Sunday, November 17, 2019

Statement Analysis: Prince Andrew Interview




Prince Andrew interviewed by Emily Maitlis. 

We hold to the expectation that the subject (Prince Andrew) will address and deny the allegation of sexual contact with a minor.  This should include the pronoun "I", as it is he who is accused. It should also include a simple past tense verb ("didn't" or "did not") and it should be clearly answering the allegation.  

Since this is the purpose of the interview, it is expected to be a priority for the subject. 

If he did not engage in sexual contact with the accuser, it should not be difficult to state. 

The context is important, and it comes in light of his friendship with serial exploiter and now deceased Jeffrey Epstein. 

There is within the context an expected sensitivity due to the public spotlight of this accusation. 

Analysts must also keep in mind "attendant guilt"--this is where the subject "did not do it", yet committed similar offenses of which become part of his overall defensive denial, unnecessarily. 

For those unfamiliar with Statement Analysis, the red highlighting calls your attention to words that may indicate deception.  The blue highlighting is to call your attention to an explanation of "why", when one is not sought. If this information is both unsought and unnecessary, it is the  highest level of sensitivity to the subject. 

The "Psychological Wall of Truth" is where the subject did not "do it" and is behind this level of protection, even under pressure, where he is psychologically grounded. It matters now what another says, as he looks into his memory, he did not "do it" and is "telling the truth"---

it makes for a dull interview because there is not much to talk about. There is no need of persuasion, no need to moralize, blame others or to portray oneself as "the good guy."

The de facto innocence is a protection for the subject that we expect to hear. 



EM: Your Royal Highness, we’ve come to Buckingham Palace in  highly unusual circumstances. Normally we’d be discussing your work, your duty, we’ll come onto  but today you’ve chosen   Why have you decided to talk now?

The question is "why now?" -- the interviewer does not identify Jeffrey Epstein here. This allows the subject to choose how to identify him: 

Andrew:  Because uh there is no good time to talk about, um, Mr Epstein and all things associated, um and um we’ve been talking uh to Newsnight for about six months about doing something around the work that I was doing, um, and unfortunately we’ve just not been able to fit it into either your schedule or my schedule, um until now, and actually it’s a very good opportunity and I’m delighted to be able to see you today

Follow his pronouns ---

When talking to Newsnight for 6 months, he does not want to be psychologically alone ("we")

When addressing his work, he is comfortable ("I") 

When talking directly to the interviewer, he is not only alone ("I") but "delighted."

Given the context of the allegation, one should consider this to be a form of ingratiation --- that is, seeking to be "friends" with the one who is to question him.  

Linguistic Disposition 

"Mr. Epstein" is formal, polite and may be a way for the subject to distance himself from the personal or friendly use of Epstein's full name, which would include his first.  

EM:   As you say, all of this goes back to your friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

She now uses "Jeffrey Epstein

EM:  How did you first become friends, how did you meet?  

Andrew: Well I met through his girlfriend uh, back in 1999, who um  - and I’d known her since uh she was at university in the UK.  Um, and it would be to some extent a stretch to stay that that um, uh, as it were, we were close friends uh w-we were friends because of other people, um, and I had a lot of opportunity to um, go the United States, um, but I didn’t have much time with him.  I suppose I saw him once or twice a year, perhaps, maybe a maximum of three times a year, um, um quite often, if I was in the United States and doing things, and if he wasn’t there, he would say well, why don’t you come and use my houses? So I said that’s very kind, thank you very much indeed. Um, but it would be, um, uh-h-h-h a considerable stretch to say that he was a very, very close friend, but he had the most extraordinary uh, ability to bring um, extraordinary people together.  Uh, and that’s the bit that I remember is going to the dinner parties where you would meet academics, politicians, people from the United Nations, I mean it was, it was a cosmopolitan group of what I would describe as as US um, eminence.


Going back to 1999 has produced high sensitivity. 

Pronouns are reliable and instinctive. 


He uses the pronoun "we" to unite himself ("we were close friends") yet the need to explain why without being asked (see blue highlight).  He puts the burden of responsibility upon someone else rather than himself. This is very important, particularly to investigators as it can help guide the interview strategy, including leading to an admission. 

He immediately moves to minimize the time spent with Epstein and calls is a "considerable stretch to say  that he was a very very close friend"--- 

The theme of shifting blame continues here with the burden placed upon the deceased:

he had the most extraordinary uh, ability to bring um, extraordinary people together. 

The subject considers himself, via association, as "extraordinary." This, too, would be vital to a skilled interviewer/investigator profiling his personality traits. This would factor into the approach or overall strategy of the interview. 

EM: Was that his appeal, then?  Is that what -

Andrew:  Yeah.

EM:  - because you were perceived by the public as being the party prince.  Was that something you shared?

She feeds him an answer.  We reflect upon the ingratiation of him being "delighted"---

He has been supplied a ready to use excuse or being the "party prince" -- 

What will 'partying' produce in his response? 

Andrew: Well, I think that’s, um, also um, a bit of a stretch. Um, I don’t know why I’ve, I’ve, I’ve  um, collected that title because I don’t, I never have really partied.  Um, uh, I was single for quite a long time -um, in the early eighties. Um, uh, but then, after I got married I was um, very happy, um an’an’an’ I’ve never really felt the need to go and party and certainly going to um, Jeffrey’s was not about partying, absolutely not.

a. "I think" is a weak assertion --given the context, this is not appropriate weakness 

b. "a bit" qualifies the word "stretch"

c. "really" further weakens the weak assertion 

d. He moves the chronology away from the accusation (before meeting Epstein)

e.  The deceased is now "Jeffrey" 

f.  "I've, I've, I've" with the halting on the pronoun "I" (something we have used millions of times) is a signal of increased stress here. 

g.  He was "married" and "very happy"--- this is a hina clause --that is, a need to explain "why", without being asked, that he was not a party prince.  This is to normalize himself---- it indicates guilt but we are not able to identify if the guilt is due to the accuser being truthful or attendant guilt.  (See Alan Dershowitz statement) 

This is where being married and very happy precludes guilty behavior. 

Child molesters will sometimes say, "I am a happily married man!" rather than "I didn't molest...

It is a tangent; not a denial. 

Q. Why not simply address the allegation?




EM: You said you weren’t very good friends but would you describe him as a good friend - did you trust him?

A somewhat clever question given the context of needing to conceal illicit sexual activity. 


Andrew: Uh, yes, I think I probably did, but a-again, um, I mean - I don’t go into um, a friendship looking for the wrong thing if you understand what I  mean. 

Here he goes to motive---he did not go into a friendship (he used present tense language; not past tense) looking for the "wrong thing"--that is, motive.  

His lack of commitment (present tense, "don't") is used to address motive, is followed by the expectation of ingratiation ("...if you understand what I mean") to make this interview friendly to him. 

Personality Trait

In the psycho-lingusitc profile, we have been given two brief examples that suggest the need to explore the personality trait of not taking personal responsibility, but rather a willingness to blame others. 

Although his earlier use of "we" could apply to the female that introduced him, he went immediately to Epstein. 

We now listen for the additional information outside the boundary of the question, "did you trust him" as vital, as it is offered of his own accord. 


I’m uh, I’m an engaging person.  I want to be able to engage, I want to find out, I want to learn.  

He was curious. 

This is in context of Jeffrey Epstein and the allegation.  


Um, and so, uh you have to remember that I was transitioning out of the Navy at the time um, and the transition, uh, I wanted to find out more about what was going on because in the Navy um, it’s a pretty isolated business,


He was lonely.  This is something "you", the interviewer (intended recipient) and the television audience (unintended recipient) "have to" remember. 

This is an example of emotional manipulation as he seeks to create sympathy from his audience.  Note that often the "unintended recipient" in analysis is the most important. 



 because you’re out at sea the whole time, um, and I was going to become the Special Representative for International Trade and Investment, so I wanted to know more about what was going on in the international business world, and so that was another reason for going there, and the opportunities that I had to go to Wall Street and other places to learn, uh, whilst I was there, were - were absolutely vital. 

Besides being curious and isolated, becoming friends with Jeffrey Epstein was not his fault.  He was going to become the "Special Representative for International Trade and Investment"--an important title, which explains why he wanted to "know more" about "what was going on" --- it is not his fault.  

This is a personality type where one may have grown up with very few consequences.  

EM: He was your guest as well.  In 2000 Epstein was a guest at Windsor Castle, and at Sandringham, he was brought right into the heart 


Andrew:  Yes, but

EM:  - of the royal family at your invitation.

The interviewer puts the burden of responsibility upon the subject with "at your invitation...

Andrew:  but, uh - certainly at my invitation, not at the royal family’s invitation, but remember that it was his girlfriend that was the key element in this.  He was the, as it were, plus one, to some extent, in in in that aspect. 

The word "but" is used to refute or to compare---here, to the statement that he, himself, did the invitation. 

The subject puts the weight of information off of himself and off of Epstein and on to the "girlfriend."

Further affirmation of one who is inclined to blame others. 

EM:  Am I right in thinking you threw a birthday party um, for Epstein’s girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, at Sandringham?

Andrew:  No- it was a shooting weekend. 

EM:  A shooting weekend?

Andrew:  Just a straightforward - straightforward shooting weekend.

Please consider that other times of engagement were not "straightforward" to the subject. 

EM:  But during these times that he was a guest at Windsor Castle, at Sandringham, uh, the shooting weekend-

Andrew:  Yep, yeah, yeah

EM:  - we now know that he was, and had been, procuring young girls for sex trafficking 

She now brings him closer to the allegation.  He might have enjoyed debating the difference between a birthday party and a "straightforward shooting weekend." She wisely moved on from this tangent. 

Andrew:  We now know that. 

"We"--- we cannot conclude that this, at this point, is psychological hiding in a crowd because it reflects the wording used by the interviewer.  She used "we" and "now"--- unwise choices.  

At the time there was no indication to me, or anybody else that that was what he was doing - and certainly when I saw him, either in the United States - when I, when I saw him in the United States or when I was staying in his houses in the United States, there was no indication - absolutely no indication.  And if there was, you have to remember that at the time uh, I was patron of the NSPCC’s Fullstop campaign, so I was close up with what was going on in those, uh um - time about getting rid of abuse to children, so I knew what was -  what the, what the things were to look for, but I never saw them.

a. "there was no indication to me" --he should have stopped there, but he has a need to persuade. He continued "or anybody else"--- which allows us to ask,

"How would you know what "anybody else" perceived?" 

b.  "when I saw him in the United States" speaks to the element of  location and is repeated. 

c. "absolutely" in its follow up denial, is sensitive, yet this may be dismissed as appropriate given the greater context. 

d. "And if there was" allows for the possibility --

He is deceptive about knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's "procuring young girls for sex trafficking" here. 

He goes further, however, in his moralizing, as one who was active in getting "rid of abuse to children."

This is a very strong indicator of guilt. This is the need to portray oneself as a hero, when faced with an allegation of being the villain, rather than issue a denial.  

This point is alarming. 

It is consistent with child molestation.  


EM:  So you would have made that connection because you stayed with him, were a visitor, a guest on many occasions at his homes, and nothing struck you as suspicious 

Andrew: Nothing.

parroted language 

EM:  During that whole time?

Andrew: Nothing.

The series of "yes or no" questions reduces the stress of the subject choosing his own words.  We note how even a simple question caused him to offer additional, unnecessary information, beyond the boundary of the question, yielding information.  

EM:  Just for the record, you’ve been on his private plane.
Andrew: Yes

EM:  You’ve been to stay on his private island.
Andrew: Yes

EM:  You’ve stayed at his home in Palm Beach,
Andrew: Yes

EM:  You’ve visited Ghislaine Maxwell’s house in Belgravia in London.  
Andrew: Yes

EM: So, in 2006, in May, an arrest warrant was issued for Epstein for sexual assault of a minor,
Andrew: Yes

EM: In July he was invited to Windsor Castle, to your daughter, Princess Beatrice’s, eighteenth birthday.  Why would you do that?

Andrew: Because I was asking Ghislaine.  But even so at the time, I don’t think - I um, certainly I wasn’t aware, when the invitation was issued, of what was going on in the United States, and I wasn’t aware until the media picked up on it, because he never said anything about it.  

EM:  He never discussed with you -

Andrew: ____ Never discussed it.

no pronoun
note also that this was a specific time. 
note that "never" is to expand time, rather than focus in on a specific time. 

it is very likely that investigators could learn that he and Epstein spoke more frequently during this time period than he would wish to admit. 


EM:

  • the fact that an arrest warrant had been issued?

Andrew:  No.

EM:  So he came to that party knowing police were investigating him?

Andrew:  Well, I’m not quite sure whether - was it police? - I don’t know, you see - this is the problem.  I don’t know.  But I’m afraid you see, this is the problem, that an awful lot of this was going on in the United States and I wasn’t a party to it and I knew nothing about it.


