Prince Andrew Accused of Underage Sex Acts

Ah, so if you're sent to prison and inmates attack you, you can shout at them: "Oi, I'm not a paedophile, she was 14, so I'm a hebophile," as if that would make any difference. In the modern usage of the word, that is noncery end of story.
It makes a difference in court. What happens therefafter is another matter.
 
Are you going to put up a link that shows Morgan told the TA to fake the photos or are you just going to continue to tell lies?
Read th he thread.
 
It might as well be me as the newspapers rarely print the friends/sources/insiders name.
Unrelated to sex offences we had an incident at thorney island. One of the lads screwed up, his Sgt (or staffy, I forget which) offered him off the record discipline.
He agreed and the Sgt proceeded to pull his trousers down and whipped him with an antenna.
Lad reports sick, doc recommend him getting the injuries photographed and making a complaint.
Back then film was all the rage and the newspapers got the story, including who, where and when as the lab allegedly gave them the story. I'll go back to using film if it can record all that.
The story, and images, were sent in by the lads girlfriend.

The point being papers lie even when printing a real event. I always consider anything in the press to be "inspired by a real events" at best
 
Unrelated to sex offences we had an incident at thorney island. One of the lads screwed up, his Sgt (or staffy, I forget which) offered him off the record discipline.
He agreed and the Sgt proceeded to pull his trousers down and whipped him with an antenna.
Lad reports sick, doc recommend him getting the injuries photographed and making a complaint.
Back then film was all the rage and the newspapers got the story, including who, where and when as the lab allegedly gave them the story. I'll go back to using film if it can record all that.
The story, and images, were sent in by the lads girlfriend.

The point being papers lie even when printing a real event. I always consider anything in the press to be "inspired by a real events" at best
The Sgt sounds like a right kinky weirdo
 
One thing we possibly dont get or understand is that the position of US attorney is political, the US attorney chasing Prince Andrew is on thin ice so to speak, the Us Attorney General wants to sack him. So what does the US attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman do, make lots of noise about a high profile case. Hes lost the Epstein case through stupidity or negligence so he needs publicity. What better publicity than a Prince, a Royal, a Queens Son.

So he makes big statements from the steps of his Upper East Side Mansion about Prince Andrew and his so called lack of cooperation.

The whole thing is a three ring circus for the advancement of careers in the US Political and Legal System.
Standard operating mode when American prosecutors are hunting for big game is the following:
  1. Make some allegations, and imply that the whole matter will be dropped if the target can talk his way through it.
  2. Get the target in for questioning. It doesn't matter what about, any excuse will do.
  3. Grill him for hours on end. Ask the target the same questions over and over again, phrased in slightly different ways.
  4. Go through the answers with a fine toothed comb, looking for any inconsistencies. It doesn't matter how innocent the target is, unless the target has experience in being interrogated, there will be plenty of inconsistencies. The questions will have been carefully constructed by pros to ensure that he's led in that direction after hours of interrogation.
  5. Drop the original charges, if there were any. They've served their purpose and are no longer relevant.
  6. Cherry pick the inconsistent answers.
  7. Charge the target with "lying to the investigators" and move to prosecute on those grounds.
  8. The cherry picked bits of the interrogation get handed to the judge, and it's an open and shut case.
  9. The target goes to prison for several years, while whatever it was the authorities were supposedly interested in investigating is quietly forgotten about as being not worth looking into further.

Prince Andrew would have to be absolutely bonkers to talk to the American authorities in any way except through his lawyer. He should know enough by now how the Americans operate. If he doesn't know how they operate, I'm sure his lawyers can tell him.

If the Americans are genuinely not interested in charging Andrew and just have background questions that they think will help with their investigation of other people, then they should send them in writing to Andrew's lawyers who can help him write a reply that is thorough, clear, and concise.

If the Americans want to charge Andrew with any crimes, then they can present an extradition request to the UK authorities, and they can then do all subsequent talking to Andrew through his lawyer while Andrew keeps his mouth shut.

As for advice to Andrew, he should stay in the UK, keep a low profile, and let his PR staff do the talking if the press have any questions.
 
The Sgt sounds like a right kinky weirdo
EM had been advising him and his victim, not forgetting it was an artillery unit.
 
Standard operating mode when American prosecutors are hunting for big game is the following:
  1. Make some allegations, and imply that the whole matter will be dropped if the target can talk his way through it.
  2. Get the target in for questioning. It doesn't matter what about, any excuse will do.
  3. Grill him for hours on end. Ask the target the same questions over and over again, phrased in slightly different ways.
  4. Go through the answers with a fine toothed comb, looking for any inconsistencies. It doesn't matter how innocent the target is, unless the target has experience in being interrogated, there will be plenty of inconsistencies. The questions will have been carefully constructed by pros to ensure that he's led in that direction after hours of interrogation.
  5. Drop the original charges, if there were any. They've served their purpose and are no longer relevant.
  6. Cherry pick the inconsistent answers.
  7. Charge the target with "lying to the investigators" and move to prosecute on those grounds.
  8. The cherry picked bits of the interrogation get handed to the judge, and it's an open and shut case.
  9. The target goes to prison for several years, while whatever it was the authorities were supposedly interested in investigating is quietly forgotten about as being not worth looking into further.

Prince Andrew would have to be absolutely bonkers to talk to the American authorities in any way except through his lawyer. He should know enough by now how the Americans operate. If he doesn't know how they operate, I'm sure his lawyers can tell him.

