ChatterBank36 mins ago
Prince Andrew - Again.
35 Answers
Once again the Prince hits the headlines with a 'difference of opinion' between his lawyers and the American Justice system.
Reading between the lines, it would appear that the definition of the word 'co-operation' is the sticking point here.
On the one hand the Prince's team are offering his 'co-operation' to the Epstein enquiry, and on the other, the American section appear to view his team's interpretation of the term 'co-operation' as being rather less than they require.
It will eventually be sorted, and the details will be revealed.
Any thoughts?
Reading between the lines, it would appear that the definition of the word 'co-operation' is the sticking point here.
On the one hand the Prince's team are offering his 'co-operation' to the Epstein enquiry, and on the other, the American section appear to view his team's interpretation of the term 'co-operation' as being rather less than they require.
It will eventually be sorted, and the details will be revealed.
Any thoughts?
Answers
AH: "What the Americans are going to want is Andrew in a witness box answering questions with no help. " The prince could handle it no sweat!
10:28 Tue 09th Jun 2020
Can't say I'm too bothered about this case. Is HRH Prince Andrew actually accused of crimes or is he a witness for the prosecution for the late Epstein? I understood that it was mutually agreed for a zoom interview with attorneys present some time ago. When and why did that fall through.?
As for Berman mouthing off to the media I wouldn't trust the justice he wishes for. He is totally unprofessional and has three times broken the confidentiality that is required of him in his position of office.The UK side have remonstrated with him on that point and he will not desist. I can understand the UK side's reticence to have dealings with this man even though they have claimed they are willing to co operate three times. I think I lean towards the Royal Family's stance although I have met Prince Andrew on numerous occasions and is not imo,a particularly pleasant and charismatic member of a family I have served and admired for many years.
As for Berman mouthing off to the media I wouldn't trust the justice he wishes for. He is totally unprofessional and has three times broken the confidentiality that is required of him in his position of office.The UK side have remonstrated with him on that point and he will not desist. I can understand the UK side's reticence to have dealings with this man even though they have claimed they are willing to co operate three times. I think I lean towards the Royal Family's stance although I have met Prince Andrew on numerous occasions and is not imo,a particularly pleasant and charismatic member of a family I have served and admired for many years.
My thoughts are that you've summed it up in the question. The two sides have a different interpretation of what co-operation means.
The last thing Andrew's lawyers would want him to do is to talk to the American investigators face to face after the Emily Maitliss fiasco.
Ideally, a bargain should be struck - let us extradite that woman that killed a young man on a motorbike and then fled the country, and then you can interview Andrew to your heart's content. Obviously that will never happen.
The last thing Andrew's lawyers would want him to do is to talk to the American investigators face to face after the Emily Maitliss fiasco.
Ideally, a bargain should be struck - let us extradite that woman that killed a young man on a motorbike and then fled the country, and then you can interview Andrew to your heart's content. Obviously that will never happen.
Further information today appears to back up my thoughts on this.
It's clear from media reports today that Andrew's idea (well actually his legal team's idea, he's too dense to do ideas himself) is to send a written statement - which he has clearly done.
It's also clear that the American side want nothing less than Andrew in person, under oath, and facing questions from their legal experts, and no doubt watching himself hang all over again.
As I said, if a neutral BBC journalist can let him condemn himself entirely with virtually no prompting, imagine what a trained legal pit-bull would do!
It's clear from media reports today that Andrew's idea (well actually his legal team's idea, he's too dense to do ideas himself) is to send a written statement - which he has clearly done.
It's also clear that the American side want nothing less than Andrew in person, under oath, and facing questions from their legal experts, and no doubt watching himself hang all over again.
As I said, if a neutral BBC journalist can let him condemn himself entirely with virtually no prompting, imagine what a trained legal pit-bull would do!