The problem is not sexual abuse and trafficking but with his own knowledge.  

Another "problem" is social media.




EM:   In 2008 he was convicted
Andrew: Yes

EM:  of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution. He was jailed.
Andrew: Yes.

EM:  This was your friend. 
Andrew: Yeah.

EM:  How did you feel about it? 

Andrew: Well, I ceased contact with him after uh I was aware that  he was um under investigation.  And that was later on in in 2006 - and I wasn’t in touch with him again until 2010 - so um, I just - just - it was one of those things that somebody’s going through that sort of thing, well,  I’m terribly sorry I can’t be associated 

The language of guilt.  The expression of being "sorry" is not suppressed by him. 

EM:  So no contact.  When he was serving time -
Andrew: No.

EM:   - there was no call, no letter - 
Andrew: No.

EM:  -nothing there
Andrew: No.

EM:  He was released in July.  Within months, by December of 2010, you went to stay with him at his New York mansion.  Why?  

Why were you staying with a convicted sex offender?

Andrew: Right.  I have always - um ever since this has happened, and since it’s become public knowledge that I was there, I’ve questioned myself as to why did I go, and what was I doing, and was it the right thing to do.  I went there with the sole purpose of saying to him  that because he had been convicted it was n- it was inappropriate for us to be seen together.

He gives indication of guilt and then, again, shifts responsibility to others: 

And I had a number of people counsel me in both directions - either to go and see him, or not to go and see him.  And I took the judgement call that because this was um, serious, um, and I felt that doing it over the telephone was the chicken’s way of doing it. 

Besides blaming others and using language warranted advanced analysis and exploration, he portrays himself as being brave for going to Epstein's mansion.

This portrayal is another indicator of guilt. 

Keep in mind that the pronoun "we" indicates unity. This is why a rape victim will change to "he and I" from "we" once the assault has taken place. 

Here, he instinctively tells us that he is unified with Jeffrey Epstein. 



I had to go and see him and talk to him. Um, and I went to see him, uh, and I was doing a number of other things in New York at the time, um, and we had an opportunity to go for a walk in the park, and that was the conversation um, coincidentally, that was photographed, which was when I said to him, I said, look, because of what has happened, I don’t think it is appropriate that we should remain in contact.  And by mutual agreement, during that walk in the park, we decided that we would part company, and I left, I think it was the next day, and th- to this day, I never had any contact with him from that day forward.

He is lying here. He is revealing two major points:

1. Just how unified he was with his friend
2. He is withholding vital information at this time ("I left") about he and Epstein's discussion. 

EM:  What did he say when you told him that you were breaking up the friendship?

She asked what was said; not what was not said: 

Andrew: He was what I would describe as understanding.
Um, He didn’t go into any great depth, um in the conversation about what I was doing - what he was doing, um, except to say that, that uh, uh, he had accepted whatever it was, a plea bargain, he’d served his time um and uh, he was carrying on with his life, if you see what I mean, and I said yes, but I’m afraid that that - that, that’s as maybe, um, but with all the attendant scrutiny on me, then I don’t think it is a wise thing to do.

no sympathy for the victims.  

EM:  Who advised you, then, that it was a good idea to go and break up the friendship?  Did that come from the Palace -

Andrew: No.

EM:  Was Her Majesty the Queen involved?

Andrew: -  no, no, no, no, no. 

There were a number of people who came fr- who were my staff - some people from friends and family I was talking to, and I took the decision that it was - that I had to show leadership, and I had to go and see him, and had to tell him, that’s it.  

He does not identify the advisor. 

EM:  That was December of 2010

Andrew: Yep.

EM: he threw a party to celebrate his release, and you were invited as the guest of honour.


Andrew: No, I didn’t go.

This is a strong response----rare in the interview.  He immediately changes, however, to reclassifying it as something else. This appears to come natural to him: 

Oh, in two thousand and ten, there wasn’t - there certainly wasn’t a party to celebrate his release in December, because it was a small dinner party.  There were only eight or ten of us, I think, at the dinner.  If there was a party, then I know nothing about that.

EM:  You were invited to that dinner as a guest of honour.

Andrew: Well I was there, so there was a dinner. I don’t think it was quite as you might put it. Okay I was there for,  I was there for a dinner, yeah.

He cannot state that he went to celebrate his friend's release, but that he went there for dinner. 

EM: I was just trying to work this out, because you said you went to break up the relationship and you stayed at that New York mansion several days.  I’m wondering how long -

Andrew: But I was doing a number of other things while I was there

EM: But you were staying at the house of a convicted sex offender.

Andrew:

Hhhh.  It was a convenient place to stay 

The excuse making is personality driven. When one moves to the absurd (the Prince could not obtain a hotel room), it is a lack of self awareness, often from one who has been successful in deceit. 

He had more than dinner. 



I, I, I’ve gone through this issue in my mind so many times.  At the end of the day I’m, with the benefit of all the hindsight that one can have, uh, it  was definitely the wrong thing to do, um, but at the time I felt it was the honourable and right thing to do, and I, I, admit fully that-that that my judgement was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable- but that’s just the way it is.  

Increase in stress;

the statement of responsibility ("I, I admit fully") is not to take responsibility, but to state it. Substance abuse should be examined. 

Note the "good guy" principle again--- he was "too honorable"---this is often projected guilt.  


EM:  During that time, those few days, witnesses say they saw many young girls coming and going at the time, and there is video footage of Epstein accompanied by young girls. And you were there, staying in his house, catching up with friends.  

Andrew:  I never, I mean if there were, then um I wasn’t a party to any of that. I never saw them.  I mean,  you have to, you have to understand that, that that that, his house, I’ve described it more as a, as, as a, almost as a railway station, if you know what I mean, in the sense that there were people coming in and out of that house all the time.  Um, what they were doing, and why they were there I had nothing to do with so I - I’m afraid I can’t make any comment on that because I - I really don’t know.

He is deceptive. 

EM:  Another guest was John Brockman, the literary agent, 

Andrew: Really?

EM:  now I he described seeing you there, getting a foot massage from a young Russian woman.  Did that happen?

Andrew: No

EM:  You’re absolutely sure, or you can’t remember,

Andrew: Yeah I’m absolutely sure.

EM:  So John Brockman’s statement is false?

yes or no question: 

Andrew: I wouldn’t - I wouldn’t.  I don’t know Mr Brockman,  so I don’t know what he’s talking about

deception 

EM:  But that definitely wasn’t you getting a foot massage from a Russian girl in Jeffrey Epstein’s house?

Andrew: No

EM:  It might seem a funny way to break off a friendship, a four day house party of sorts, with a dinner. It’s an odd way to break up -

Andrew: It’s a difficult way of putting - that’s a very um, stark way of putting it yes, you’re absolutely right, um, but actually, the -the the truth of it is that I actually only saw him for about - what? the part that the dinner party, the walk in the park, and probably passing - um, in the passage.

Ingratiation noted. 

EM:  So let’s go to that Central Park walk -

Andrew: Yeah

EM:  which


Andrew:
  • Yeah

    • EM:  - was snapped.  Friends of yours suggest that Epstein wanted that photo taken, perhaps he’d even set it up.  Do you worry that you were being played? 

The topic of being set up ---this is a form of betrayal of a friendship.  If allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking of teenaged girls was not enough to eject the pronoun "we" from his language, would personal betrayal?

Introduced to the subject, we look at the remaining interview transcript for a change in linguistic disposition ---where he goes negative about Jeffrey Epstein. 


Andrew: Again, um, new information is coming out, um,  since his suicide, um,  has made us reappraise that - uh, walk in the park. We can’t find any evidence, uh - or my staff, and my people, and I can’t find any evidence to suggest that that was what he was doing. I mean, you can look at it in so very many ways but the fact of the matter is that somebody, very cleverly, took that photograph.  It wasn’t, um, as far as I remember, nor do my security people remember anybody being present or close. Um, because there were enough security around - I mean there are even photographs of the security people around in the photograph, So, I. I mean, he could’ve, he could’ve done - but I, I, 

He does not turn negative towards Epstein. 

EM:  Yeah. I guess what I’m asking is do you feel that you were part of Epstein’s public rehabilitation?

Andrew: Oh -  no, funny enough I don’t.  No.I mean - if, if, if he was - if he was doing - if that photograph was taken for that, with that purpose in mind, then it doesn’t - it doesn’t equate to what actually happened.

EM:  So, why wouldn’t you announce this break up when you got back?  Why wouldn’t you publicly explain what you’d done?  Did you worry that he had something that could compromise you? 

compound questions should be avoided. 

Andrew: No. No

EM:  Do you regret that trip?
Andrew: Yes.

EM:  Do you regret the whole friendship with Epstein?

Andrew: Um, uh - now, still not, for- and the reason being is that the people that I met, um,  and the opportunities that I was given to learn, um - either by him or because of him, were actually very useful.  He himself, um, not as it were, as close as you might think, we’re not - we weren’t that close, so therefore, I mean - yes, I would go and stay in his house,  but that was because of his girlfriend, not because of him.

The pronoun "we" is used to unite the subject to Epstein. 

EM:  Was that visit, December of 2010, the only time you saw him after he was convicted?
Andrew: Yes,

EM: Did you see him or speak to him again? 


Andrew: No, no. That was that. Funny enough, two thousand and ten, that was it. That was it. Because I went, first of all I, I,I, I wanted to make sure that that - um, if I was going to go and see him, I had to make sure that - that- that that there was enough time between his release.  Because it - it wasn’t something I was going into in a hurry- But I had to go and see him.  I had to go and see him. I had to tell him.

EM:  And stay with him - and stay in the house of a convicted sex offender.

Andrew: I could easily have gone and stayed somewhere else, bu-but sheer convenience of, of, of being able to get a hold of the man is, was - I mean he was in and out all over the place, so getting him in one place for a,a,a period of time - to actually have a long enough conversation to say look, these are the reasons why I’m not going to - and that happened on the walk. 

EM:  July of this year, Epstein was arrested on charges of sex trafficking and abusing dozens of underage girls.  One of Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Roberts

Andrew: Yes

EM:  has made allegations against you. She says she met you in two thousand and one; she says she dined with you, danced with you at Tramp nightclub in London, she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia, belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell, your friend. Your response?

Andrew: I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.

he was not accused of ever "meeting" her, but having sex with her.  

A middle aged man is accused of dancing and having sex with a teenaged girl --this is a "hormonally consequential event" in analysis. 

He is lying. 

He is not able to issue a reliable denial such as "I did not have sex with Virginia Roberts" which could have been followed by "I've never met her, either"-- 

If Prince Andrew is incapable or unwilling to say it, we shall not say it for him. 

EM:  You don’t remember meeting her.

Andrew: No.

EM:  She says she met you in 2001, she dined with you, she danced with you, you bought her drinks, you were in Tramp nightclub in London, and she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia, belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell.

Andrew: Didn’t happen

Here, the subject is removed from his answer. 

"Didn't happen" to whom? by whom? There is no human in this answer to the most pressing allegation made. 

EM:  Do you remember her?

Andrew: No. I-I-I- I have no recollection of ever meeting her, um, 
I’m almost, in fact, I’m convinced, uh, that  I was never inTramps with her.  There are a number of things that are wrong with that story, one of which is that,is that I don’t know where the bar is in uh Tramps.  Um, I don’t drink,um, I don’t think I’ve ever bought a drink in Tramps whenever I was there.

The stuttering "I" now indicates anxiety at this question. 

EM:  Do you remember dancing at Tramp?

Andrew: No.  That couldn’t have happened because the date that is being suggested I was at home with the children. 

EM:  You know that you were at home with the children?  

Andrew:  uhum.

EM:  Was it a memorable night?

Andrew: On that particular day that uh we now understand is the date, which is the tenth of March, I was at home - I was with the children, and I’d taken Beatrice to, uh, a Pizza Express in Woking, for a party, I suppose about four or five in the afternoon, um, and then because the Duchess was away, we have a simple rule in the family, that when one’s away, the other one is there.  I was on terminal leave at the time, um, from the Royal Navy, so therefore, I was at home.

EM:  Why would you remember that so specifically, why would you remember a Pizza Express birthday and being at home?

Andrew: Because going to Pizza Express in Woking is an unusual thing for me to do. A very unusual thing for me to do.  I’ve never been, I’ve only been to Woking a couple of times, um, and I remember it weirdly distinctly. As soon as somebody reminded me of it, I went, oh, yes, I remember that.  

Having sex with a teenaged girl is not "an unusual thing" for the subject.  He has more victims. 

EM:  So -

Andrew: But I have no recollection of ever meeting, or being in the company, or the presence -

No psychological wall of truth to stand behind 

EM:  - So, you’re absolutely sure that you were at home on the tenth of March.

Andrew: Yeah.

EM:  She was very specific about that night.

