StuartO Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-28 8:53 AM ....We can't bring Anne Sacoolas victim back, so extraditing her would be of no practical benefit. Wheras Prince Andrew could help the investigation to find other paedophiles and traffickers, who may still be committing offences. Harry Dunn's mother wouldn't agree with you first point; she wants Ann Sucoolas back to face justice, in the same way that any other accused person is required to face justice. Surely you are not suggesting that prosecutions for causing a death should only happen if the victim is still alive to feel the benefit? Prince Andrew has said, quite publicly, that he will help law enforcement agencies and we don't yet know what, if anything, he has been asked to do. One American prosecution lawyer has said he's done nothing at all yet, that's all. But what has he refused to do or what question has he refused to answer, those are the relevant questions? Presumably Prince Andrew is just as entitled to "take the Fifth" as anyone else under the American system if he wishes? I'm no fan of Prince Andrew and I'm glad to see him withdrawing from public life - but I don't see that he needs to volunteer himself (or his family) to be the punch bag for lawyers who want to conduct a witch hunt or a money tree in a money-making venture by women who were willing young prostitutes, if marginally under age by some laws, just because they now see a chance to cash in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 StuartO - 2020-01-28 9:22 AM John52 - 2020-01-28 8:53 AM ....We can't bring Anne Sacoolas victim back, so extraditing her would be of no practical benefit. Wheras Prince Andrew could help the investigation to find other paedophiles and traffickers, who may still be committing offences. Harry Dunn's mother wouldn't agree with you first point; she wants Ann Sucoolas back to face justice, in the same way that any other accused person is required to face justice. Surely you are not suggesting that prosecutions for causing a death should only happen if the victim is still alive to feel the benefit? Prince Andrew has said, quite publicly, that he will help law enforcement agencies and we don't yet know what, if anything, he has been asked to do. One American prosecution lawyer has said he's done nothing at all yet, that's all. But what has he refused to do or what question has he refused to answer, those are the relevant questions? Presumably Prince Andrew is just as entitled to "take the Fifth" as anyone else under the American system if he wishes? I'm no fan of Prince Andrew and I'm glad to see him withdrawing from public life - but I don't see that he needs to volunteer himself (or his family) to be the punch bag for lawyers who want to conduct a witch hunt or a money tree in a money-making venture by women who were willing young prostitutes, if marginally under age by some laws, just because they now see a chance to cash in. Anne Sacoolas isn't likely to do the same thing again. Wheras those in Jeffrey Epstein's paedophile trafficking ring might - unless Prince Andrew helps the authorities to find them. Which is why the Epstein inquiry is of more practical benefit. Since Prince Andrew is saying nothing and not helping we can only go by what others are saying. Eg; 'The US attorney Geoffrey Berman said at a news conference on Monday that Andrew had provided “zero cooperation”, despite his lawyers being contacted by prosecutors and the FBI as part of the investigation.' 'Lisa Bloom, who represents five of Epstein’s alleged victims, said it was time for the Duke of York to “do the right thing” and speak with investigators in the US.' '‘You know what, Prince Andrew, you said you would fully cooperate with law enforcement and you have not done it.’” >:-) PS: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/28/prince-andrew-told-to-stop-playing-games-over-epstein-inquiry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-28 12:11 PM 'Lisa Bloom, who represents five of Epstein’s alleged victims, said it was time for the Duke of York to “do the right thing” and speak with investigators in the US.' '‘You know what, Prince Andrew, you said you would fully cooperate with law enforcement and you have not done it.’” >:-) You are quoting a claimant's lawyer who is clearly hoping to put Prince Andrew on the spot through the media to help her clients' prospects of a financial settlement - and of course she might well succeed but she is hardly impartial and she doesn't specify what requests have been made by law enforcement to Prince Andrew - and she is unlikely to know that because she's a claimant's representative rather than a law enforcement lawyer. Prince Andrew's lawyers will presumably be advising him to tread carefully and avoid incriminating himself or making himself liable for damages unnecessarily, which is precisely what Lisa Bloom hopes to goad him into doing. Prince Andrew never said he would "fully cooperate" with law enforcement he just said he would cooperate "if required", whch is a very different thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 StuartO - 2020-01-28 1:03 PM John52 - 2020-01-28 12:11 PM 'Lisa Bloom, who represents five of Epstein’s alleged victims, said it was time for the Duke of York to “do the right thing” and speak with investigators in the US.' '‘You know what, Prince Andrew, you said you would fully cooperate with law enforcement and you have not done it.’” >:-) You are quoting a claimant's lawyer who is clearly hoping to put Prince Andrew on the spot through the media to help her clients' prospects of a financial settlement - and of course she might well succeed but she is hardly impartial and she doesn't specify what requests have been made by law enforcement to Prince Andrew - and she is unlikely to know that because she's a claimant's representative rather than a law enforcement lawyer. Prince Andrew's lawyers will presumably be advising him to tread carefully and avoid incriminating himself or making himself liable for damages unnecessarily, which is precisely what Lisa Bloom hopes to goad him into doing. Prince Andrew never said he would "fully cooperate" with law enforcement he just said he would cooperate "if required", whch is a very different thing. I also quoted the US Attorney who is not the claimants lawyer and put it even more strongly... The US attorney Geoffrey Berman said at a news conference on Monday that Andrew had provided “zero cooperation”, despite his lawyers being contacted by prosecutors and the FBI as part of the investigation.