When it comes to giving interviews, whether under caution, or as a voluntary effort to clear your name, be very careful that what you may say might be used against you. You have the right to remain silent. We know of cases where answers to questions, given in good faith, were later used by Sussex police to gain a conviction - even though no criminal offence had been committed. The so-called victim was not even required to attend court to be questioned as to her evidence, as per Article 6 - where she was a psychiatric nurse, socializing with patients at weekends and had failed to report a car accident to her NHS trust, where uninsured due to having no MOT (as we understand it). The system protected the person abusing her position of trust, rather than the person blowing the whistle. Sussex police did not prosecute the nurse. Her father was a prominent Mason in a Lodge just 100 yards away from a police station. That is how corrupted the British legal system has become when it comes to sex offences, or issues related to such charges. The best thing you can do is give a no comment interview - perhaps on the advice of your solicitor. One thing you should never do is say something that you cannot back up with substantial evidence, such as a claim to not being able to sweat. We'd suggest keeping that in your back pocket for any hearing, when you can use it to best effect. Do not worry about the warning: "It may harm your defence." If you can catch the other side out in a courtroom, that is much more important, than appearing to cooperate with the authorities. They may be out to get you as part of a vendetta, such as to cover up not investigating a crime, that is becoming awkward, as in the Petition in 1997 - where there is no statute of limitations on fraud and malfeasance.

In a court of law, it does not matter if you are innocent of an alleged crime, the moment you add credibility to a fabricated story based on circumstances, you are doomed. In England, you are guilty until proven innocent - where Lord David Blunkett, known as 'Laughing Boy,' took away the most sacred (Article 6) right of all defendants, to be treated as innocent, until proven guilty. And for that he received a peerage from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's honours system. Not a surprise, when you consider that we knight war criminals in the UK.

“It was sexual intercourse,” the judge said [4 Jan 2022], according to Newsweek reporter Jack Royston. “Involuntary sexual intercourse. There isn’t any doubt about what that means, at least not since someone else was in the White House.”

One of the worst things you can do is give an interview. You will only add credibility to your accuser's claims. Anyone can fabricate a relatively convincing story, based on circumstances. And they don't need to prove penetration took place, or be specific about where - simply assert that it happened, and show there was opportunity. Dozens of innocent men are being convicted every year, because of the Laughing Boy; David Blunkett's changes to the law, taking away the right of a defendant to be treated as innocent during the investigation stage at a crime scene, and later taking away the duty of a trial judge to give warnings about convicting on the say so of a person, unsupported by medical or other corroborating evidence. This right was abrogated in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

What this means, in true witch hunt fashion, is that unless you have the funds and a legal team batting for you, you are going down. If you are legally aided, you are going down. Unless, by a miracle, the prosecution cannot get around a specific date alibi. But be careful here. We know of a case where the defendant could prove he was overseas at the time of an allegation - and the police simply re-adjusted their dates and re-charged the hapless innocent. If he'd kept his passport details in his back pocket for the trial, he'd have blown the case apart. Don't be too eager to give information to English police, they should be treated as corrupt to the core. Based on statistics and real cases of stitch ups.

Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview - BBC News - 4,840,669 views - 17 Nov 2019

In a Newsnight special, Emily Maitlis interviews the Duke of York as he speaks for the first time about his relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and allegations which have been made against him over his own conduct.

The Duke of York speaks to Emily Maitlis about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations against him. In a world exclusive interview, Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis speaks to Prince Andrew, the Duke of York at Buckingham Palace. 

For the first time, the Duke addresses in his own words the details of his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who took his own life while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.

In 2015, Prince Andrew was named in court papers as part of a US civil case against Epstein. The Prince, who is the Queen’s third child, also answers questions about the allegations made against him by one of Epstein’s victims, and discusses the impact of the scandal on the Royal family and his work.

TATLER 5 JANUARY 2022 - FORMER TATLER COVER STAR EMILY MAITLIS ON WHY PRINCE ANDREW'S NEWSNIGHT INTERVIEW IS EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT RIGHT NOW

The BBC newsreader has stated that the ‘jaw-dropping’ 2019 television appearance is ‘critical’ to Virginia Giuffre’s current sexual assault lawsuit against the royal.

As we wait to hear whether Judge Lewis Kaplan accepts that Virginia Giuffre’s 2009 settlement with Jeffrey Epstein means she cannot take legal action against Prince Andrew, as his lawyers maintain, the BBC’s Emily Maitlis has written of the renewed importance of her Newsnight interview with the royal.

In a piece for BBC News, the journalist and former Tatler cover star reflects on the November 2019 television appearance, in which the Duke of York sought to address questions surrounding his former association with Epstein – including allegations already made against him by Giuffre (née Roberts). The interview was widely received as a disaster for the prince, regarded as a key factor in his subsequent decision to step back from his duties as an official working royal. Andrew has consistently denied all wrongdoing, including Giuffre’s claims that she was made to have sex with him while being trafficked by Epstein, the late convicted paedophile, as a teenager.