Andrew:  Uhum

EM: She described dancing with you

Andrew: No.

"I didn't dance with her, nor have sex with her. I never even met her" would be a reliable denial under the pressure of several questions of accusations, in a row. 

EM:  And you profusely sweating, and that she went on to have - baths, possibly -

This is a sensory detail; often from experiential language. Even if a specific date is off, the detail warrants exploration. 

The subject portrays himself as a victim in his question to show why this "never happened"---rather than deny it. 

Direct lies cause more internal stress. This is why we see the unreliable denials as well as tangents and needless explanations (along with portrayals of being "the good guy") 


Andrew: There’s a slight problem with - with - with - with the sweating - um, because I -I - I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat, um, or I didn’t sweat at the time, and that was - oh, was she? - yes, I didn’t sweat at the time because I um, had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of Adrenalin in the Falklands War, when I was shot at, uh, and I simply - it-it was - it was almost impossible for me to sweat.  And it’s only because I have done a number of things in the recent past that I’m starting to be able to - do that again.  So, I’m afraid to say that there’s a medical condition that says I didn’t do it, so therefore..

Note the lack of self awareness in the absurdity of explanation as to "why" he couldn't "sweat"-- 

EM: Is it possible that you met Virginia Roberts, dined with her, danced with her in Tramp, had sex with her, on another date?

Andrew: No

EM: Do you remember meeting her at all? 

Andrew: No

EM:  Do you know you didn’t meet her, or do you just not remember?

Andrew: No I have - I don’t know if I have met. But no, I have no recollection of meeting her

EM:  She was very specific - she described a dance that you had together in Tramp, she described meeting you, she was a seventeen year old girl meeting a senior member of the royal family.

Andrew: Never happened

Psychological ejection of self.  This is to show a lack of ownership.  It is easy to say, "I didn't have sex with Virginia Roberts"--- it is the psychological wall of truth to stand safely behind. This would mean there is no reason for buttressing anything with explanations or qualifications. 

EM:  She provided a photo of the two of you together
Andrew: Yes 

Confronted, he will not go further. 

EM: Your arm was around her waist
Andrew: Yes

Confronted again, he will not go further. She adds in detail. 

EM: You’ve seen the photo
Andrew: I’ve seen the photograph

parroting reduces stress. She is forced to ask: 

EM:  How do you explain that?

Andrew: I can’t. Because I don’t - again I have absolutely no memory of that photograph ever being taken

Listen to him. Of what does he have no memory (not "recollection" here)?  

He has no memory of meeting her?
putting his arm around her?

No. 

He has no memory of the photograph being taken. 



EM:  Do you recognise yourself in the photo -
Andrew: Oh, yeah - pretty difficult not to recognise yourself.

He is a manipulator. 

EM: Your friend suggested that the photo is fake.  

She should not have offered this, but allowed him to, even if it means uncomfortable silence before the camera.  Since he is so image driven, he likely would not have let the silence go for long. It defense of the interviewer, this is TV, not an investigatory interview. In the latter, silence is a powerful tool.  

Andrew: I think it’s, from the investigations that we’ve done, you can’t prove whether or not that photograph is uh faked or not, because it is a photograph of a photograph of a photograph, so it’s very difficult to be able to - to um, prove it, but I-I don’t remember that photograph ever being taken 

He is willing to talk about the photograph being taken, but not about meeting or being with  her. 

EM:  But It’s possible that it was you with your arm around-

Andrew: That’s me - but whether that’s my hand, or whether that’s the position - I- I - but I don’t - I have simply no recollection of the photograph ever being taken.

The middle aged man put his arm around a teenaged girl. 



EM:  The world has now seen the photo that Virginia Roberts provided, taken by Epstein, we understand, in Ghislain Maxwell’s house.
  
Andrew: Here’s the problem. I’ve never seen Epstein with a camera in my life

Yet another addressing of "the problem"--- he employs tangent deception rather than address the evidence. 

EM:  I think it was Virginia Roberts camera, she said a little Kodak one that she lent to Epstein, took a photo, and your arm is round her waist.

Andrew: I don’t remember  - I don’t remember uh that photograph ever being taken.  
I don’t remember going upstairs in the house, because that photograph is taken upstairs. Um, and I’m not entirely convinced -  that is, that is what I would describe as me in that picture, but I can’t - we can’t be certain as to whether or not that’s my hand.   I can’t be certain that’s my hand on, on, on her - whatever it is - left side

he is lying. 

EM:  Because you think -

Andrew: I have no recollection of that photograph ever being taken

Rather than deny putting his arm around her. 

EM:  So why would somebody have put in another hand? You think it is you next to her in the photo

Andrew: Oh, it’s definitely me.. that’s a picture of me.   It’s not a picture of - I don’t believe it’s a picture of me in London, because when I go out in London I wear a suit and a tie. That’s what I would describe as, those are my travelling clothes - if I’m going to go overseas. I’ve got plenty of photographs of me dressed in - in - in those sorts of - that sort of kit, but not there.  

EM:  To clarify, you think that photo has been faked. 

Andrew: Nobody can prove whether or not that photograph has been doctored, but I don’t recollect that photograph ever being taken.

EM:  And you don’t recollect having your hand round her waist?

Andrew: No. 

EM: In Ghislaine Maxwell’s house.

Andrew: No, no.

EM:  On any occasion, even if it was a different date

Andrew: I’m terribly sorry

believe him. 

but if I, as a member of the royal family, and I have a photograph taken and I take very, very few photographs- I am not one to, um, as it were, hug, and um, public displays of affection are not something that, that I do.  So, I - I that’s the best explanation I can give you, and  I’m afraid to say that I don’t believe that photograph was taken in the way that has been suggested.

EM:  Why would people not believe that you were there?

Andrew: I’m sorry, why would?  

EM:  I’m just trying to understand- there’s a photo inside Ghislaine Maxwells house, herself is in the background, why would people not believe that you were there with her that night?

Andrew: Um, they might well wish to believe it, but, but there’s a - the photograph is taken upstairs and I don’t think I ever went upstairs, um, in Ghislaine‘s house.  

EM:  Are you sure of that?

Andrew: Yeah, because - because the dining room and everything was on the, was on the ground floor.  It was, it was as you came in the hall. So I don’t remember ever going up there.  I’m at a loss to explain this particular photograph um, if the, if the original was ever produced, then perhaps we might be able to solve it, but I can’t 

EM:  You can say categorically that you don’t recall meeting Virginia Roberts, dining with her

Interviewers ought not say what the subject will not say 

Andrew: Yep

EM:  Dancing with her at Tramp
Andrew: Yep

EM:  Or going on to have sex with her
Andrew: Yes

EM:  in a bedroom at a house in Belgravia 
Andrew: I can, I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened.

EM: Do you recall any kind of sexual contact with Virginia Roberts?

Very weak series of questions. She is reducing his stress level. 


Andrew: None

EM: Then or at any other time?
Andrew: None whatsoever 

EM:  Because she said in a legal deposition, a legal court document in 2015, she had sex with you three times.
Andrew: No

EM:  She is not confused about this - she said the first was in London when she was trafficked to you, the second was at Epstein’s mansion in New York, 


Andrew: That is a date in April, I believe,  Is that correct?  

Psychological Wall of Truth:

having not had sexual contact with the accuser, dating should be of little, if any, importance. It would not matter had he not have guilt. This is to slow the pace of information down or to 'run out the clock' of the interview. 

EM: She said it was a month or so later.

Andrew: Yeah. Well I think that the date we have for that uh, uh - uh, shows that I was in Boston, uh, or I was in New York um the previous day and I was at a dinner for the Outward Bound Trust, uh, in New York, and then I flew up to Boston the following day, and then on the day that she says this occurred, she - they’d already left in, uh, to go to the island, before I got back from Boston, so it, it -   I don’t think that could have happened at all

EM:  There was a witness there, Yohanna Stalberg, who said that you did visit the house in that month.

Andrew: I probably did. I don’t think - one of the weirder things - I was staying with the, uh,be cause of what I was doing, I was staying with the consul general, which is further down the street, on, on, on Fifth, so I wasn’t staying there- II may have visited but I, but, but no, definitely didn’t no. - no, no activity

Investigators should explore this period of time for sexual activity that the subject would consider "weird" ---always allowing the subject to define all activity. 

EM:  Because in a legal deposition, 2015, she said she had sex with you three times. once in a London house , she was trafficked to you, in Maxwell’s house,

Here he should deny, not affirm, her words of accusation: 

Andrew: Yes

EM:  Once in New York, a month or so later at Epstein’s mansion, and once on his private island in a group of seven or eight other girls.

Andrew: No

EM:  No to all of it?
Andrew: All of it.. absolutely no to all of it.

EM:  Why would she be saying those things?

Andrew: We wonder exactly the same but I have no idea., absolutely no idea

EM:  She made these claims in a US deposition 

Andrew: Uhum.

EM:  Are you saying you don’t believe her, she’s lying?

Yes.  Unequivocally "yes" is the only appropriate answer to the allegation of having sex with a teenaged girl he had never met. There is no unity, nor "peace" between a false allegation of sexual exploitation and an innocent accused. 

Instead, he avoids condemning her---

this is sometimes seen in the fear of bringing further resolve to a case to prove his guilt. 

It is very simple--- "she is lying"---

Andrew: That’s a very difficult thing to um, answer because I’m not in a position to know um, uh, what, what she’s trying to um, achieve, but I can tell you categorically, 

here comes the denial of "I didn't have sex with her"? 


I don’t remember meeting her, 

at all, 

note the progression and the emphasis 


I do not remember the photograph being taken

 and I’ve said consistently and um, frequently, that we never had any sort of sexual contact whatever.

First, this is an unreliable denial ("never")
Secondly, it is an admission of knowing her by pronoun: "we"-- he unites himself with a lying, false accuser by the pronoun "we" here. 

Thirdly, he does not deny ever having sex with her---listen to him---he self references early things he has "said consistently"-- context: in a live and stressful interview. This indicates he is working from script; not experiential memory. 



EM:  She spoke about you, outside the court in August this year.  She said, “He knows exactly what he’s done and I hope he comes clean about it.”

Andrew: And the answer is nothing

EM:  So if Virginia Roberts is watching this interview, what is your message to her?

Andrew: I don’t have a message for her, because I have to have a thick skin. If somebody is going  to make those sorts of allegations then I just have to have a thick skin and get on with it - but they never happened.

He continues a positive LD towards her in the context of false accusation. 

EM: For the record, is there any way you could have had sex with that young woman, or any young woman trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein, in any of his residences?

Wise to change the language to "young woman" here, yet she should have stopped there, first and let him answer.  It can then be followed up about Epstein and trafficking. He could avoid this additional stress thinking that it was not Epstein trafficking but his assistant.  

Analytical Interviewing---The less words we use in the interview, the greater the free editing process of the subject yields information for us. 

Andrew: No.  Um.  And, and and without putting too fine a point on it, if you’re a man, it is a positive act, to have sex with somebody. You have to take some sort of positive action, and so therefore if you try to forget -it’s very difficult to try and forget positive action, and I do not remember anything. I can’t, I’ve wracked my brain - thinking - oh, when the first allegation, when the allegations came out originally I went, well, that’s a bit strange, I don’t remember this, and then - I’ve been through it, and through it, and through it, over and over and over again, and nup, nothing - doesn’t - never happened. 

There are other victims. 

EM:  Epstein’s housekeeper, also in a Florida court legal deposition, said that you visited the Palm Beach residence, around four times a year you got a daily massage.

Andrew: Four times a year?

EM:  That was what he said, in a Florida court legal deposition.  

Andrew: No

EM: i’m just wondering, when you look back now, is there a chance that those massages might have been the services of someone who was being sexually exploited or trafficked by Epstein?

Andrew: N-no.  I don’t think - I mean I - no, definitely not, definitely not, and I definitely did not visit, uh, his Palm Beach house three or four times a year.  Absolutely not.

he knew they were sexually exploited and/or trafficked 

EM:  How many times would you say you visited?

Andrew: Ah, in total, probably four times.  In total throughout the- the time that I knew him..um,  in fact,  probably that was the place that, that, that, if you see what I mean, he - he was in the house more - more there than than in other places that I was at -

likely other locations that trigger guilt from him.  He slowly reveals himself as a manipulative and serial exploiter; with or without Epstein. 

EM:  So that’s where you’d find him.

Andrew: - um, but it was usually because I was going, I was going through and on somewhere else, so it was a day, it was, it was, that was it.

EM:  You said in your statement, from the Palace, “at no time did I see, witness or suspect any suspicious behaviour.”  Virginia Roberts’ legal team says you could not spend time around Epstein and not know what was going on - you could not spend time around Epstein and not know what was going on.  


Andrew: If you are, um, somebody uh, like me then people behave in a subtly different way. 

he only spots "abuse of children" but not someone who had a life dedicated to sexual exploitation of teenaged girls?