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Berman If Prince Andrew is innocent, why is he more concerned about ' incriminating himself or making himself liable for damages unnecessarily' than he is about the victims *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 .. so how can we ask for Anne Sacoolas when Prince Andrew is hiding behind his mother >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-28 2:36 PM .. so how can we ask for Anne Sacoolas when Prince Andrew is hiding behind his mother >:-) What evidence do you have that Prince Andrew is hiding behind his mother? Isn’t that just you jumping to anti-royalist conclusions again? Isn’t it more likely that he is hiding behind his lawyers because he doesn’t want to get drawn any further into something which he’s already said he knows nothing else about? Why would anyone agree to be questioned by American lawyers in the challenging way they go about things if they didn’t have to? Prince Andrew isn’t a clever person and while he may have rather foolishly accepted the opportunity of sex with a pretty young female when it presented, perhaps even imagining that It was happening because the girl was attracted to him, it doesn’t follow that he was part of the procurement process or even aware of it. That seems to me very unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Are you suggesting an ordinary guy would be able to evade the law like Prince Andrew *-) I appreciate he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, it happens when leaders are hereditary. But he stayed in the home of as convicted paedophile and trafficker - with top security staff and advisers working for him and paid by us. How can he not have been aware *-) The only explanation I can think of is 'I'm the Prince I can do what I like' Which maybe he is used to doing in his own country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 StuartO - 2020-01-28 2:56 PM Why would anyone agree to be questioned by American lawyers in the challenging way they go about things if they didn’t have to? TO HELP THE VICTIMS!! I would agree to it because I have nothing to hide, would like to clear my name, and above all would like to help the investigation for the sake of the victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-28 3:48 PM .... The only explanation I can think of is 'I'm the Prince I can do what I like'. There is indeed som evidence that Prince Andrew might have been stupid enough to think that he knew better than his advisors - including of course his disastrous decision to agree to be interviewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-28 3:51 PM StuartO - 2020-01-28 2:56 PM Why would anyone agree to be questioned by American lawyers in the challenging way they go about things if they didn’t have to? TO HELP THE VICTIMS!! I would agree to it because I have nothing to hide, would like to clear my name, and above all would like to help the investigation for the sake of the victims. But I'm not sure I even see these claimants as victims at all. They seem more likely to me to be shameless, opportunist former prostitutes. Both Ann Sacoolas and Harry Dunn's mother on the other hand are likely to end up seriously damaged and can be seen as victims of circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 28, 2020 Author Share Posted January 28, 2020 I heard this subject under discussion earlier today on a tv show and afaik it's a bit of a story the media have jumped on to flog more papers and imo, an unhelpful attempt to get Sacoolas back here to face justice. The two cases are so totally apart from each other it's almost diminishing the obvious criminal act of killing a young man by dangerous driving (or careless at the very minimum) and then fleeing the country to escape justice. As far as i'm aware Prince Andrew was photographed with his arm around a 17 year old girl in the UK? Not an offence here. I realise he was a close friend of Epstein and continuing that friendship after Epstein had been slapped on the wrist for sex offences was foolish. US authorities working on the Epstein case would help themselves more by speaking to Ghislaine Maxwell who has gone to ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 StuartO - 2020-01-28 4:18 PM They seem more likely to me to be shameless, opportunist former prostitutes. Thats for the inquiry to find out. Who else would get away with hiding behind their mother refusing to give evidence or even help the police with their enquiries because the complainants might be 'shameless, opportunist former prostitutes.' *-) (Whats wrong with prostitutes anyway? - at least they are earning their own living And who is the more honest - a prostitute - or a woman who marries a rich man she doesn't love?