Now, Maitlis has revisited the interview in light of Giuffre’s sexual assault civil suit against Prince Andrew, writing: ‘The answers the duke gave Newsnight in 2019, and the rest of his testimony to me that day, form a critical part of this landmark legal case.’ She notes that Andrew only appeared on the programme ‘because he wanted to clear his name… And he had his defence ready,’ taking his ‘One chance to provide a record of testimony… to offer up a first-person account.’ While the answers the duke gave in the interview ‘may have seemed astonishing, jaw-dropping, even, in places,’ notes Maitlis, she says that she ‘had been expecting them.’

On being received by the prince at Buckingham Palace ahead of the interview, she recalls that Andrew ‘explained he was going to tell us why he believed the photograph of him and Ms Giuffre… was likely a doctored fake.’ He even asked Maitlis’s advice on whether she thought his experiences during the Falklands War, and his claim that ‘he hadn’t been able to sweat properly since being shot at… would be interesting to hear.’

She offers further insights into his account of having been at a Pizza Express in Woking on the date Giuffre alleges they were at Tramp nightclub together, stating that ‘His office had checked the date.’ (Maitlis does add a caveat, however, that ‘a children’s birthday tea party and a late night in a club are not chronologically incompatible: it would have been more than possible to do both.’)

She goes on to stress that ‘the point of the interview was not to catch him out’, but rather ‘to have a record of Prince Andrew’s own version of events’ – one that would take on great significance ‘if the case ever went to court.’ Thus, Maitlis asserts, the television appearance is of vital importance right now, as Giuffre’s legal action against the prince unfolds in the US, concluding: ‘I had to ask those questions in the way I did – to hear and to capture those answers on tape – for wherever the story would take us next.’

DAILY EXPRESS 6 JANUARY 2022 - PRINCE ANDREW ASKED EMILY IF HE SHOULD SAY 'HE COULDN'T SWEAT' BEFORE 2019 INTERVIEW

PRINCE Andrew prepared an alibi and an account of his inability to sweat before the "car crash" interview that ended his royal role, it has emerged.

The claims in the 2019 Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis about his unusual medical condition and a visit to a children's party at Pizza Express in Woking astonished viewers and sparked a backlash.

Ms Maitlis has revealed the duke discussed these answers with her before the "jaw-dropping" TV appearance and asked if they "would be interesting to hear".

She said: "At the time, the specifics seemed almost comical. But now, suddenly, they feel deadly serious."

Ms Maitlis, 51, believes the information Andrew gave - which his lawyers have since said he can provide no evidence to support - is now crucial to the sexual assault case he faces in the US.

A judge is deciding whether to allow Virginia Giuffre, a trafficking victim of paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, to pursue her civil case against the duke.

Ms Giuffre, 38, is suing the prince, claiming he sexually assaulted her when she was 17 and a minor in some US states. Andrew, 61, has consistently denied the allegations.

The duke has claimed the case should be dismissed because Ms Giuffre, right, agreed a £370,000 settlement with Epstein in 2009 that ruled out legal action against associates. The financier was found dead in jail while awaiting trial in 2019.

But Judge Lewis Kaplan told a court in New York on Tuesday that at this stage he "must assume the truth" that the duke forced "a child to have sexual intercourse" with him. He said a jury would determine what was true if it came to trial.

Andrew told Ms Maitlis in the TV interview that his inability to sweat was the result of an overdose of adrenalin after getting shot during the Falklands conflict.

This challenged Ms Giuffre's claim he was sweaty at a nightclub. He also denied he slept with her, saying it could not have taken place because he was at a branch of Pizza Express with his daughter Princess Beatrice.

Ms Maitlis said: "Prince Andrew came to Newsnight because he wanted to clear his name. He believed things had been said about him that he could disprove. And he had his defence ready. The answers he gave on camera may have seemed astonishing, jaw-dropping even, in places.

"But, bizarrely, I had been expecting them. We had talked through the things he wanted to say."

She describes in a BBC article meeting Andrew in his office and sipping tea as they discussed it.

Ms Maitlis said: "It was Prince Andrew who volunteered the information that he was 'unable to sweat'. I remember him asking me very directly if we thought that would be interesting to hear. I said 'yes'.

"We had asked him to explain his whereabouts on the night Ms Giuffre alleged he had danced with her in Tramp nightclub, in London. His office checked the date and told us he couldn't have been with her because he had been at a children's birthday party.

The claims in the 2019 Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis about his unusual medical condition and a visit to a children's party at Pizza Express in Woking astonished viewers and sparked a backlash.

Ms Maitlis has revealed the duke discussed these answers with her before the "jaw-dropping" TV appearance and asked if they "would be interesting to hear".

She said: "At the time, the specifics seemed almost comical. But now, suddenly, they feel deadly serious."

Ms Maitlis, 51, believes the information Andrew gave - which his lawyers have since said he can provide no evidence to support - is now crucial to the sexual assault case he faces in the US.

A judge is deciding whether to allow Virginia Giuffre, a trafficking victim of paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, to pursue her civil case against the duke.

Ms Giuffre, 38, is suing the prince, claiming he sexually assaulted her when she was 17 and a minor in some US states. Andrew, 61, has consistently denied the allegations.