Um, you wouldn’t - first of all I’m not looking for it, that’s the thing, you see - if you are looking for it, then you might have suspected now, with the benefit of a huge amount of hindsight, and a huge amount of analysis, you look back and you can think, well, was that really the way it was, or was it, was I looking at it in the wrong way, but you don’t go into these places, you don’t go to stay with people looking for - for that.

EM:  You could not spend time around him - that’s what they said. You could not spend time around him and not know.

Andrew: Look, the other aspect of this is that, is that um, I live in uh, in an institution, at Buckingham Palace, which has members of staff walking around all the time. And I don’t wish to appear grand, but there were a lot of people who were walking around Jeffrey Epstein’s house. As far as I was aware they were staff, they were people that were working for him, doing things,   I, as it were, I interacted with them in saying good morning, good afternoon, but I didn’t, if you see what I mean, interact with them in a way that was, “What are you doing here? Why are you here?  What’s going on?”

EM:  But you’d notice if there were hundreds of underage girls in Buckingham Palace, wouldn’t you?

Andrew: Oh God - sorry, you'd notice if there were hundreds of underage girls in Jeffrey’s house, it wan’t there - not when I was there.  Now he may have changed his behaviour patterns in order for uh, that not to be obvious to me. So - I don’t -  you’re asking me to speculate on things that I just don’t know about.  

EM:  You seem utterly convinced you’re telling the truth.  Would you be willing to testify or give a statement under oath if you were asked?


Andrew: Well I’m like everybody else and I - I’m, I - and I would have to take uh, all the legal advice, um,  that there was before I was to - to do that sort of of  thing, but if push came to shove and the legal advice was to do so, then I would be duty bound to do so.

His claim to normality ("I'm like everybody else") indicates he is unlike everyone else.  Note the stress this causes. 

EM:  Because you’ve said there are many unanswered questions, everyone effected wants closure, you would help to provide that closure?

Andrew: If there was, if  in the right circumstances, yes, I would because I think there’s just as much um, closure for me as there is for everybody else.  Um, and undoubtedly - some very strange and unpleasant activities have been going on.  I’m afraid to say that I’m not the person that can shed light on it, for a number of reasons, one of which is that I wasn’t there long enough , um, if you go in for a day, two days at a time, uh, it’s quite easy, I’m led to believe, for those sorts of people to hide their activities for that period of time and then carry on when you’re not there.  

EM: Virginia Roberts’ lawyers, legal team, say that they’ve asked for a legal statement from you, there is an active FBI investigation now - would you be willing to provide that?

Andrew: Again, I’m, I’m, I’m bound by what my legal advice is - um, um, and legal advisors, tell me.  

EM:  Epstein was found dead.
Andrew: Yep.

EM:  In prison
Andrew: Yes

EM:  in August of this year.
Andrew: Yep.

EM: What was your response on hearing that he’d died?
Andrew: Shock.  

EM:  Some people think that he didn’t take his own life.

Andrew: There again I’m not one to be able to answer that question.  Um, I believe that centres around something to do with a bone in his neck. Um, so whether or not if you commit suicide that bone breaks, or something.  Um, but I’m afraid to say I’m not an expert. Um, I have to take what the um uh, coroner says, and he has ruled that it was suicide - though -

EM:  He is dead, his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, your old friend, was, victims say, complicit in his behaviour.

Andrew: That bit I can’t help you with because I have no idea

EM:  Do you think that she has questions to answer about her role in this?

Andrew: In the same way that I have questions to answer, in the sense of what was I doing, um, and as I say, that - that I was there to - to my mind, be honourable and say to him, look you’ve been convicted, it would be incompatible for me to be seen with you.  Unfortunately somebody was standing around with a camera at the time and got a photograph of us - uh, it’s one of the very few photographs there are of us - but that was - that was the case.  Um, if there are questions that Ghislaine has to answer, that’s her - um, problem,I’m afraid, I’m not in a position to be able to comment one way or the other.

EM: When was your last contact with her?

Andrew: Uh, it was earlier this year, funnily enough, in the summer. In the spring - summer. 

EM: About what?

Andrew: She was here, um doing some rally.

EM:  So, even though he had by then been arrested, and was facing charges of sex trafficking,.

Andrew: No - no, no,  no, no, this was early spring - I think.  It was long - because, when was he arrested?

EM:  July.
Andrew: No, it was before July.  

EM:  And that was the last time.
Andrew: Yeah, yeah.

EM:  Did you discuss Epstein?
No.  Actually, funny enough, no - not at all.  There wasn’t anything to discuss about him because he wasn’t in the news.  He wasn’t - you know, just - we’d moved on.  

EM:  I want to talk about moving on.
Andrew: oh, yeah, yeah, alright, okay.

EM: Epstein is dead.
Andrew: Yes. 

EM:  The women are now being heard.  
Andrew: Quite rightly

EM:  How do you move on from this?

Andrew: Uh, well, that’s an interesting way of putting it. Um, I’m, I’m carrying on with what I do. um I have a number of thIngs I have been doing since two thousand and eleven. Um, they’re pretty well organised, pretty successful, and so I’m, I’m carrying on, trying to improve those things that I’m already doing. 

EM:  I wonder what  effect all this has had on your close family. You’ve got daughters of your own.

Andrew: It has been what I would describe as a constant sore in the family.  Um, We all knew him um - and I think that if we have a conversation about it we are all left with the same thing what on earth happened? How did he get to where he was, what did he do, how did he do it? Um, and so it - it’s just a constant sort of gnaw.  This first came out in two thousand and eleven. And um, it was a surprise to um,  to all of us, um, because the photographs were published at a separate time to when I was there, and there was a sort of question of what on earth’s going on, and as a family we discussed it, and in two thousand and fifteen, when the allegations were made in the deposition, uh - there was a sort of, uh, there was a sort of uh, this is the immediate family - not the wider family, the wider family couldn’t be more supportive - um, but the immediate family, it was - well, what’s all this about?  And we all just - we’re at a loss - so., it’s just -

EM:  Has the episode been damaging to the royal family, to Her Majesty the Queen?

Andrew: I don’t believe it’s been damaging to, uh, the Queen, at all.  It has to me.  

Here is another place where sympathy towards the many victims can be stated. 


Um, um, and it’s been a constant uh drip, if you see what I mean, in the - in the background - that people want to know. 

It has concerned him for years.  Please note that this is beyond the scope of the blog to go into advanced analysis, suffice to say, media may have covered for him in years past. 


If I was in a position to be able to answer all these questions in a way that gave sensible answers other than the ones that I’ve given, that gave closure, then I’d love it, but I’m afraid I can’t. I’m not in a position to be able to do so . I’m just as much in the dark as many people.

EM: How do you reconnect with the public then, now?

Andrew: Uh, by exactly what I’m doing, which is to use um and to continue to work with Pitch, and to continue to work with IDEA, and the things I believe strongly in.

I’m not somebody who does things in competition with people, oddly, I do things in collaboration with people.  So I want people to, to - to work together, to come to, as it were, a solution to a bigger problem, and so I’ve got a number of people working together, particularly in the education field, particularly in - and also in, in, in areas of um, of government,  and what they are doing so that we’re bringing everybody together so that we’re all pushing in the same direction.  And IDEA now does that, we’ve been going properly now for two years.  We’ve got three and a half million  people who’ve got a badge, we’ve got half a million, or just over half a million young people who are using the service. And, I’m trying to think what else we - but  It’s, uh, well, it’s designed for seven to fourteen year olds in the United Kingdom,  and it turns out it’s done from five to ninety-five around the world. So we’re - it’s being done in a hundred countries now.  So we’re slightly on the catch up with this one.

We listen for his linguistic disposition towards the Jeffrey Epstein victims.  

EM:  I know we have to bring this to a close because we’re running out of time. You’ve faced questions today on a very, very raw subject. There has never been an interview like this before.  I wonder what that tells us about the way the royal family now confront these difficult situations. has there been a sea change?

insight into how the interviewer sees herself. 


Andrew: I think the, the problem that um I, I’m - we face in the twenty first century is, um, social media. 

"the problem" is not the sexual abuse and trafficking of teenaged girls, but "social media." It is the expectation that sympathy (linguistic disposition) towards the victims will be stated. 

There is a whole range of um, things that you, you face now that you didn’t face twenty-five years ago because it was just the print media.  Um, and I think that, that to some extent there is a - there is a thick skin that you have to have. Um, and again, I’m not a confrontationalist, myself, um, I would prefer to be able to uh, as it were, resolve things in a way that is sensible, um, and so, choosing to, as it were, get out there  and talk about these things - it’s almost- it’s almost a mental health issue, to some extent, for me

It was not his fault, but he was a victim of a mental health issue. 

Yet, he has worried: 

in the sense that it’s been nagging at my mind for a great many years.  I know that I made the wrong judgement, and I made the wrong decision, uh, but I made the wrong decision and the wrong judgement I believe fundamentally for the right reasons, which is to say to somebody, I’m not going to see you again, and in fact, from that day forth, I was never in contact with him. Um, the subsequent allegations are what I would describe as surprising, shocking, um, and a distraction. Um, but that’s - I mean, there are all sorts of things that are on the internet and out there in the public domain that we just sort of go well, yeah - but I’m afraid this is,  um, it just never happened.


"it just never happened" is passive and avoids stating, "I did not..." which has the psychological strength of his presence.  "It" is not accused of having sexual contact but he is. 

EM:  You’ve talked about a thick skin. I wonder if you have any sense now of guilt, regret, or shame about any of your behaviour in your friendship with Epstein?

Impossible---he did not engage in sexual activity or traffic in teenaged girls for sex, nor did he have any inkling that this was Jeffrey Epstein's principle passion in life?

As such, the psychological wall of truth will be strongly between him and guilt.  

Is it? 

Andrew:  As far as Mr Epstein is concerned, it was the wrong decision to go and see him in two thousand and um, ten.  As far as uh my fr - uh association with him was concerned,  it had um uh some seriously beneficial um outcomes in areas that have nothing to do with, with, with what I would describe as what we are talking about today.  

Note the self censoring. 

Note the justification. 

On balance, could I have avoided ever meeting him? Um, probably not, um, and that’s because of my friendship with Ghelain- 

It was not his fault but "Ghelain" 

Yet, he still uses the pronoun "we" to unite himself to Epstein---after discussing allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking. 

it was, it was inevitable that, that we would have come across each other. Um, do I regret the fact that - that he has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming?  Yes.

EM:  Unbecoming? He was a sex offender.

Andrew: Yeah - I’m sorry,  I’m being polite. I mean in the sense that he was a sex offender

Recall his statement about the "abuse of children"

Consider "I'm sorry" to enter his language in the interview consistent with both the guilt and deception indicated. 

But no, um, was I right in, in having him as a friend, um, at the time, and bearing in mind this was some years before he was accused of being um, a sex offender. Um, uh, I don’t think there was anything wrong then. The problem was the fact that once he had been convicted-

EM:  You stayed with him.

error to interrupt. 
error to give him language to use: 

Andrew: I stayed with him.  And that’s - that’s the bit that, that that, um, as it were, I kick myself for on a daily basis, cause it was not something that was becoming of a member of the royal family. And we try and uphold the um, highest standards and practices, and I let the side down. Simple as that. 

Interesting to see him use "becoming" in two settings;

one is the reputation of the royal family and the other is the trafficking and sexual abuse of teenaged girls. 

EM: This interview has been exceptionally rare, you might not speak on this subject again. is there anything you feel has been left unsaid that you would like to say now?  

Was the interviewer allowing him a final opportunity to issue the Reliable Denial?  If so, it was a smart move. 

"I didn't have sexual contact with..." could have been said from the onset, as a priority. 

Andrew: No, I don’t think so. I think you’ve probably dragged out most of, most of what is required , and, um, I’m truly grateful for the opportunity that you’ve given me to be able to discuss this with you.  

EM:  Your Royal Highness, thank you.


Andrew: Thank you very much indeed.




Analysis Conclusion: 

Deception Indicated. 

The subject would have been better off not doing this interview. He has not only shown deception, but there may be attendant guilt that warrants exploration.  By avoiding addressing the allegation, we note that he has a need to avoid it.  

The subject is personality driven to avoid responsibility and to shift guilt or assign blame to others. This is very natural to him.  

It is likely that his privileged upbringing alleviated him from experiencing many consequences in life. 

His use of tangent is skillful. 

He minimizes the sexual abuse and trafficking of teenaged girls equating it to an embarrassment of his family and his own self. 

I believe from this interview that there are more victims. 

It is very likely that he does not believe his behavior to be criminal. It is likely that he cherishes his memories of the sexual exploitation, as well as the memory of the victim. 

As such, he does not express sympathy for the victims. 

He is like a 60 year old petulant child who does not understand why anyone would be bothered by this behavior. 