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-01-28 4:49 PM killing a young man by dangerous driving (or careless at the very minimum) and then fleeing the country to escape justice. A mistake driving on the wrong side of the road many others have made and got away with. Bulletguy - 2020-01-28 4:49 PM As far as i'm aware Prince Andrew was photographed with his arm around a 17 year old girl in the UK? Not an offence here. Not an offence there either. But he claimed he never met her. And now is refusing to say any more. Bulletguy - 2020-01-28 4:49 PM US authorities working on the Epstein case would help themselves more by speaking to Ghislaine Maxwell who has gone to ground. *-) How can they speak to her if she's gone to ground ? And why wouldn't Prince Andrew want to help the police with their inquiries as requested? If it was you or me we would just be hauled in, our homes searched, and computers seized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 28, 2020 Author Share Posted January 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-28 5:04 PM Bulletguy - 2020-01-28 4:49 PM killing a young man by dangerous driving (or careless at the very minimum) and then fleeing the country to escape justice. A mistake driving on the wrong side of the road many others have made and got away with. Bulletguy - 2020-01-28 4:49 PM As far as i'm aware Prince Andrew was photographed with his arm around a 17 year old girl in the UK? Not an offence here. Not an offence there either. But he claimed he never met her. And now is refusing to say any more. Bulletguy - 2020-01-28 4:49 PM US authorities working on the Epstein case would help themselves more by speaking to Ghislaine Maxwell who has gone to ground. *-) How can they speak to her if she's gone to ground ? And why wouldn't Prince Andrew want to help the police with their inquiries as requested? If it was you or me we would just be hauled in, our homes searched, and computers seized. 1) I don't know of any other case where a driver has killed someone in an rta, albeit unintentionally, and 'got away with it'. 2) and 3) I don't think it helpful to conflate the two cases as they are poles apart. One involves killing a young man in an rta and fleeing the scene who has been charged with the offence, the other doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-01-28 6:05 PM I don't know of any other case where a driver has killed someone in an rta, albeit unintentionally, and 'got away with it'. I don' t think she has got away with it because she will have it hanging over her for the rest of her life, with people talking about her and shunning her. I've heard of many who have done the same as her -forgotten which side of the road to drive on, and got away with it because nothing happened to be coming the other way - are they less guilty than her? Bulletguy - 2020-01-28 6:05 PM I don't think it helpful to conflate the two cases as they are poles apart. One involves killing a young man in an rta and fleeing the scene who has been charged with the offence, the other doesn't. Well both have 'fled the scene' What Anne Sacoolas did was accidental through forgetfullness. Could you say the same for Prince Andrew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Both are avoiding being held to account in a court of law. As far as I can see the biggest difference between the two is Prince Andrew may be able to give evidence that would identify traffickers and pedophiles to prevent more children becoming victims. But he is hiding behind his mother, and providing 'zero cooperation' with this important investigation. Is this the way someone with all his Titles and Honours should behave *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 'When the foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, raises their case with his US counterpart, Mike Pompeo, again this week, it would be nice to think his American counterpart couldn’t point accusingly at the prince in return. ' https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/28/prince-andrew-anne-sacoolas-law-privileged-justice Whats Prince Andrew doing thats more important than Helping Epstein's victims *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 29, 2020 Author Share Posted January 29, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-29 7:18 AM Bulletguy - 2020-01-28 6:05 PM I don't know of any other case where a driver has killed someone in an rta, albeit unintentionally, and 'got away with it'. I don' t think she has got away with it because she will have it hanging over her for the rest of her life, with people talking about her and shunning her. I've heard of many who have done the same as her -forgotten which side of the road to drive on, and got away with it because nothing happened to be coming the other way - are they less guilty than her? So far Sacoolas has 'got away' with killing a young man (as i said previously, albeit unintentional). It's worth remembering at the time she also had her 12 year old son in the car with her. That's an age old enough to know what his mother did and quite how that has affected him nobody knows but i imagine it was traumatic and his mothers actions afterwards were not the best example to set. It's easy to make the mistake of driving on the wrong side in a foreign country but the guilt is causing death or serious injury to an innocent victim by careless or dangerous driving then leaving the country to evade prosecution. Someone who momentarily goes on the wrong side of the road, then corrects it and avoids an accident is only guilty of making a silly mistake, so yes, they are less guilty than Sacoolas by a long chalk! Bulletguy - 2020-01-28 6:05 PM I don't think it helpful to conflate the two cases as they are poles apart. One involves killing a young man in an rta and fleeing the scene who has been charged with the offence, the other doesn't. John52 - 2020-01-29 7:18 AM Well both have 'fled the scene' What Anne Sacoolas did was accidental through forgetfullness. Could you say the same for Prince Andrew? Everyone including the Dunn family accept Sacoolas killing their son was unintentional and i've not read anything to suggest any other. I don't know exactly what 'scene' Prince Andrew has 'fled' from