The duke has claimed the case should be dismissed because Ms Giuffre, right, agreed a £370,000 settlement with Epstein in 2009 that ruled out legal action against associates. The financier was found dead in jail while awaiting trial in 2019.
Trending

But Judge Lewis Kaplan told a court in New York on Tuesday that at this stage he "must assume the truth" that the duke forced "a child to have sexual intercourse" with him. He said a jury would determine what was true if it came to trial.

Andrew told Ms Maitlis in the TV interview that his inability to sweat was the result of an overdose of adrenalin after getting shot during the Falklands conflict.

This challenged Ms Giuffre's claim he was sweaty at a nightclub. He also denied he slept with her, saying it could not have taken place because he was at a branch of Pizza Express with his daughter Princess Beatrice.

Ms Maitlis said: "Prince Andrew came to Newsnight because he wanted to clear his name. He believed things had been said about him that he could disprove. And he had his defence ready. The answers he gave on camera may have seemed astonishing, jaw-dropping even, in places.

"But, bizarrely, I had been expecting them. We had talked through the things he wanted to say."

What is happening where you live? Find out by adding your postcode or visit InYourArea

She describes in a BBC article meeting Andrew in his office and sipping tea as they discussed it.

Ms Maitlis said: "It was Prince Andrew who volunteered the information that he was 'unable to sweat'. I remember him asking me very directly if we thought that would be interesting to hear. I said 'yes'.

"We had asked him to explain his whereabouts on the night Ms Giuffre alleged he had danced with her in Tramp nightclub, in London. His office checked the date and told us he couldn't have been with her because he had been at a children's birthday party.

"The prince, in other words, had his alibi ready."

Ms Maitlis said the interview was not designed to "catch out" the duke, but to have a record of his "version of events".

Meanwhile, there are claims Andrew could have avoided the civil case if he had apologised. A source told the New York Post: "Virginia has always just wanted the prince to acknowledge that he did something he shouldn't have. She wants him to apologise."

REAL OR FAKE - The Prince may not remember the 17 year old Virginia Roberts, but unless this photograph is a fake (doubtful - it must have been checked out by now - and if not, why not?) he did meet the young lady at some point - even if only posing at a drinks party, and Ghislaine Maxwell was at this meeting. One question we would ask is how do we know the age of the claimant from this picture? She could easily be 18 or older. Or she may have claimed to be over 18, for Ghislaine Maxwell to have allowed Virginia to have been photographed with the Duke. No doubt, testimony from Ms Maxwell will clear that up. And where and when was the picture taken, and by whom? You can imagine that with US State laws varying, and this picture looking for all the world like London, where the age of consent is 16, the precise details relating to the taking of this picture are extremely important. It might be worth checking passports, etc. Not that we are saying anything did or did not happen between the Prince and Ms Roberts. For the sake of argument, if some did take place (that the Duke cannot recall) and it was in London, then no crime had been committed. You can marry a girl in Spain and Tahiti at 13 (we think). Hence, any prosecution would need to be very sure of dates and places to begin mounting an investigation. It would not be fair to even interview the Prince, until the facts had been established, for fear of trying to trick him into something he could not possibly remember. We know of a case where penetration had been alleged during a police interview, but the evidence told only of natural marks and a hymen that could not be opened [even] with labial traction. A so-called child specialist gave evidence at trial, that the natural marks could only be explained by penetration. Legal Aid restrictions prevented the defendant in that case from instructing a specialist. Sussex police allowed the jury to hear misleading evidence, and the man was convicted on naturally occurring marks, found in females of all ages. British justice is such that despite other discrepancies being identified, such as a diary being attributed by the trial judge to the defendant, when it belonged to a psychiatric nurse, an appeal has never made it back to the Courts. Europe sent back a claim after 4 years, suggesting the wrongly convicted man had a domestic remedy. On that basis, good luck to anyone facing trial in the UK.

If you have unlimited funds for your legal team, make sure you cross all the "i's" and dot all the "t's". If your lawyer does not know what those are, instruct one that does.

NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE - Under the present system where the Head of State is a royal, and there is no written constitution, politicians like David Cameron and Boris Johnson can lie with impunity - even to Queen Elizabeth - and not face penalties. Police officers can shoot unarmed civilians and not be sent to prison, and planning officers can deceive the Secretaries of State and High Court judges, and not be prosecuted. In effect, it is alleged that there is little justice in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We aver that such machinations are costing the ordinary taxpayer, Treasury and the Crown (being the state) significant sums of money, while adding to the UK's carbon footprint. Hence, the country is not being run effectively by the at present; defective administration, not to serve its citizens, but to sustain and profit itself. Unlike the US Constitution of 1791 that exists to serve the people. Some people advocate abolition of the honours system, where it is alleged that some awards are in connection with preserving the status quo, as in whitewashing statistics and the like, to mask the level of corruption in UK courts.

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://www.tatler.com/article/emily-maitlis-says-prince-andrew-newsnight-interview-critical-to-sexual-assult-case

https://www.tatler.com/article/emily-maitlis-says-prince-andrew-newsnight-interview-critical-to-sexual-assult-case

https://

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site