To study Statement Analysis, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 

90 comments:

General P. Malaise said...

Great analysis Peter. I learn more with each one.

Why would Andrew do this interview? I wonder if more information is to come out. Possibly the ABC tape? and the Palace needs to get out in front of it.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for doing this, Peter. I've read your blog for years and I've interviewed people as a social worker of 30 years. Just watching the interview was difficult. It made me uncomfortable to listen to his rambling tangential answers. All of the lies and alibis, all while reminding the audience of how extraordinary and important he is. Therefore be couldn't have done anything vulgar,
given his elite status.

I cannot wrap my head around the British [having a] monarchy in 2019, but that's just a footnote to this absurd interview. He obviously sees himself as entitled and above reproach....honorable.

Jo in NC

Hey Jude said...

Andrew: In the same way that I have questions to answer, in the sense of what was I doing, um, and as I say, that - that I was there to - to my mind, be honourable and say to him, look you’ve been convicted, it would be incompatible for me to be seen with you. Unfortunately somebody was standing around with a camera at the time and got a photograph of us - uh, it’s one of the very few photographs there are of us - but that was - that was the case.

—-

“As I say, I was there - to my mind, to be honourable” - he doesn’t sound entirely convinced of that.

To Prince Andrew, it was incompatible for him to be seen with Epstein because he had been convicted, not because he hadn’t known before then that he was a sex offender, so no longer wanted him as a friend, which would be more how the conversation might have gone if really he had been unaware and horrified, which also he didn’t ever say. He’s comfortable in using “us” after Epstein’s conviction, and.doesn’t say, “I didn’t want anything more to do with him.” - evidently he did, to have gone to his house for four days rather than speak on the phone.

There seems something off about the part where he talks about Epstein’s death. I wonder why he seems reluctant to accept the coroner’s findings.






LuciaD said...

If you’re a man , having sex with somebody is a positive action.” “It’s very difficult to forget a positive action”. If you are a woman, is having sex with somebody not positive? Is it negative? Why?

I find that statement by the Prince troubling, and bizarre.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger LuciaD said...
If you’re a man , having sex with somebody is a positive action.” “It’s very difficult to forget a positive action”. If you are a woman, is having sex with somebody not positive? Is it negative? Why?

I find that statement by the Prince troubling, and bizarre.

............it means he remembers. he is indicating it requires an action on the part of the man. he is indicating (to him) it is an contemplated (possibly forceful) action as opposed to a neutral act. in other words not a passive unconscious act. I don't think he is using it as in positive/negative as you have written. ......

note he reverts to third person.

Polo said...

Once again, I truly appreciate Statement Analysis and Peter's time to run this blog. This interview was disturbing and a disaster. It reminded me of Jerry Sandusky's interview with Bob Costas. As another poster stated, I felt Andrew's use of tangential answers was transparent and very painful to listen to because it was an insult to anyone's intelligence.

M said...

Thank you Peter, I hope many people see your analysis. Andrew sets off the "crap detector" of many, but SA gets to the objective signs of deception, past the gut reaction we feel.

Trigger said...

If you’re a man, having sex with somebody is a positive action.

This statement is an all inclusive fantasy. Is the prince attracted to this interviewer?

Is it negative? Only if the law prohibits it by written statutes to protect somebody.

Why? To prevent the trafficking and exploitation of minors.

This prince is a frog. He showed his true character.

Nellie said...

Please never close this blog

Anonymous said...

There is a typo in the following part of the Psychological Wall of Truth description.

"It matters now what another says, as he looks into his memory, he did not "do it" and is "telling the truth"---"

It should read "it matters not", not "it matters now".

Anonymous said...

General Malaise, he did it due to hubris.

Autumn said...

When Andrew is asked if there is any way he could have had sex with that young woman (etc.) he answers:

“No. Um. And, and and without putting too fine a point on it, if you’re a man, it is a positive act, to have sex with somebody. You have to take some sort of positive action, and so therefore if you try to forget -it’s very difficult to try and forget positive action, and I do not remember anything. I can’t, I’ve wracked my brain - thinking - oh, when the first allegation, when the allegations came out originally I went, well, that’s a bit strange, I don’t remember this, and then - I’ve been through it, and through it, and through it, over and over and over again, and nup, nothing - doesn’t - never happened.”

If, as he says, it is difficult to forget a positive act like having sex with somebody, surely he could have told us immediately with certainty whether or not it happened? But he doesn’t. Instead he allows for the possibility that it happened by saying he does “not remember anything” and he “racked” his “brain”. If you were falsely accused of having sex with a minor, would you go “well, that’s a bit strange, I don’t remember this” (“this” is pulling it close)? Or would you immediately deny it. Andrew apparently did some serious thinking to try and remember if he repeatedly had sex with a minor. Or did he (rather than try to remember) “try to forget” it but found it “very difficult to try and forget”. I think he probably racked his brain as to how he could escape the allegation and responsibility for his own actions.

Also: he tries to deny the allegation but between the lines he seems to confirm it: “positive act”, “positive action”, “positive action”. And: “I’ve been through it, and through it, and through it, over and over and over again". All of these things he repeats three times. Virginia Roberts said he had sex with her three times.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

You might have trouble remembering this particular instance of having sex with this minor, if you've had sex with many other minors. You may have trouble remembering "this" one girl, this one time, in this one location-if there were other girls, other times, other locations.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

It’s ludicrous that it was absolutely essential for a prince of England to befriend Jeffrey Epstein for social and business connections, to see Wall Street, and to go "some places". It’s laughable that Prince Andrew had to stay at Jeffrey Epstein’s houses for convenience sake. Even more laughable is that people were coming and going out of that house all the time, “almost like a railway station”, and neither Prince Andrew nor his security team thought anything about it, questioned it, or even vetted anyone for security reasons. That's so believable. Not.

Giordano Downes said...

So Andrew is now working on an agenda, IDEA, that deals with 7-14 yr olds??

Second Mile Sandusky here we come!!

Disgusting.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Out of curiosity, I wanted to specifically track Prince Andrew's defense of this particular picture. So, I combed his statement and compiled all of his responses (in the order in which they appeared) into a single statement.

“I have absolutely no memory of that photograph ever being taken.
I-I don’t remember that photograph ever being taken.
That’s me.
I have simply no recollection of the photograph ever being taken.
I’ve never seen Epstein with a camera in my life.
I don’t uh remember that photograph ever being taken.
I’m not entirely convinced that I would describe that as me in that picture.
Oh, yeah-pretty difficult not to recognize yourself.
I have no recollection of that photograph ever being taken.
Oh, it’s definitely me.. that’s a picture of me.
Nobody can prove whether or not that photograph has been doctored, but I don’t recollect that photograph ever being taken.
I’m at a loss to explain this particular photograph um, if the, if the original was ever produced, then perhaps we might be able to solve it, but I can’t.
I do not remember the photograph being taken."
-----------------------------------------------
He's kind of all over the board, scrambling to try to cover himself, and working hard not to give information away. His major tactic seems to be divert, divert, divert. The best he's got is "I do not remember that photograph being taken.", as if because he doesn't remember it, it must not be true or real.

Giordano Downes said...

Andrew also seems to not want to say anything bad about Epstein still. Does he believe he is still alive?

The world of Meme certainly does.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend and a British socialite, had oversight of Epstein's homes and island, and all the hiring for those places. She is accused of procuring the underage minors that were being trafficked on Epstein's plane and in all the locations. Listen to what Prince Andrew says about her.



Andrew: Well I met through his girlfriend uh, back in 1999, who um  - and I’d known her since uh she was at university in the UK.  Um, and it would be to some extent a stretch to stay that that um, uh, as it were, we were close friends uh w-we were friends because of other people, um, and I had a lot of opportunity to um, go the United States, um, but I didn’t have much time with him. 

Andrew:  but, uh - certainly at my invitation, not at the royal family’s invitation, but remember that it was his girlfriend that was the key element in this.  He was the, as it were, plus one, to some extent, in in in that aspect. 

EM:  Am I right in thinking you threw a birthday party um, for Epstein’s girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, at Sandringham?

Andrew:  No- it was a shooting weekend. 


EM:  You’ve visited Ghislaine Maxwell’s house in Belgravia in London.  
Andrew: Yes


EM: In July he was invited to Windsor Castle, to your daughter, Princess Beatrice’s, eighteenth birthday.  Why would you do that?

Andrew: Because I was asking Ghislaine.  But even so at the time, I don’t think - I um, certainly I wasn’t aware, when the invitation was issued, of what was going on in the United States, and I wasn’t aware until the media picked up on it, because he never said anything about it.  


Andrew: Um, uh - now, still not, for- and the reason being is that the people that I met, um,  and the opportunities that I was given to learn, um - either by him or because of him, were actually very useful.  He himself, um, not as it were, as close as you might think, we’re not - we weren’t that close, so therefore, I mean - yes, I would go and stay in his house,  but that was because of his girlfriend, not because of him.
________________________________________
I believe that Ghislaine Maxwell is indeed the key element in this.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Andrew:"...I just - just - it was one of those things that somebody’s going through that sort of thing, well,  I’m terribly sorry I can’t be associated..."
"I went there with the sole purpose of saying to him  that because he had been convicted it was n- it was inappropriate for us to be seen together."

Andrew: I had to go and see him and talk to him. Um, and I went to see him, uh, and I was doing a number of other things in New York at the time, um, and we had an opportunity to go for a walk in the park, and that was the conversation um, coincidentally, that was photographed, which was when I said to him, I said, look, because of what has happened, I don’t think it is appropriate that we should remain in contact.  And by mutual agreement, during that walk in the park, we decided that we would part company, and I left, I think it was the next day, and th- to this day, I never had any contact with him from that day forward.

EM:  So let’s go to that Central Park walk -
Andrew: Yeah
EM:  So, why wouldn’t you announce this break up when you got back?  Why wouldn’t you publicly explain what you’d done?  Did you worry that he had something that could compromise you?
Andrew: No. No

Andrew: No, no. That was that. Funny enough, two thousand and ten, that was it. That was it. Because I went, first of all I, I,I, I wanted to make sure that that - um, if I was going to go and see him,I had to make sure that - that- that that there was enough time between his release.  Because it - it wasn’t something I was going into in a hurry- But I had to go and see him.  I had to go and see him. I had to tell him.
_____________________________________________________
Prince Andrew says he had to fly to New York to tell Epstein in person that he couldn't be associated with Epstein, it was inappropriate to be seen with Epstein (as Epstein had been convicted), and inappropriate to remain in contact with Epstein...while he was taking a walk with Epstein in Central Park...the most visited urban park in the U.S., with 37.5–38 million visitors annually, not to mention a favorite venue for film crews. It was urgent that Prince Andrew had to talk to Epstein personally, away from other people at any of Epstein's other properties and before Epstein went back to jail. Notice how many times Prince Andrew uses the words "I had to..." (desperation). It sounds like he had to Epstein, "Look, I have to deny ever knowing you. I have no other choice, since you've been convicted, but I don't really mean it." It sounds like Prince Andrew was very worried about what Epstein had on him that he might dish. For someone he claimed he wasn't that close to, it was important enough to warrant a special visit, away from the house and the other people involved.

Notice Prince Andrew did answer only one of EM's compound questions:
EM: So, why wouldn’t you announce this break up when you got back? Why wouldn’t you publicly explain what you’d done? Did you worry that he had something that could compromise you?

Andrew: No. No


Miss Whitney said...

I am curious to know if the prince was sexually exploited as a child.

Hey Jude said...

Prince Andrew defers to Epstein in saying that he was “understanding”, and that the supposed break-up was by “mutual agreement”. Why so polite toward the dead sex-offender? Is he somehow not wishing to his hurt his pride or feelings beyond the grave? Why did he laugh when the interviewer said Epstein was dead? All that made me wonder if Epstein is still alive, though that would most likely to be the least likely explanation.

If really the purpose of the visit was to explain why they couldn’t be seen together or any longer associated, why would he go walking with him in Central Park, where they would quite possibly be seen together and so obviously associated? To not want to be “seen” with someone, or to “associate”, because it isn’t “wise” is not necessarily to break off a friendship.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Many excellent points made

LuciaD said...
If you’re a man , having sex with somebody is a positive action.” “It’s very difficult to forget a positive action”. If you are a woman, is having sex with somebody not positive? Is it negative? Why?

I find that statement by the Prince troubling, and bizarre.
November 17, 2019 at 4:58 PM
General P. Malaise said...
Blogger LuciaD said...
If you’re a man , having sex with somebody is a positive action.” “It’s very difficult to forget a positive action”. If you are a woman, is having sex with somebody not positive? Is it negative? Why?

I find that statement by the Prince troubling, and bizarre.

