Prince Andrew 'spent weeks' at Epstein home - witness

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

My brief always advises to never voluntarily talk with the police.

And if they do arrest and question you, to never admit you were there, and be as vague as possible with no factual content in your answers.

"I don't remember her, that was 20 years ago, I don't remember being there" ............. etc.

 

This isn't cowardly, this is simple self preservation for anyone, accused of anything, guilty or innocent.

 

That might work for Bob the Safe Blower but it won't work for Prince Charming.

[RayC]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

My brief always advises to never voluntarily talk with the police.

And if they do arrest and question you, to never admit you were there, and be as vague as possible with no factual content in your answers.

"I don't remember her, that was 20 years ago, I don't remember being there" ............. etc.

 

This isn't cowardly, this is simple self preservation for anyone, accused of anything, guilty or innocent.

 

If that is blanket advice from your brief irrespective of the truth of the statement, then both of you have committed (additional) crimes: Perjury, perverting the course of justice, etc. if it is subsequently shown that you were lying.

[BritManToo]

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

If that is blanket advice from your brief irrespective of the truth of the statement, then both of you have committed (additional) crimes: Perjury, perverting the course of justice, etc. if it is subsequently shown that you were lying.

I did ask my brief, what if they discover I'm lying, and he said ............

"Just tell them I told you to say that, the judge might tell me off, but he and I will still be having lunch and drinks together in the pub after the case"

 

But saying you don't remember can't be proven as a lie, I can't even remember what I had for breakfast yesterday, and if I were a Prince, one more shag in a sea of shags probably isn't any more memorable to him than yesterdays breakfast is to me.

 

Andrew has the right to 'due process' and should be considered innocent until proven guilty in court.

(Not that i'm sure a Prince is answerable to a civilian court)

Edited January 10 by BritManToo

[The Cyclist]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The allegations of Prince Andrew having sex and group sex with minors is sworn testimony within the court records.

 

And then needs backed up with some form of evidence, go to trial and a jury normally decides the innocence or guilt of the accused.

 

The normal course of justice in most Countries that are considered civilised.

 

Rich people, including Prince Andrew, around the world pay money on a yearly basis to make allegations go away. It's normally called extortion and blackmail. It also happens all the time in civil court proceedings.

 

Do you spend your life being on permanent send with faux outrage at all of them or is it something reserved for Prince Andrew ?

[Bday Prang]

23 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

If that is blanket advice from your brief irrespective of the truth of the statement, then both of you have committed (additional) crimes: Perjury, perverting the course of justice, etc. if it is subsequently shown that you were lying.

The worst thing anybody can do is to say anything at all to the police, one has a right to remain silent, its the first thing they tell you, and they only tell you that because they are obliged to, Ignore it at your own risk.   You cannot be charged with perjury or perverting the course of justice for remaining silent. 

[Bday Prang]

37 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That might work for Bob the Safe Blower but it won't work for Prince Charming.

I rather suspect that it will, and for all the others involved,

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

The right course of action is to consider the accused innocent until convicted in a court of law.

That’s the judicial process, it starts with accusations being investigated, not ignored.

 

As mentioned in this thread, ignoring accusations has in the past lead to continuing abuse.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

45 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

And then needs backed up with some form of evidence, go to trial and a jury normally decides the innocence or guilt of the accused.

 

The normal course of justice in most Countries that are considered civilised.

 

Rich people, including Prince Andrew, around the world pay money on a yearly basis to make allegations go away. It's normally called extortion and blackmail. It also happens all the time in civil court proceedings.

 

Do you spend your life being on permanent send with faux outrage at all of them or is it something reserved for Prince Andrew ?

Not so.

 

Sworn testimony is evidence, it may be corroborated or undermined by other sworn testimony.

 

At the very least it would be a positive step if Prince Andrew were to give his sworn testimony.

 

Though perhaps not for Prince Andrew, hence the recourse to mummy’s money.

 

I don’t spend my life defending credibility accused rapists who are also long term and frequent associates of a notorious pedophile and who are unwilling to defend themselves.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

The worst thing anybody can do is to say anything at all to the police, one has a right to remain silent, its the first thing they tell you, and they only tell you that because they are obliged to, Ignore it at your own risk.   You cannot be charged with perjury or perverting the course of justice for remaining silent. 

