still a guess.

The email nonsense of Andtrew's to Ghislaine year 2015. The witness reported I think 2011 so it was no more than the standard thing we all would of done email, see in person or phone, with the most obvious question as 2015 is well after this person out of the blue has a photo and a story to go with it to the FBI. So the snippets never explained why the significance of the email, as timing in no way confirms lying as implied but the opposite that is poor investigation and deceptive on the BBC's part. Did the BBC really use such nonsense? And how the hell was the email obtained? What is really going on!!! And that photo means absolutely nothing whether real of not. Recently I saw a similar kind photo with Prince Harry and another reporter after an interview. All professional and innocent.

Lastly why the alleged victims, in need of such a person as Andrew who was remote to the Epstein alleged case. If what they say is true then there must be more reliable evidence. Going after Andrew like this highlights a weak case and is in reality evidence against law enforcement the alleged victims of using a titled person with minimal connections to make a case out of thin air. Many of the Le Carre spy stories are on this kind "made up reality" to entrap somebody or country or something. The spy has all sorts been done to create the story within the story so to speak. For law enforcement it is power and promotion with financial rewards and the lawyers and witnesses is money mostly here.

I have been wrong many a time and perhaps I missed some things that I would be absolutely delighted to be put straight on which is preferable to what I have heard and seen so far!! Here's hoping!

The whole thing is sickening. Right in front of everyone you see the scapegoating of one man. It is agendacised, hypersensationilist scheming propaganda. Only an idiot would swallow it as is. As the above poster stated one country could be in the spotlight of shame for some kind of gain.

As for the other clients, where are they?

Epsteins suicide was highly likely as a result of guilt on his part and the usual donut-munching lazy fucks who work in these kind of jobs. Still, they keep pissing down our legs and telling us it's raining.

There is a reason the other clients are being hushed or given an easy ride.
Could that reason be Trump?
There must be something significantly worrying that they don't want out.
Oh look, shock horror at anything connected to a royal. The damage is done and will go down in the history books along with this fucking Brexit bollocks all sold and told to you by people who do their damndest to keep their lives private.
That won't be the case for long.

Change Fleet Street to Fleeced Street somebody!

wjlmarsh - you liked Andrew's interview - why?

Few did. Primarily for distancing himself from the victims of his mate - never mentioning them.

Court cases will now become a feature of Andrew's life - with transatlantic legal arguments.

Like the Dunn killing of an innocent UK resident here, by an American citizen.


The conclusion will be the exclusion of Andy, and the American driver - from the US and UK, respectively.

Barney wrote:
wjlmarsh - you liked Andrew's interview - why?

Few did. Primarily for distancing himself from the victims of his mate - never mentioning them.

Court cases will now become a feature of Andrew's life - with transatlantic legal arguments.

Like the Dunn killing of an innocent UK resident here, by an American citizen.


The conclusion will be the exclusion of Andy, and the American driver - from the US and UK, respectively.




Reasons why I liked the interview

1. Well presented, questions and answers clear, precise and to the point Not provoking and the key questions presented and answered.
2. Prince Andrew did not hide, he came out and gave everyone his side of the story. Said what he considered he knew and was careful not to state things categorically. Like he did not say he never meet Virginia, which is just as possible but he said something he did not remember her which is normal.
3. We the public learnt things like his long friendship with Maxwell from university days and visits were more to do with that friendship than a direct Epstein connection. All these facts or counter points were not ever going to be presented by the press, law enforcement and the victims/opportunists/ or maybe criminals or even Panorama.
4. Even the latest headlines saying he has gone back on his word about talking to US law enforcement is a media lie as we have now on record from Andrews the exact circumstances and terms he would comply. And he is right to be very cautious.

5. Negative comments on the interview seem to be more like from the gutter press and the crowd who like to be lead by the nose, told what to believe and think. Favorable comments and commending Andrew and the interviewer would never make a great story or headline. From very early in life school days and before, we learn from our peers and others to be negative and put people down so the media and masses actiobn follows as ".. why change now especially when we have a royal in the headlines". Well you can count me out of this general human nastiness.

6. "Few did. Primarily for distancing himself from the victims of his mate - never mentioning them." Not sure this distancing himself comes from. I said he did better than me as I would been hard pressed not to suggest the whole situation fanned by media and others is giving rise to the new criminal class (probably as old as history) of bandwagonners, of false accusers. So better to say nothing. And as to the real goings on it is really hard to know exactly from information and maybe the reason Epstein did not get the full works first time around and second time having learnt too late not to give an inch denied everything as the evidence was flimsy and US style plead bargaining came into effect to get some case and result. Of course as nothing seems to be really known for sure Epstein could even be much worst than the picture painted. To date I am not aware of any forensics in this case.
So if Andrew continues to not mention the victims he has my full support. I noticed those closest to Jimmy Savile who really knew nothing ever happened still feeling emotionally for so called "victims" started to lose perspective like the guy in charge of Jim Will Fix It (forgotten his name) and lost the ability and clarity to stand up for truth against public opinion.

Well done Prince Andrew and may we see a new era of people suing(prepared if they have the money and also willing to lose the money but learning to use all means to get the truth out there) and standing up against the media and odds.

I'm totally with you wjlMarsh.

Barney,
Learn the basics. He has state immunity from prosecution anyway.

Cue the "well he must be guilty then" statements from those who are hellbent on hanging a royal, because others stand to benefit.

Piers Morgan is trying so hard to spun this. He isn't calling for the names of the otger clients though.

Could it be that he himself might actually know seeing as he has worked in media for decades, spent time in the USA and has his finger on the pulse?

🤔

Surprising then that so many observers described the interview as a car crash!?

I reckon this is a beat-up and naturally the British media have fallen for it.

Remember District Attorneys in the USA are really political figures who court the media and make all sorts of outlandish statements and I note this particular one..the wording was very careful.

He did NOT claim Andrew refused to speak to the FBI..just said he hadn't.

The notion ANYONE should have to fly to the USA just to speak to the FBI when they have nothing to offer..as Andrew has already said..is a fantasy.

I'm surprised a couple of FBI agents haven't concocted a reason to fly to London and meet with Andrew and I reckon this is very telling...if it was so important why haven't they when prince Andrew has said he is happy to co-operate?.

By the way..I'm also with wjMarsh..I've watched Andrew's interview and it was all rather uneventful and seemed to me perfectly OK. Why it's called a "car-crash" is bizarre but note...

The ghastly morons who love this stuff are somehow comparing it to a woman who ran down a young man and fled the country. Only because the gutter media told them too.

Andrew should ride this one out.

Emperor's New Clothes Barney. A good story.

hedda wrote:
Andrew should ride this one out


Exactly what he should have done, before opening the can of worms.

The 'I know nothing - no recollection' stance was the obvious one.

Wood pile dwellers will continue to emerge - and, no doubt, he's grateful to H&M.

For happily taking the spotlight away to Canada.

Canada?

Why Canada?

Maybe this could be a clue?

youtu.be/02G_y-sE4sI