............it means he remembers. he is indicating it requires an action on the part of the man. he is indicating (to him) it is an contemplated (possibly forceful) action as opposed to a neutral act. in other words not a passive unconscious act. I don't think he is using it as in positive/negative as you have written. ......

note he reverts to third person.
November 17, 2019 at 7:26 PM

Blogger Giordano Downes said...
So Andrew is now working on an agenda, IDEA, that deals with 7-14 yr olds??


Peter

Melissa said...

I’ve read this morning that by doing a public interview, he could now use that to say he could not have a fair trial with a jury and therefore should be tried by a judge, and a judge can be controlled

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Hey Jude said...
Prince Andrew defers to Epstein in saying that he was “understanding”, and that the supposed break-up was by “mutual agreement”. Why so polite toward the dead sex-offender? Is he somehow not wishing to his hurt his pride or feelings beyond the grave? Why did he laugh when the interviewer said Epstein was dead? All that made me wonder if Epstein is still alive, though that would most likely to be the least likely explanation.

If really the purpose of the visit was to explain why they couldn’t be seen together or any longer associated, why would he go walking with him in Central Park, where they would quite possibly be seen together and so obviously associated? To not want to be “seen” with someone, or to “associate”, because it isn’t “wise” is not necessarily to break off a friendship.



good questions

Heath said...

I was looking up cases of anonymous notes on the blog and could not find a final analysis of the anonymous note sent to David and Wani Shaw. Did I miss it? So many different and interesting comments on it, but no conclusion! I want to see the final analysis!
It was like getting to the end of Edwin Drood - what happened?! (Which, in fairness, I should have been more prepared for, considering it's an unfinished novel...)
I hope analysis for the Shaw note is available. Any help in being provided that would be much appreciated.

Sumai said...

Thanks for posting when I watched this on Saturday I hoped you would analyse it.I found him to be deceptive and have ridiculous responses.he quite clearly knows very well what JE was all about and therefore complicit in the abuse. Sadly he will never face consequences for his crimes\ immorality being the Queens son.Frustrating as hell but true
Thanks again Peter I shall be sharing this far and wide

Unknown said...

The Coroner stated that he did not do a DNA test. The body was visually identified by his brother who was the sole beneficiary of the estate. A body swap could have been done. Watch this again and notice how he laughs at Epstein being dead. Also constant uses of present tense. I think he is still alive hiding with the help of his brother and paying people off.

Sumai said...

I mean I will be telling Everyone. To come and read this brilliant post

Andy said...

If Epstein was only a plus one when invited to the shooting event, why didn't Andrew take a walk with Maxwell in the park and explain why he couldn't be friends any longer. Um.

General P. Malaise said...

Heath said...
I was looking up cases of anonymous notes on the blog and could not find a final analysis of the anonymous note sent to David and Wani Shaw. Did I miss it? So many different and interesting comments on it, but no conclusion! I want to see the final analysis!

.........I did a search and read a few articles about this case. NOTE, the linguistic disposition toward whoever sent the letter is positive. This is unexpected in a negative anonymous letter. I would suspect that the couple know who wrote the letter or possibly wrote it themselves.

frommindtomatter said...

EM: In 2008 he was convicted

Andrew: Yes

EM: of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution. He was jailed.

Andrew: Yes.

EM: This was your friend.

Andrew: Yeah.

EM: How did you feel about it?

He is asked how he feels about his friend being convicted of “soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution”. The expected answer is - “I was shocked and disgusted by his behaviour”, but Andrew does not say it. We cannot say it for him. Instead he says:

Andrew: Well, I ceased contact with him after uh I was aware that he was um under investigation. And that was later on in in 2006 - and I wasn’t in touch with him again until 2010 – [so um, I just - just - it was one of those things that somebody’s going through that sort of thing], well, I’m terribly sorry I can’t be associated.

Note he did not cease contact with him because he found out what he was doing and was shocked and disgusted, but because “he was under investigation”. This speaks volumes. He describes Epstein being investigated/convicted of procuring a minor for prostitution as “one of those things that somebody’s going through that sort of thing”. Think about that. Being convicted of for child prosecution is “one of those things” that someone goes through. Wow that is mind blowing.

He then says he is “terribly sorry” he can’t be associated with it. Again he reveals his priority which is to not be associated/connected with it. He apologises for it. He is telling us he was sorry he could not stand by his friend. Most people would not be surprised to hear something along the lines of “the mans an animal I hope he rots in hell”, but as I said earlier he does not say it which reveals it is not what he thinks.

If you look at his interview as a whole you see a man who cannot make a solid denial to anything. He is asked multiple questions regarding Virginia Roberts but fails to answer them. An honest person would simply say “she is a liar” but he does not say it. Think about it, if you were innocent and in Andrews position you would see this interview as a great opportunity to strongly deny everything thrown at you because all you would need to do is tell the truth.

Adrian.

Red Meat said...

Heath said...
I was looking up cases of anonymous notes on the blog and could not find a final analysis of the anonymous note sent to David and Wani Shaw. Did I miss it? So many different and interesting comments on it, but no conclusion! I want to see the final analysis!
It was like getting to the end of Edwin Drood - what happened?! (Which, in fairness, I should have been more prepared for, considering it's an unfinished novel...)
I hope analysis for the Shaw note is available. Any help in being provided that would be much appreciated.


We also never got the final analysis about the "anonymous" author who claimed to have seen the 9/11 video of Muslims rioting in NJ. I was so hoping the analyst would reveal more about the subject of the statement.

Martina said...

An innocent man would have said:
This crazy woman is making up all kinds of lies against me. The foto is fake.
Note how strenously he avoids saying anything like that.

Unknown said...

I so appreciate Peter Hyatt's analysis of Andrew's statements. While watching the interview, Andrew's responses to questions seemed absurd, but because of Peter's analysis, the deception becomes so much clearer. I was as shocked by Andrew's cold, self-absorbed, and shallow depiction of himself as someone more concerned about "appearances" than the probable reality that he sexually exploited young girls for many years.

"I stayed (friends) with him," and "I had to go one more time" sounds like an addiction. His comment about staying with Epstein out of "convenience" is so laughable. No one gets on a plane for 10 hours to go stay with someone because it's convenient. To think that Great Britain PAID for Andrew to go to a pedophile's homes and island to have sex with underage girls is pretty disgusting. The other "work" or meetings he claims to have had is his cover and excuse for the travel.

"Convenience" crops up repeatedly. Makes me think that Jeffrey's indictment was very "inconvenient" for Andrew since his supplier was caught. I think another poster is right, the "last trip" was probably an arrangement to ensure Epstein didn't rat Andrew out. Has anyone looked at a money trail. I wonder if the FBI will be doing that.

Thank you Peter Hyatt for shedding light on so many cases and teaching people how to be critical thinkers.

Nadine Lumley said...

I wish I knew the thinking behind this part:

the statement of responsibility ("I, I admit fully") is not to take responsibility, but to state it.


And so why this below?

Substance abuse should be examined.

.

Anonymous said...

^^ Was the "substance" of choice underage women?

Giordano Downes said...

Andrew victimized another young girl, his own daughter, in dragging her into this lie, using her as a shield and connecting her to his lie using a pizza restaurant. Really makes you wonder about the whole Pizzagate thing. Andrew introduced a pizza restaurant into his language, it wasn't parroted language.






Autumn said...

Giordano Downes, I wondered the same thing about Pizzagate. Was introducing "pizza" a sort of sign/message to possible co-offenders? Ghislaine for example? Epstein's private jet - allegedly used for sex with young girls - was called "Lolita Express". The pizza restaurant Andrew introduced is called Pizza "Express". Is it a coincidence?

Andrew says "I'm afraid" (often followed by "to say") 10 x in this interview. Maybe it's a manner of speech? I found it interesting to see which words preceded or followed the "I'm afraid"'s. For instance the following:

"Um, if there are questions that Ghislaine has to answer, that’s her - um, problem, I’m afraid, I’m not in a position to be able to comment one way or the other."

As if he is unwittingly signaling: "Ghislaine has the answers to your questions. That's a problem and I'm afraid."

Autumn said...

Here’s another “I’m afraid” (again in combination with “problem”) that I find interesting:

“Well, I’m not quite sure whether - was it police? - I don’t know, you see - this is the problem. I don’t know. But I’m afraid you see, this is the problem, that an awful lot of this was going on in the United States and I wasn’t a party to it and I knew nothing about it.

Kris said...

EM: ...She said, “He knows exactly what he’s done and I hope he comes clean about it."
Andrew: And the answer is nothing

Andrew said, "the answer" is nothing, rather than something like, "I did nothing." There was no question so "the answer" is not a valid response. Mainly, he's putting his response outside of himself, not issuing a personal denial, as I've learned about here.

I have a feeling that as bad as this interview was, it probably served its purpose for Andrew, in that he was not questioned about even worse situations, and could have actually gotten off easy. Kind of a "look here, not there" interview.

Anonymous said...

Thank you very much for the analysis - it was excellent
.
Some observations I have:

In my mind, you don't go to the next city never mind another country to end a not particularly close friendship. Yet Andrews trip was to include a 4 day stay at Epsteinss hone (all after the alleged 'break up') in addition to being guest of honour at dinner - all in order to 'break up' with someone that has been convicted of an act anyone in their right mind would consider heinous. At best you tell them by email never to darken your door again then block them. I believe there were many other meetings after this one, Andrew simply created the 'break up' story to justify his presence on being found out.

As other's have mentioned, Andrew is more concerned to states they could no longer be seen together - not that the friendship must end/they stop meeting due to his disgust at Epsteins actions.

Yes, Epsteins house was very convenient -particularly for people who like underage girls.

Andrew continually references his friendship with Ghislaine. He didn't break off contact with her. In time I suspect this friendship with her will be used as an alibi for calling/been seen at Epsteins properties after 2010. Andrew must have known a long term girlfriend of Epstein was involved with the sex trafficking of under age girls. Obviously a very wealthy woman & not financially dependent on Epstein, did she leave him in absolute disgust over his activities & eventual conviction as Most woman would? No. Yet Andrew thought it fine for him to remain friends with a woman, who by staying with a sex trafficker of under age girls, tacitly consented/approved of his activities as did Andrew by not cutting off all contact with both of them.

Andrew was good friends with Ghislaine so I am sure during visits to Ghislaine after 2010 - Epstein was co-incidentally there at times, being her long term boyfriend it's inevitable. He even admitted to Inviting her to visit him as recently as this year. I wonder who her 'plus one' was behind closed place doors before Epstein was jailed.

Andrew must have been VERY familiar with Ghislaines house to recognise it from a photo decades old given I am sure it's been redecorated many times since. Strange how he could identity the photo as taken at upstairs - yet he states had never been upstairs to be able to recognize that location.

I suspect that Andrew deliberately was exceptionally vague to avoid later accusations of lying to the public. e.g. he did not state many things such as he didn't have sex with under age girls,didn't have sex with the girl in question. He knows in time this will come out and perhaps for some sort of behind the scenes plea deal, he can point out he never actually lied - just did not expand to state the truth.

Dawn said...

Peter & students: I am curious about some statements made by the boyfriend who lived in the 3rd floor apartment of the 3 decker in which a firefighter died while fighting a fire a few days ago in Worcester County. This boyfriend was not present in the 3 decker when the fire was called in but his girlfriend & baby som were. They escaped but the firefighters thought that the woman & baby were trapped on the 3rd floor & the firefighter died trying to save them. I will link below

Dawn said...

Zayas said he prefers to patronize laundromats at odd hours because it's less busy and he has free access to the largest machines.

Anonymous said...

Zayas’s statements are here in the article

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegram.com/news/20191115/tenant-of-fire-ravaged-house-grateful-to-firefighters%3ftemplate=ampart

Should his statements regarding washing machines/laundromat cause concern?

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Zayas’s statements are here in the article

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegram.com/news/20191115/tenant-of-fire-ravaged-house-grateful-to-firefighters%3ftemplate=ampart

Should his statements regarding washing machines/laundromat cause concern?

... the part about the laundromat is not a direct quote so it can not be analyzed as his words...

Anonymous said...

Right, but he was IN a laundromat WASHING clothes after 12 pm on a weeknight.

He mentions WASHING.

We were taught that that is concerning.

You don’t think it’s weird?

Nevermind that the empty laundromat would be the perfect place to was clothes that smell like smoke.

Dawn said...

“Banged on the DOOR”

Anonymous said...

Wall
Door
Washing
fire (light)

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Amanda Knox broke down in tears and said she was 'desperate' to hear her 'missing friend and roommate' Meredith Kercher's voice again on a recent episode of her true crime podcast.

In 2009, she was convicted of brutally murdering Kercher in the home they shared in Perugia, Italy, while studying abroad. She was acquitted two years later and has since made a living through podcasts, selling books and documentaries about the killing.

In a recent episode of her podcast, The Truth About Truth, Knox was interviewing the friends of murder victim Jennifer Levin - who was strangled to death by Robert Chambers in Central Park in 1996 - when she started crying.