If the Americans are genuinely not interested in charging Andrew and just have background questions that they think will help with their investigation of other people, then they should send them in writing to Andrew's lawyers who can help him write a reply that is thorough, clear, and concise.

If the Americans want to charge Andrew with any crimes, then they can present an extradition request to the UK authorities, and they can then do all subsequent talking to Andrew through his lawyer while Andrew keeps his mouth shut.

As for advice to Andrew, he should stay in the UK, keep a low profile, and let his PR staff do the talking if the press have any questions.
I would not talk to the FBI even to inquire about a dog licence.
 
If I was a complete cnut I’d have pretended to have cancer.

But as that would take an absolute cnut, I won’t.
It’s the gift that keeps giving, even after 6 years
 
So there's a story. Glad we have that sorted.
Errrr no, if you bothered your arse to read what we were all talking about it was about this unsealed evidence pointing the finger at Andrew, so why are you trying to deflect about a difference story with the FBI?

I don't think that. HTH. It's a possibility, along with several other possibilities.
Like there is a possibility you take it up the hoop for mar bars. You really should be a journalist with the shit assumptions that because something may or may not have happen you can invent a possibility



They have to get permission. Who says there isn't any evidence. It may not be available just now. for legal reasons.
You dont need permission to print evidence from a court. As well as invent "possibility" why not invent some evidence that might not be available for now, which very handily means you can make up stuff You should get a job with the Sun.

The only person who has made anything up is your good self. Saying the story was scrapped because it was wrong. You don't know why it was pulled do you? I may have a good guess but I'm enjoying this.
Im saying it was pulled because it was bollocks, CNN ran a buzzfeed story about Trump, they wouldnt shut the **** up about it, until the Mueller investigation set it was bollocks. Some more quality journalism on show, dont bother investigating the source just run the story.

A dozen gins already?
I was pointing out anyone can make up any old **** and then say its because of an injunction.

Indeed. That affects things how? You reckon Farrer and Co don't have a hotline to a few shit hot briefs in the US?
The president of the USA cant stop negative stories about himself, but someone involved with Epstein can?
Also the USA isnt the whole planet, plenty of other countries can run the stories. Plenty of journalists can pick up a phone and tell someone if they are being gagged.
I presume you mean "can't"? Since you don't know what their stories were you and I can't really comment on what was fact or not in them? Can we?
You mean the breaking news that the Prince tried to influence the original judgement in the Epstein case. WOW that is some damming news, lets tell the world. Whats that? The "evidence" is two alleged victims saying they think it happened but dont have any proof and want to see various documents to see if it is or not. Not quite the compelling evidence needed to convict anyone.
You reckon? Is this you using your vast knowledge of internet practice. I'd not be shocked if some of our posters earn a living doing this. It can be lucrative. I don't do it BTW.
Only certain things can be taken down. You dont pay them a fee and disappear if you might be in the middle of a case involving crimes of sexual nature. Also it doesnt happen overnight.
 
One thing we possibly dont get or understand is that the position of US attorney is political, the US attorney chasing Prince Andrew is on thin ice so to speak, the Us Attorney General wants to sack him. So what does the US attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman do, make lots of noise about a high profile case. Hes lost the Epstein case through stupidity or negligence so he needs publicity. What better publicity than a Prince, a Royal, a Queens Son.

So he makes big statements from the steps of his Upper East Side Mansion about Prince Andrew and his so called lack of cooperation.

The whole thing is a three ring circus for the advancement of careers in the US Political and Legal System.
Plus there are not many Defence lawyers that will recommend talking to the FBI. Innocent or otherwise....
 

TamH70

MIA
Standard operating mode when American prosecutors are hunting for big game is the following:
  1. Make some allegations, and imply that the whole matter will be dropped if the target can talk his way through it.
  2. Get the target in for questioning. It doesn't matter what about, any excuse will do.
  3. Grill him for hours on end. Ask the target the same questions over and over again, phrased in slightly different ways.
  4. Go through the answers with a fine toothed comb, looking for any inconsistencies. It doesn't matter how innocent the target is, unless the target has experience in being interrogated, there will be plenty of inconsistencies. The questions will have been carefully constructed by pros to ensure that he's led in that direction after hours of interrogation.
  5. Drop the original charges, if there were any. They've served their purpose and are no longer relevant.
  6. Cherry pick the inconsistent answers.
  7. Charge the target with "lying to the investigators" and move to prosecute on those grounds.
  8. The cherry picked bits of the interrogation get handed to the judge, and it's an open and shut case.
  9. The target goes to prison for several years, while whatever it was the authorities were supposedly interested in investigating is quietly forgotten about as being not worth looking into further.

Prince Andrew would have to be absolutely bonkers to talk to the American authorities in any way except through his lawyer. He should know enough by now how the Americans operate. If he doesn't know how they operate, I'm sure his lawyers can tell him.

If the Americans are genuinely not interested in charging Andrew and just have background questions that they think will help with their investigation of other people, then they should send them in writing to Andrew's lawyers who can help him write a reply that is thorough, clear, and concise.

If the Americans want to charge Andrew with any crimes, then they can present an extradition request to the UK authorities, and they can then do all subsequent talking to Andrew through his lawyer while Andrew keeps his mouth shut.

As for advice to Andrew, he should stay in the UK, keep a low profile, and let his PR staff do the talking if the press have any questions.
This video should be required viewing for anyone who even thinks about co-operating with the American justice system:


Unless your lawyer can get you an absolute cast-iron immunity deal. Secured on the life of his or her first-born.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top