Nobody can be charged with perjury for anything they haven’t said, however in English law an individual’s refusal to answer police questioning at the time of investigation may be considered in their subsequent trial:

 

You can certainly be charged with perverting the course of justice if you withhold information when questioned. 

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/adverse-inferences

Edited January 10 by Chomper Higgot

[Morch]

14 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

the far right always do this. Seize on an edge case and then pretend it's a systemic problem nationwide.

 

@ozimoron

 

You do the same quite often.

Just this morning, in fact.

[RuamRudy]

17 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Really ? I seem to remember a distinct lack of vigour, regarding any investigation those allegations, which persisted for years and years.

         The Police, at the request very woke, and very senior civil servants, with links to again a very woke social services department deliberately  turned a completely  blind eye,  to what was known by just about everybody in the authorities,  to be happening on an extremely large scale.

          Unbelievably , the reason   for this was purely for fear of offending Muslim " Cultural sensitivities"  it was kept well under the radar, and little action was taken  until a certain "right wing extremist" raised national  public awareness of the issue and the powers that be were literally shamed into taking some reluctant action.    Yet another fine example of wokeness

The vigour of which I was referring was not that of the police, but of the poster to whom I was responding.

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

And then needs backed up with some form of evidence, go to trial and a jury normally decides the innocence or guilt of the accused.

 

The normal course of justice in most Countries that are considered civilised.

 

Rich people, including Prince Andrew, around the world pay money on a yearly basis to make allegations go away. It's normally called extortion and blackmail. It also happens all the time in civil court proceedings.

 

Do you spend your life being on permanent send with faux outrage at all of them or is it something reserved for Prince Andrew ?

 

I think you are not a million miles away from the point many others hold - let's see Andrew have his day in court. He should have the same scrutiny as any other alleged sex offender. 

[Georgealbert]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

 

Andrew has the right to 'due process' and should be considered innocent until proven guilty in court.

(Not that i'm sure a Prince is answerable to a civilian court)

It is only the King that cannot be arrested, and has sovereign immunity.

 

Since 1967, that exemption has been written into more than 160 British laws to grant sweeping immunity to the monarch.

 

All the other members of the Royal Family can be arrested, unless they are with him, the King.
 

The laws also states that no arrests can be made in the monarch's presence, or within the surroundings of a royal palace. A royal palace is one that is used as a residence, such as Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace, regardless of whether the monarch is actually living there at the time.
 

Arrest and questioning has to follow the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and there is no exemption that Prince Andrew could use, other than stated above.

Edited January 10 by Georgealbert

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Exactly. "Hey everyone look over there at the British Royal Family".

 

Meanwhile Clinton and Gates go under the radar. Classic diversionary tactics. 

You are trying your very level best to defend the indefensable so let's just clear up a few FACTS for you. Neither Clinton nor Gates have had any accusations leveled at them other than one witness who testified Epstein told her "Clinton likes them young, referring to girls." Gates has had nothing more than he met Epstein a few times in 2011 to discuss philanthropy (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.html) and in both cases, not a single woman/girl have come forward to accuse them of anything. Prince Andrew on the other hand has specifically been accused of sexual assault and battery on Ms Giuffre when she was 17, having been trafficked when she was 16. When first accused of this, Ol' Andy denied even meeting Giuffre until THAT photo emerged and he hastily had to change his story to 'didn't recall meeting her". His legal team tried on numerous occassions to have the case thrown out but it just would not go away so Andy, in his infinite wisdom decided to do a Newsnight interview that set him back immeasureably (can't sweat - pizza in Woking type etc). He then decided the best way to defend himself (as all innocent people do) was to pay off Giuffre to the tune of $12 million.

Yes, everyone is innocent until proven guilty and yes, a pay-off isn't an admission of guilt but come on! Does this look like the actions of someone with nothing to hide? And for all those trying to defend this embarassment of a Royal with the 'but she was 17 and of the age of consent' and 'it could have happened to any of us' - please!! He is/was a member of the Royal family - hardly your average Joe - and should therefore been much much more choosy in who he hung out with. Also, with the well documented amount of time he spent with his good mate Epstein, don't try and tell me he didn't know how young these girls were or indeed what their 'situation' was. He may not have known they were trafficked but don't try and tell me he didn't know they were being paid - what were they all just interns on a work experience prgramme then?