One of Jennifer's friends was talking about how she wished she could speak to her again and Knox said quietly: 'I've often thought the same thing about Meredith.'

In a voice over afterwards, she added that the interview 'brought to mind my own missing friend and roommate, and the desperation of wanting to hear her voice again.'

'Not just because she knows the real truth, but because she deserves to be heard,' she said.

After hanging up, she said she 'stayed in the seclusion of her vocal booth for quite a while', crying.

Knox's husband, who was outside, was then heard asking her on tape if she was all right.

She answered that she was 'sad' and said: 'I have a lot of unanswered questions too, you know?'

'There are always unanswered questions when someone’s life is cut short.Things only they would know about what really happened at the moment of their death.

'But unanswered questions are hard to bear.

'So over time, we tell ourselves larger stories that don’t so much fill in those crucial gaps as much as they try to make sense of the senseless at the broader level of society.'

It comes as she lends her support to people who she says are wrongfully convicted and have spent years behind bars.

In an interview with Dr. Phil which will air on Tuesday, Knox gave the example of Rodney Reed - a death row inmate whose execution was halted this week - as the type of person who needs help and said while she only spent four years in prison, there are some who have been in jail for longer than she has been alive.

Kercher's family has not yet reacted to the podcast.

They have long said they feel there has not been sufficient justice for their murdered daughter.

In June this year, they labeled Knox 'inappropriate' for returning to Italy to attend a panel on the topic of trial by media, and said the visit was 'painful' for them.

The only person who remains in prison for Kercher's murder is Rudy Guede.

He took a fast track trial in Italy and was convicted in 2009.

He was sentenced to 30 years in prison but it was automatically halved to 16 years as part of his submission to a fast-track, media-free trial.

In 2016, he was shockingly allowed to have 36 hours of freedom as a reward for good behavior.

Raffaele Sollecito, Knox's boyfriend who was convicted alongside him, has also written a book about the murder and their subsequent legal woes.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7702775/Amanda-Knox-weeps-podcast-says-wants-hear-Meredith-Kerchers-voice-again.html

Unknown said...

ghislaine is a mossad operative. this underage girl / boy rape is a mossad method of entrapment / compromise.

anonymouscoward said...

".. is a mossad method of entrapment / compromise"
It's 'becoming' behaviour in any country's secret services.
I'm inclined to share your opinion.

Also, thankyou Mr. Hyatt, very much, for taking your time to share these posts.

lynda said...

Why has Ghislaine NOT BEEN ARRESTED?? There have been numerous victims that have stated the she also sexually assaulted the girls and was a damn pimp. Yet she walks free?

I hope the law continues to dig into Epstein/Ghislaine and associates and takes down every single asshole that participated in the sexual abuse/raping of these young girls.

That includes Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Alan Dershowitz among others. They should all be in jail for the rest of their lives.

Dawn said...

Does anyone here know how to tell if a rib is broken—I slipped on rainy steps fell on lower right side of back full impact against the edge of a stair. I felt severe pain and heard a cracking sound. Now bruising, swelling, pain like a mofo when pressure put on opposite leg (?), bending, twisting, walking, turning or sitting from a lying position. When pressing on lower back, there is one spot with pain that is a 10—hurts like a mofo. Teeth chattering when I went outside for a minute. Terrified. Does anyine know if this is broken rib or what?!?!

Tania Cadogan said...

Why did he laugh when the interviewer said Epstein was dead?

Perhaps it was a laugh of relief.
With epstein dead it is one less worry about him being implicated in the sexual abuse of minors.
I do worry that andrew is at risk of self harming.
He has lost everything, his status, his family and friends, his work.
Will him self harming be done to spare the Royal family further shame?
With him gone, the family can move on.
With him alive albeit living a quiet life in the background.
Could he be prosecuted in America?
If so would he be jailed and if so, there or back in the UK?
Could he renounce his title and become plain Mr. andrew windsor living in a small house somewhere on one of the Queen's estates, maybe in Scotland, living off his Naval pension and maybe a smaller income from the Queen?
I could see him selling his properties as he would be unable to run them, and living in a small cottage somewhere.
No charity would touch him nor any business wanting him as an 'ambassador'.
He would become effectively untouchable.
What about when his other daughter gets married next year?
Will he walk her down the aisle?

Time will tell as at the moment he has not been accused of any crimes, just his association with a convicted paedophile and accusations of having sex with a 17 year of and implications relating to other girls.
Should he be questioned by American law enforcement will he go or will he self harm if he knows the full truth will come out?
What happens if the UK police force get involved?
What if he is charged?
What if he is found guilty?
What if he has to be jailed in America could he serve a sentence there although it would not be in general population?
Could he claim diplomatic immunity?
Could he serve a sentence in the UK?
Who knows?
Would the Queen step in, could she?
Would he now be effectively shoved away in a quiet corner, living a simple life out of the public eye?
His name is now mud, he may decide to do the 'honorable' thing to spare the family, especially the Queen further embarrassment.
What he will need to do is to admit the whole truth regarding his involvement and what he knows, name names and then accept any consequences.

Anonymous said...

Isn’t there an SA nurse on call for when an SA student is ill or injured? To answer questions?

The bruising is worsening from my fall & now there is also swelling—I am scared by the “crunching” sound I heard when I fell.

Concerned said...

When I saw that the Queen basically fired him from royal duties (unprecedented!) and cancelled his paycheck, I thought he might just disappear for a while. Now I hear he wants to do another interview to try and redeem himself.
Bring it on and let's watch Peter at work!

Richard Straker said...

For something more light hearted can someone provide statement analysis for Noel Gallagher’s public statement about the fall out with his brother and break up of Oasis please?
https://youtu.be/WrcvuU1-L1I

Martina said...

Dawn, go to see a doctor.

Nadine Lumley said...

The shadow King Charles is the one who forced Andrew out.

.

Anonymous said...

Mr Hyatt, I have your book, which I have read thrice, read all your Statement Analysis blog, and watch all your videos. I use your technique of S.A. in my line of work, it is invaluable.

I am British so feel compelled to point out this cultural difference:

"I'm afraid" which you have highlighted in red, is a very British thing to say. We are trained to apologise for everything and be polite at all times. Those in the upper class use "I'm afraid" constantly, in the following example contexts:

I'm afraid to say, I can't meet you for lunch today.

I'm afraid to say, this food is cold, when complaining to a waiter, sending a meal back to the kitchen in a restaurant.

I would love to accept your invitation for drinks this evening, but I'm afraid to say, we are otherwise engaged.

You see, it is a culture of language, and not literal. I have been trying to delete that syntax from my use because it is so terribly British and pathetically apologetic. I have never used it once because I actually "felt afraid" to say something, it is simply something Brits use out of politeness.

I was thrilled when I saw you had analysed this interview. I think many, many Brits have not trusted the "Royals" and their sexual proclivities since the Jimmy Saville horrors came to light. The "Prince" is guilty, I knew it, my 80 year old father knew it - your anaylsis proves it beyond doubt.

I also should add here, child sex abuse is often the "norm" in the upper classes. Many years ago I was having supper with Lord M., I was staying in his house as a guest off and on for over 4 years. We discussed Sir Cyril Smith, and Lord M said to me: "Awful man, he was a terrible pedophile, lived with his mother you know." It was only after the Saville story broke that I realised all these active members of the House of Lords all must have known about Smith - and did nothing about it. They are all complicit. I heard some horror stories around those people, sexual abuse at their exclusive boarding schools such as Eaton and Cambridge was and probably still is, common.

Perhaps the reason why Andrew does not connect the dots with sex with Epstein's sex slaves...

Kris said...

non-professional opinion: Dawn, if you have an Ace bandage, standing up straight, wrap one securely but comfortably around the area . Preferably the wide, 4-inch ace bandage, but the 2 inch one will do. Then definitely go to the doctor.

Anonymous said...

age of consent in UK is 16, not 18 like america.
could have told the truth and been perfectly fine legally here in UK(sure a scandal but no legal issue to answer) but he has dug an even deeper hole for himself.
like all royals, as bent as a two bob note!

Cathy in Manchester UK said...

Yes anonymous the age of consent in the UK is 18 years but it is alleged that he had sex with Ms Roberts over in the US where it is a crime. Therefore if he is found to have had sex with her he has broken the law on US soil.

Hey Jude said...

“And by mutual agreement, during that walk in the park, we decided that we would part company, and I left, I think it was the next day, and th- to this day, I never had any contact with him from that day forward.”

Why does Andrew say “to this day, I never had any contact with him....”. ? Maybe he does not believe Epstein is dead? Or is it just clumsiness, from which he next corrects himself - “I never had any contact with him from that day forward.”?


Prince Andrew sought to give the impression that he broke off the relationship, yet “by mutual agreement”, and ‘we decided that we would part company” makes it sound subject to Epstein’s agreement, after which the pronouns change from “we” to “I” and “him”.

Tania Cadogan said...

The age of consent can vary from country to country and even state to state.
In the UK in 16 in the US it can vary from 16 to 18 and there are numerous laws depending on age of partners and age differences (Romeo and Juliet)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/age-of-consent-by-state/


The age of consent can vary by country ranging from 11 in Nigeria to 21 in Bahrain and Portugal.
In some countries (islamic) there is no age of consent as the couple have to be married.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/age-of-consent-by-country/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia

https://www.ageofconsent.net/continent/asia

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/age-of-consent-by-country/


https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/age-of-consent-around-the-world.html

caz said...

Further on the Royal Family:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/50295603@N02/48610164381

and this is curious:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50295603@N02/49107559937

Anonymous said...

Thanks. Yeah Im walking around with a broken rib, did not call doc, then right before my doc's office was closing for the weekend, I got a call from my doc's office (which I didn't hear phone ring) regarding something completely different. They left message saying they have found a few things wrong with my routine blood test. I am terrified I have cancer or lupus. I tried to call them back but they were closed for the weekend. I have been feeling extreme exhaustion since mid-August, this began right around the time I got extremely sick with extreme leg pain, fever, vomitting, rash that formed over my entire legs for about 2 days and then vanished. Next I developed an extremely swollen right ankle joint that also hurt--it stayed that way for months along with extreme fatigue. Both physical and mental--debilitating exhaustion. I did not go to doc at that time nor mention any of this to them when they did routine blood test. Now I am terrified of what showed in routine blood test. I am thinking it has to relate to the very swollen painful ankle joint, exhaustion, etc. But with my luck it will be cancer. I am TERRIFIED! Part of me is terrified, the other part of me feels if it's my time to check out than so be it. Sick of the PTSD etc. Honestly Im not afraid of a life threatening diagnosis. I just don't want to have to go through the hassle of getting chemo etc just would rather die from it.

Anonymous said...

I just can't believe they would leave me that kind of message right before they closed so I have to worry about it all weekend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone know what that could be?

Extreme exhaustion for months combined with very swollen painful right outer ankle joint?

Is it Lyme disease? Lupus? Arthritis? Cancer????

I am so scared.

Anonymous said...

I am so tired...I cannot deal with some major health problem.

I have googled and I can't figure it out!!!

It seems like it could be Lyme or rheumatoid arthritis or lupus?!?

I am photosensitive and at time my feet would develop rashes from exposure to sunlight...so that could be lupus?

The exhaustion is crazy though...so that could be cancer?!?!
Or lupus?

What about Lyme disease? I garden and am exposed to wooded areas frequently but did not see any tick on me this summer. Yet that was weird about that sudden onset illness or extreme leg pain, rash covering legs for 2 days, dehydration vomitting, fever, headache that lasted for 2 days straigt...to me that makes me think Lyme??? But I did not have a bulls eye rash or see a tick on myself.

Why can't I diagnose this using google???

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what it could be?

G. said...


"I flew up to Boston the following day, and then on the day that she says this occurred, she - they’d already left in, uh, to go to the island, before I got back from Boston"...

HOW / WHY would Andrew know about Virginia Roberts' movements, and that "she - they'd already left in" ….What ... … to go to the island?

Andrew sees Epstein as EXTRAORDINARY.
I believe he knows Epstein is alive, as he refuses to acknowledge what Epstein did was wrong;
Andrew's admiration of Epstein shows through the interview.

Epstein gave a party in Andrew's honor after getting out of prison?
If your a sex offender, why would you honor someone?
What would they have done for you to deserve such honor?

Don't expect much from the PRIVATE legalese side; they protect the rich and famous.
(it's true. One only has to look up the story of Dupont, who never went to prison over sexual acts with his own children)
What is the word, for when the private legal side, bury' evidence for years?
G

Anonymous said...

Did anyone Hear a good denial from Rodney Reed? At dr Phil he Said: i die Not commit this Crime.

As dr Phil has alwys an interesting Choice of guests...
Amanda Knox...
Jonbenet ramseys Brother ...