but he's annoyed at the claim by US authorities that he has been "uncooperative" as the FBI have never contacted him. Seems to me the US lawyers have their wires crossed somewhere and should ask the FBI why they haven't contacted him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-01-29 5:45 PM Someone who momentarily goes on the wrong side of the road, then corrects it and avoids an accident is only guilty of making a silly mistake,. If something happens to be coming the other way it takes a moment to have an accident - what if they have one before they correct it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-01-29 5:45 PM the FBI have never contacted him. Seems to me the US lawyers have their wires crossed somewhere and should ask the FBI why they haven't contacted him. According to the article they have 'Prince Andrew, who was this week accused of offering “zero cooperation” with inquiries into his friend Jeffrey Epstein, despite being contacted by both the FBI and prosecutors ' Maybe they could only get to speak to a flunkey who 'didn't pass the message on' *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 29, 2020 Author Share Posted January 29, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-29 6:48 PM Bulletguy - 2020-01-29 5:45 PM Someone who momentarily goes on the wrong side of the road, then corrects it and avoids an accident is only guilty of making a silly mistake,. If something happens to be coming the other way it takes a moment to have an accident - what if they have one before they correct it ... Then they are as guilty as Sacoolas.....only she compounded her offence by attempting to evade justice so the penalty becomes even more serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-01-29 7:54 PM John52 - 2020-01-29 6:48 PM Bulletguy - 2020-01-29 5:45 PM Someone who momentarily goes on the wrong side of the road, then corrects it and avoids an accident is only guilty of making a silly mistake,. If something happens to be coming the other way it takes a moment to have an accident - what if they have one before they correct it ... Then they are as guilty as Sacoolas......only she compounded her offence by attempting to evade justice so the penalty becomes even more serious. So whether they are 'guilty as Sacoolas' depends on luck - whether something happens to be coming the other way .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 29, 2020 Author Share Posted January 29, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-29 6:56 PM Bulletguy - 2020-01-29 5:45 PM the FBI have never contacted him. Seems to me the US lawyers have their wires crossed somewhere and should ask the FBI why they haven't contacted him. According to the article they have 'Prince Andrew, who was this week accused of offering “zero cooperation” with inquiries into his friend Jeffrey Epstein, despite being contacted by both the FBI and prosecutors ' Maybe they could only get to speak to a flunkey who 'didn't pass the message on' *-) This is all i read but as i've said John, the two cases are chalk and cheese and i honestly do not think it helpful to conflate the two. Some media are using Assanges case as a comparison but i can't see that being helpful either. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-andrew-epstein-inquiry-angry-claims-zero-cooperation-a4347411.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-01-29 7:58 PM the two cases are chalk and cheese What Annne Sacoolas did was forgetfulness and accidental, wheras what Prince Andrew did was deliberate. Even if you believe his story he doesn't sweat like everybody else and he never met the underage girl the photograph shows him with his arm around *-) he was supporting a paedophile trafficker by giving him the Royal credibility he needed to continue - even staying in his home for 5 days after he was convicted - how can Prince Andrew, with all his security minders, not have known that? Biggest difference I can see is that Prince Andrews evidence could help identify other paedophile traffickers like his close friend Jeffrey Epstein, and bring them to justice. Wheras I can see no practical value in putting Anne Sacoolas in jail - she has already suffered far more than those who did the same as her but were lucky enough not to have something coming the other way, and would come out of an English prison as a worse character than when she went in. Reminds me of the long and expensive investigation into Paul Burrel, the Royal Butler accused of theft. At the last minute the Queen avoided giving evidence by suddenly 'remembering' she gave him permission to take the items. *-) and the whole expensive case was just dropped. You or I could have been charged with wasting police time, if they had bothered to investigate it in the first place.. Legalities aside, Is this the way someone with all his Royal titles should behave *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-30 6:16 AM.. Is this the way someone with all his Royal titles should behave *-) If anyone bothered to read all the way through this thread they would see that John52 hasn't dealt with counter-arguments or changed his tune one little bit - which boils down to it being Prince Andrew's fault that he hasn't rushed over to the States to face interogation by the FBI and claimants' lawyers and he's a disgrace to the royal titles and honours he still carries. John52 is of course a very activist anti-royalist. And the American lady who left the UK soon after he involvement in an RTC which killed a motorcyclist shouldn't be troubled to face justice because she, a person with no royal titles or honours, made an understandable mistake which she will have to live with, which is enough. John52 isn't particularly a fan of the US but in this case he took this position, so he's stuck to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.