He had his chance to defend himself with both the FBI and in court. He chose neither option and therefore in my opinion, rightly gets ostracised by the Royal family AND the British public and will be labelled as a paedophile for the rest of his life. And I for one think he's lucky to only have to deal with this. He should be rotting away in prison, or following his best chum Epstein's ignominious demise . 

[The Cyclist]

36 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I think you are not a million miles away from the point many others hold - let's see Andrew have his day in court. He should have the same scrutiny as any other alleged sex offender. 

 

I will leave you and the others to speculate, twist your knickers and have palpitations as to why a Criminal trial did not go ahead.

 

Quote

Prince Andrew has asked for a jury trial and denied the allegations against him as he officially responded to Virginia Giuffre's sexual assault lawsuit.

Court documents filed in New York show he "demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted in the complaint".

 

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-demands-trial-by-jury-as-he-denies-all-virginia-giuffre-sex-assault-claims-12526085

[johnnybangkok]

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I will leave you and the others to speculate, twist your knickers and have palpitations as to why a Criminal trial did not go ahead.

 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-demands-trial-by-jury-as-he-denies-all-virginia-giuffre-sex-assault-claims-12526085

A lots happened since that story i.e. a $12 million pay-off.

[The Cyclist]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not so.

 

This is not so.....

 

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

And then needs backed up with some form of evidence, go to trial and a jury normally decides the innocence or guilt of the accused.

 

The normal course of justice in most Countries that are considered civilised.

 

What banana republic do you come from ?

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

This is not so.....

 

 

What banana republic do you come from ?

I read your post, then I read it again.

 

It didn’t improve with a second reading.

 

Are you talking to yourself? 

[The Cyclist]

4 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

A lots happened since that story i.e. a $12 million pay-off.

 

Which has quadrupled the speculation, knicker twisting and trial by social media warriors.

 

A pay off my imply guilt, it does not prove guilt.

 

And just for the record, he is probably guilty of being a gullible <deleted>, probably did **** her, without knowing at the time that he was potentially breaking any laws.

 

An accusation that could be levelled at hundreds of thousands of people in the public eye. From sports stars, pop stars to Politicians and even royals.

 

It might not be ethical, it might not even be ethical, but it happens in just about every Country. 

 

Trying to whitewash that and scapegoat 1 individual is nothing short of bonkers.

[The Cyclist]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I read your post, then I read it again.

 

It didn’t improve with a second reading.

 

 

 

What is considered due process in Countries that has evolved beyond banana republics ?
 

A sworn deposition, on its own does not a convict make.

 

I aleady gave you a great example of a screaming idiot who made sworn statements. So credible was he that the Police set up a whole Operation to investigate it. Op Midland and Carl Beech if you are interested.

 

I also steered you towards miscarriages of Justice, Pardons, convictions quashed because people lied on oath.

 

For a really update reference, try the Post Office Scandal.

 

No doubt that the above information will be too difficult for you to compute.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

The worst thing anybody can do is to say anything at all to the police, one has a right to remain silent, its the first thing they tell you, and they only tell you that because they are obliged to, Ignore it at your own risk.   You cannot be charged with perjury or perverting the course of justice for remaining silent. 

 

I agree but that's different to saying, "I don't remember".

 

I accept that proving that someone is lying when they say that "I don't remember being there" is often very difficult/ impossible, but I'd suggest that if a suspect is answering questions within a day or two of a crime being committed and used that defence when there is photographic evidence linking them to the place in question, then there might be grounds to prosecute for perjury, etc.

[JonnyF]

32 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

He should be rotting away in prison, or following his best chum Epstein's ignominious demise . 

 

So you don't actually believe in innocent until proven guilty then. You wish death on a man before he has been proven guilty of a crime. 

 

What a lovely attitude. Let me guess, you're a 'liberal' .

[RayC]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I did ask my brief, what if they discover I'm lying, and he said ............