People where SA showed red Flags...

Kimberly Smith said...

TO ANONYMOUS waiting for blood test results:

Sounds classically like lyme to me which is usually cured with a three-week course of antibiotics. Your story is just like my 10yo son when he had it and I didn't figure it out for about four months. (I felt/feel so guilty.)

Secondarily possibly the lupus. Definitely not cancer for myriad reasons: acute onset, rash, nausea, fever, just to start.

Really, I'd put my money on the lyme disease, and I'm not saying that just to make you feel better, lol. And message me somehow when you get the results so I can feel all proud of myself being right and you being just fine!

Best wishes for you!

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much Kimberly, and I am sorry about your son having Lyme. Today I am swinging back and forth between Lyme and Lupus....thank you for telling me it’s not cancer. Other symptoms...my balance has been off—walking down stairs when wearing boots seems hard & challenging (almost like I am a toddler?!), I have fallen 3 times and will sometimes lose balance & fall to the side but catch myself before I crash. Also the other day I called a “bird” a “cat”?!?! The exhaustion felt/feels like Lyme exhaustion—like there is a heavy lead blanket of exhaustion you just cant push off you. They said in message to come in Mon or Tues to do more bloodwork. I will let you know what they find. Thank you! And I hope your son is feeling all better!!!

Tania Cadogan said...

M.E?
See a doc and have the tests
Feel better soon xx

apricotpraline said...

I am British, have been living in the USA for a decade so am very acquainted with both languages and culture. The statement analysis above is excellently done, but I hesitate over a couple of inferences. 1) 'I am sorry' and 2) 'I am afraid'. Just because the British and the Americans speak the same words does not mean we speak the same language. A thorough understanding of British culture is needed to correctly understand the use of these phrases. Us British use the phrase 'I am sorry' frequently. By frequently I mean multiple times per day for many of us. If someone bumps into us in the store we are far more likely to say 'I am sorry' than 'you jerk' even though we are not the one who did anything wrong. If we are having a row with someone and we are 100% convinced by our argument and 100% convinced the other person is wrong we are highly likely to say 'I am sorry, but you are wrong'. We are not actually sorry at all, it's just a phrase we use to try and be polite. It's polite etiquette. If there is any sorry to be attributed to anyone at all it is to the other party - translate it as meaning 'I am sorry for you that I am about to disagree with you' … in no way does it mean 'I am actually feeling sorrow on some level'. Us British folk are extremely apologetic by culture. It doesn't mean we genuinely are sorry when we say we are sorry, it's a phrase we use to exhibit politeness.

When it comes to the use of the phrase 'I am afraid' the same rules apply as 'I am sorry'. We are not afraid at all .. it's simply a polite phrase we use many, many times per week in many situations. In a verbal combat we would use it exactly as we would use 'I am sorry' .. 'I am afraid you're wrong' we would say .. we haven't the least bit of fear at all, translate it to mean 'I am sorry for you that you are not going to like what I'm about to say' - we actually don't feel sorry for that person at all. It's simply a polite phrase we use, something we've heard and used thousands upon thousands of times in our British life and in no way should those words be taken literally on any level at all.

I do believe Prince Andrew is guilty of what he is accused of. I do think there's a lot of merit to almost all of the above statement analysis, but I think a thorough understanding of British culture and etiquette would have made the statement analysis more accurate. Prince Andrew was simply being polite and trying to be likeable with these phrases in the most thoroughly British way, he didn't even have to think about those phrases, they are automatic addendums to any controversial sentence we British are saying to an adversary - whether the conflict is a joke, is normal conversation or is a full on row with someone we use those phrases ALL THE TIME and they are meaningless beyond an attempt to soften the blow for the other party when we contend with them so we don't look too impolite.

equinox said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
equinox said...

First we must ask, "Why is Andrew doing this interview?" There is credible accusations, photographic evidence presented, substantiation from additional parties and a swelling chorus of condemnation from society in many countries. He obviously believed he could use words and sway to make some kind of point with this interview, but what was it? As this SA essay demonstrates it was not to say "I did not do it." because he didn't ever say it, so what was his reason?

Those of us in the hoi-polloi, were we to be falsely publically depicted in this light would, of course first deny, and then we would do what we could to express our opposing views on morality. Our words would convey not just: "I did not sexually abuse children" but also: "I believe that sexual activity with children causes trauma and perpetrators should be punished"

Beyond the excellent extraction of moments of deception so clearly brought out by Peter, when viewed in its totality, the interview presents in great clarity Andrew's belief that he did nothing wrong - and even if he did do what he was accused of - it was not wrong to do so.

Now maybe he does believe that for most other people sexual activity with children is wrong, but he expresses repeatedly a forgiveness and tolerance for both Epstein and Maxwell and all their actions, as such, because he also is "special" and that his participation within this world is therefore acceptable.

Denial was not his goal. He wants to convince us that his relationships with abusers was "ok" because of who he is. I do think he believes this. What I heard him saying beneath his words is that any child should consider themselves benefitted to have been assaulted by royalty.

According to Andrew, Epstein had a "most extraordinary uh, ability to bring um, extraordinary people together" and created "a cosmopolitan group of what I would describe as as um, eminence" When Epstein was released from being imprisoned for child abuse Andrew believes "he had accepted whatever it was, a plea bargain, he’d served his time um and uh, he was carrying on with his life." He does not regret his friendship with Epstein because "the people that I met, um, and the opportunities that I was given to learn, um - either by him or because of him, were actually very useful."

The interviewer asks him if he "could have had sex with that woman or any young woman trafficked by Epstein" and hsi response is to talk about how positive sex is "for men." He is recalling at that moment a positive sexual experience and he cannot recall anything negative about it.

You nor I would not need to "have wracked our brains thinking" about whether we might have sexually abused a child. It wouldn't even take half a second to reply instantaneously and definitevly "No, I have never had sex with a child or a sex trafficking victim and the thought disgusts me because it is a terribly cruelty to do such a thing to a child." In having to wrack his brain he tells us he is struggling through a wash of memories which he has depicted as "positive" trying to square away any self-accusation of immorality and he cannot find it in himself. More than just defining himself as not having taken these actions he is saying that even if he did it was not amoral because if "you’re a man, it is a positive act."

This is why these particular words make us squirm with discomfort, they are his admission that he does recall many sexual acts with youth and to him they were all positive and therefore he has no personal regret to share.

He doesn't want our forgiveness or our belief in his innocence, he wants our complicity.

voici_je said...

he just prove himself to be what we know that kind of upper citizens are...players beyond any laws...even if he have said..yes it did happen i have had sex relation with this woman... would there be any consequences to his actions?...no...and now all the epstein's victims...should act together not all separated...and go all in talk about what they have been through..
.and battles woman...these pedos...have to face the thruth...

apricotpraline said...

Anybody else here get a ton of red flags about Andrew's response to his good friend's death? I can't decide if he's actually alive and done a disappearing act or if a hit was organized - but if the latter I did not suspect Andrew UNTIL I watched his behavior in the interview. The topic of the death was mentioned and the first thing Andrew did was twitch his mouth - exactly the same way my younger brother did for years when he was a kid EVERY SINGLE TIME he lied (until the moment I pointed out that I always knew when he was lying because of the twitch - he never did it again after that). There was a lot of nervous twitching with Andrew's hands and feet on the topic of the death. I recalled that Peter has taught in the past that you watch for a suspect to give out more details than they need to on the topic as that can reveal cause of death and of course Andrew went right off without provocation on an explanation about broken neck bones before excusing himself as one who knows nothing .. but the most bizarre thing of all was his LAUGH when the death is mentioned. A laugh. Nobody normal responds with a laugh when thinking about the death of a friend. So with his own words and behavior I went from thinking Andrew had nothing to do with it to thinking Andrew may have had everything to do with it.

Lawrence stone said...

Hi Peter

I am a new fan after watching the McCann analysis – totally blew me away.

Thank you for this prince Andrew post. I have been really looking forward to it. I know that there is lack of time and space, but a more detailed analysis would have been awesome – maybe do a video like the McCann analysis

I have also been looking at body language analysis. This has been fascinating too. He shakes his head in all of the wrong spots – meeting Maxwell at university (they met under different circumstances), didn’t spend too much time with Epstein, his reputation as a party prince, going to see Epstein was not about partying and women, he didn’t know anything about the trafficking and abuse of women and girls, breaking up during the walk in the park. Lies, lies, lies..

He is such a liar, it’s unbelievable. I like how his lies are now being exposed due to the interview – ‘I don’t sweat’ – photos of him sweating and gossip columns from that time stating he was sweating after leaving a nightclub. He doesn’t do displays of public affection – now photos of him with many women and being affectionate /sleazy. Plus, there is also a newspaper letter from this private secretary to The Times of London newspaper, which states that prince Andrew met Epstein in the early 1990’s, not 1999. (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-first-met-jeffrey-epstein-early-1990s-1473030)

And now there are articles stating the Maxwell wants to talk – prince Andrew must be shitting himself. But I do wonder if all of these powerful people will get away with it – money talks and people can be bought

Violet said...

The interviewer should have asked him exactly what was discussed in the park. I think Andrew was asking Epstein if he had ratted on him, or was offering to pay him off for his silence, or was in some way trying to cover his butt. Otherwise, he could have cut Epstein off completely and went no contact, and Epstein would have known why. The fact that Andrew wanted to speak to him means he wasn't done with their relationship.

Dawn said...

Does anyone know if high INR (slow blood clotting), Vit D deficiency, very swollen ankle are signs of lupus. Swelling in ankle the size of a baseball for 8 weeks. Ongoing fatigue. Lyme is negative.

Additional info; tick bite with red oval rash preceding severe flu symptoms w red angry rash covering tbe entirety of both legs for 2 days followed by severe ankle swelling about a week later.

I was told today my lyme test came out “unequivocably negative”.

Then what do I have???

Does anyone smart here know? Like a Dr House type person here in this family of analyzers?

Polo said...

“Well, contrary to what you might hear, I actually like men.”

Stern replied, “Raise your right hand, you’ve never had a lesbian affair.”

“Never, never, never!” Clinton laughed. “Never even been tempted.”

While I do not care about a person's sexual preferences, I'm not sure if this is a reliable denial. She uses the word "actually", but with the preference of "Contrary, to what you might hear . . " That use might be appropriate. However, she uses the word never, and repeats it indicating sensitivity. She does not say the word "no".

Polo said...

Sorry, I meant to say off topic. This is a Hilary Clinton quote.

Katinjax said...

Clinton is a know liar and IMO she is a lesbian.

MeNatalie said...

If you slow down the video, at the end of this interview, Andy Pandy literally laughs and says "yes" when he responds to, "Jeffrey Epstein is dead."

Why would he laugh? Comments? Ideas?

MeNatalie said...

One other thing, If I had all the money and time at my fingertips . . . I would take every Peter Hyatt class and devote the rest of my life to studying cases. I have found that the little I have learned from watching videos has enlightened my greatly! My kids say if anyone should have been a profiler it's their mother! ((I love it))

Anonymous said...


Others have explained some British usage of the phrases ‘I’m afraid that ……..’ or ‘I am sorry that….’
This phrase can also be used in a passively aggressive sense that ‘I am afraid, I really don’t know what …….. (you are talking about)’ Meaning ‘I know exactly what you are asking me about but there is no way I am going to tell you what I know.’
Andrew used this gambit several times, on a couple of occasions without much confidence, in itself indicating he knows a lot more than he is prepared to tell.
Another misunderstanding of the British context in which Emily Maitlis was interviewing Andrew was when she made reference to him being ‘the party prince’. Over many years Andrew has been severely criticised, supported by photo journalism, in the British press for his party lifestyle. So her question, rather than giving him a ‘line’, was actually a strong calling to account that the main (British) TV audience fully understood her to be demanding and his subsequent answer alerted us to his dishonesty very early in the interview as he will also remember the newspaper articles. On many occasions Buckingham Palace has complained to the press regulators about invading his privacy etc. .

Interviewing him at Buckingham Palace was criticised by some people although I thought it was a good tactic. He was on home ground therefore more relaxed than had he been in a television studio. Complacently relaxed until he realised he was getting a severe grilling, albeit done very decorously and politely. More difficult to walk out of your own ‘front room’ if the questions became too difficult to answer. (Very unbecoming!!!)

Truthdetective said...

"We Can't be SEEN together" Doesn't Mean " You are a disgusting child abuser and I want no further association with you!
It probably means "We are going to have to be much more discreet when we meet up because if anyone sees us together Shit is gonna hit the fan for me and the Royal Family..

Andrew was about to say (before correcting himself) "She had already left to go to the island" (while he was in Boston) but he changed it to "THEY" had already left... Had he not corrected himself and finished the sentence which started with She...it would have suggested that if he knew her movements, he knew her.. thus disproving his statement of having no recollection of ever meeting her. (The victim)