Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.

Man of Honour
Joined
14 Apr 2017
Posts
3,511
Location
London
yes his advisors were a fool to let him participate - but an experienced interviewer with the scent of blood in face of someone unfamiliar with journalist techniques -

it's a bit like hurting a defenceless animal - and should be held in comparison to Bashir and Meghan interview, also, exploitative/manipulative journalism.

Let’s be reasonable here jp, Andrew behaved like a condemned man eager to pay for his crime by bounding up the scaffold steps two at a time, checking that the guillotine was oiled up correctly, then gleefully putting his head into place.
Ms. Maitlis producers probably said, “If he’s mug enough to come in to be interviewed about this, then give it to him with both barrels, blow him out of the water.”
Experienced journalist that she is, she asked pertinent questions in the correct way and if his asinine answers and wriggling made him look like a defenceless animal then that was on him being mug enough to appear, not on her for doing her job.
In the interest of full disclosure, the fact that the elegant Ms. Maitlis graced the rear compartment of my Black Cab a couple of times has no bearing on how I judged the interview.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
28,092
Location
London
So it seems Andrew's defence is that he lacks enough information to either admit or deny;
  • that the widely published photograph of himself, Miss Roberts and Maxwell 'exists' (the photo exists)
  • he and Maxwell have been photographed at numerous social events together (they have)
  • he is named in flight logs flying with Epstein on his private plane from 1999 onwards
  • if he invited Epstein to his daughter Beatrice's 18th birthday party in 2006, despite Epstein being charged with paedophile offences
  • that he didn't know Epstein was a registered sex offender during his visit to him in New York in 2010
This is a strange defence.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jul 2010
Posts
4,076
Location
Worcestershire
yes his advisors were a fool to let him participate - but an experienced interviewer with the scent of blood in face of someone unfamiliar with journalist techniques -
( crikey - the tories were bouycotting r4today because they were afraid of the journalists, and their dark techniques looking for sound bites )
it's a bit like hurting a defenceless animal - and should be held in comparison to Bashir and Meghan interview, also, exploitative/manipulative journalism.
This is the biggest steaming pile of a post I've read on this forum in some time. And that's saying something.

Poor wittle Andrew musn't have a microphone put in front of him to tell his side of things, he's too pwecious.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,901
Thankyou ... is that you, Mrs Trellis ?

So it seems Andrew's defence is that he lacks enough information to either admit or deny;
  • that the widely published photograph of himself, Miss Roberts and Maxwell 'exists' (the photo exists)
if you read the accusation it says photograph was taken 'prior to alleged sexual offence' so is associated with it.
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf
so pretty unsurprising he says no comment
38. Prince Andrew lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph thirty-eight of the Complaint.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pdf/2022/01/andrew.pdf


...

hadn't realised ghislaine filed a retrial request
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ell-trial-prince-andrew-epstein-b1996887.html
The juror, Scotty David, told several news outlets that he had been abused as a child and said he spoke to the other jurors of his experience of being sexually abused.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
14 Apr 2017
Posts
3,511
Location
London
It's mind boggling that andrew is so stupid and full of himself that he thought doing a TV interview to overshare was a top plan.

I don’t find it mind boggling, he looks and acts like the epitome of a village idiot who’s had elocution lessons, but still retains his ridiculous penchant for dressing up like a naval officer.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,901
looks like the bbc pulled another blinder like the arrogant/self-inflated Andrew interview
- Novak saying beligerently how he will put what he wants in his body, sacrifice his career etc - hope the BBC make lots of money syndicating that,
should be as good as watching Louis Theroux
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Aug 2007
Posts
29,062
Why would he settle and not defend himself in court?

Double edged argument isnt it, if he is guilty why would she settle and not just go on to win in court instead. I guess now that both sides have agreed to settle for a payout, we'll simply never know what really did or didnt happen
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Posts
12,345
Why would he settle and not defend himself in court?

Obviously guilty.

Double edged argument isnt it, if he is guilty why would she settle and not just go on to win in court instead. I guess now that both sides have agreed to settle for a payout, we'll simply never know what really did or didnt happen

It wasn't a criminal trial. She would have likely won either way, out of court settlement or being awarded compensation by the court.
 
Back
Top Bottom