"Just tell them I told you to say that, the judge might tell me off, but he and I will still be having lunch and drinks together in the pub after the case"

 

Well, that highlights one of the things wrong with UK judicial system.

 

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

But saying you don't remember can't be proven as a lie, I can't even remember what I had for breakfast yesterday, and if I were a Prince, one more shag in a sea of shags probably isn't any more memorable to him than yesterdays breakfast is to me.

 

I agree that it's difficult to prove that someone is lying when they say, "I don't remember" and this difficulty increases over time. However, I'm not sure the 'Yesterday's breakfast defence' would stand up to examination unless you had an underlying medical condition.

 

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

 

Andrew has the right to 'due process' and should be considered innocent until proven guilty in court.

(Not that i'm sure a Prince is answerable to a civilian court)

 

You're correct on both counts which rather makes a mockery of the idea that we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

What is considered due process in Countries that has evolved beyond banana republics ?
 

A sworn deposition, on its own does not a convict make.

 

I aleady gave you a great example of a screaming idiot who made sworn statements. So credible was he that the Police set up a whole Operation to investigate it. Op Midland and Carl Beech if you are interested.

 

I also steered you towards miscarriages of Justice, Pardons, convictions quashed because people lied on oath.

 

For a really update reference, try the Post Office Scandal.

 

No doubt that the above information will be too difficult for you to compute.

A keen cyclist myself I usually give other cyclists a wide leeway when passing, but you’ve used up your fellow cyclist points with your ‘banana republic’ nonsense:

 

First the U.S.:

 

“If the judge and jury find a witness statement credible, they can charge or convict you of a crime based solely on witness testimony alone.

The statement must be made under oath for eyewitness testimony to be used to charge someone with a crime. “

 

https://www.bergencriminalattorney.com/can-i-be-charged-with-a-crime-based-on-someone-elses-testimony-alone/#:~:text=If the judge and jury,charge someone with a crime.
 

And then the U.K.:

 

https://www.olliers.com/news/how-can-i-be-prosecuted-no-evidence/

[pacovl46]

22 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

No, it isn't.

 

It's sex with a minor, which the named female was not.

 

Rape is unconsensuel sex. Sex when one of those involved has said NO. I don't recall seeing anything about the female in question saying NO.

 

If it had been consensual fhen why did he settle with her?

Edited January 10 by pacovl46

[pacovl46]

14 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

It is a private island. Do they have these laws and under what jurisdiction?

The private Island is part of the US Virgin Islands territory and therefore part of their jurisdiction. Just because one owns an island doesn't make that island a sovereign nation.

[Bday Prang]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

You can certainly be charged with perverting the course of justice if you withhold information when questioned

in court , not when questioned by the police     "you have the right to remain silent" etc etc

Edited January 10 by Bday Prang

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

in court , not when questioned by the police     "you have the right to remain silent" etc etc

It depends on the Jurisdiction and circumstances.

 

In the UK the police have arrested the wrong person and you are questioned but fail to reveal your knowledge of who the real suspect is you are committing the crime of perverting the course of justice and or aiding and abetting a suspect evade justice.

 

In the U.S. the 5th Amendment does not apply to witnesses of crimes in which the witness has not committed any part of the crime.

 

There are of course exceptions relating to fear of reprisal etc.

 

 

 

Edited January 10 by Chomper Higgot

[Bday Prang]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It depends on the Jurisdiction and circumstances.

 

In the UK the police have arrested the wrong person and you are questioned but fail to reveal your knowledge of who the real suspect is you are committing the crime of perverting the course of justice and or siding and abetting a suspect evade justice.

 

In the U.S. the 5th Amendment does not apply to witnesses of crimes in which the witness has not committed any part of the crime.

 

 

 

Ok I'll accept what you are saying as I'm sure you have researched the matter, But surely,if arrested, and therefore cautioned in the UK.  the caution you are obliged to receive should mention that specifically, It not really fair for them to tell you that you have the right to remain silent, if there are specific circumstances where exercising that right would automatically render you liable to prosecution. 

It only states that "it may harm your defence....." 

[Bday Prang]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

The vigour of which I was referring was not that of the police, but of the poster to whom I was responding.

Well i would imagine that would be least of Andrews worries