Andrew should testify to US Congress over Epstein, suggests Starmer

"In terms of testifying, I have always said anybody who has got information should be prepared to share that information," the Prime Minister stated unequivocally. He further elaborated on the moral imperative behind his suggestion, asserting, "You can’t be victim-centred if you’re not prepared to do that. Epstein’s victims have to be the first priority." This marks a significant escalation in the British government’s stance, moving from earlier neutrality to a direct call for cooperation with US authorities, underscoring the gravity of the ongoing scandal. The Prime Minister’s comments reflect mounting public pressure and a growing international demand for all individuals connected to Epstein to provide full disclosure.

Starmer’s remarks follow the latest release of a tranche of files related to Epstein’s illicit activities, which have brought renewed scrutiny upon Mountbatten-Windsor. Among the most striking documents are images attributed to the US Department of Justice, appearing to depict Mountbatten-Windsor in compromising positions. These photographs show him kneeling on all fours over an unidentified female figure lying on the ground. While no explicit context is provided for these particular images, two of them show him touching the fully clothed person on her stomach. In another, he is seen staring directly at the camera, seemingly aware of being photographed.

Crucially, an analysis by BBC Verify indicates that the decor visible in the background of these photographs is consistent with other documented images of the interior of Epstein’s opulent New York City mansion. This detail strengthens the link between Mountbatten-Windsor and the infamous residence, a known site of Epstein’s predatory activities. These visual disclosures are expected to intensify the long-standing pressure on Mountbatten-Windsor, who has faced years of relentless public scrutiny over his controversial friendship with Epstein. Despite the mounting evidence and public outcry, Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently and vehemently denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein’s criminal enterprise. BBC News has made attempts to reach the former prince for his comment regarding these latest developments, but no statement has been issued at the time of reporting.

The suggestion from Prime Minister Starmer also gains additional weight given that Democratic members of the US Congress had already formally requested Mountbatten-Windsor to answer questions as part of their ongoing Epstein investigation back in November of the previous year. At that time, Starmer had adopted a more cautious approach, stating that the invitation was a matter for Mountbatten-Windsor to consider "personally." His latest, more forceful statement suggests a shift in the government’s perceived responsibility and the urgency of the situation.

The backdrop to these recent developments includes Mountbatten-Windsor’s stripping of his royal titles and military affiliations in October of the preceding year. This unprecedented move by the Crown followed intense public backlash and a civil lawsuit brought against him by Virginia Giuffre, who alleged sexual assault when she was a minor, claims which Mountbatten-Windsor consistently denied. Although he settled the civil case out of court for an undisclosed sum, the stain on his reputation and the monarchy remained indelible.

Further compounding Mountbatten-Windsor’s challenges are separate email exchanges unsealed on Friday, which reveal Epstein inviting "The Duke" – understood to be Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor – to have dinner with a 26-year-old woman. The email, dated August 2010, shows Epstein informing "The Duke" that the woman would be in London. "The Duke" replied that he would be in Geneva until the morning of the 22nd but would be "delighted to see her," immediately asking: "Will she be bringing a message from you? Please give her my contact details to get in touch." He further inquired, "Is there any other information you might know about her that might be useful to know?" Epstein’s subsequent reply described the woman as "26, russian, clevere [sic] beautiful, trustworthy and yes she has your email." These messages were exchanged two years after Epstein had pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor and was serving an 18-month sentence, during which he was controversially allowed "work release" for 12 hours a day, six days a week, ultimately serving only 13 months on probation. While the emails in this latest release do not explicitly indicate any wrongdoing on Mountbatten-Windsor’s part, they highlight his continued association with Epstein even after the financier’s initial conviction. He has consistently maintained that he did not "see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction." The BBC has again sought comment from Mountbatten-Windsor regarding these specific email exchanges.

The comprehensive release of files also sheds light on the financial relationship between Epstein and Sarah Ferguson, Mountbatten-Windsor’s ex-wife and the former Duchess of York. Documents suggest that Epstein had been providing financial assistance to Ferguson for a period of 15 years. In 2009, Ferguson corresponded with Epstein, outlining various business ideas she was pursuing. Following a lunch, she effusively wrote, "Thank you Jeffrey for being the brother I have always wished for." In the same year, she made an urgent request to Epstein for £20,000 (approximately $27,384) for a rent payment, stating she needed it "today." She added, "The landlord has threatened to go to the newspapers if I don’t pay. Any brainwaves?" This exchange paints a picture of financial dependency and a close personal relationship.

Even more troubling are emails from 2011, which suggest Epstein actively sought to enlist Ferguson’s help in rehabilitating his public image. In an exchange with publicist Mike Sitrick, Epstein asked him to "draft a statement in an ideal world Fergie would put out," in which she would declare he was "not a pedo" and that she had been "duped" into believing false allegations by civil plaintiffs’ attorneys. Epstein added, "She knows what she was told was based on false hoods [sic]… She should out the newspapers on the offering of money for stories." Sitrick’s concise reply, "With pleasure," underscores the disturbing nature of Epstein’s attempts to manipulate public perception through his connections. Ferguson has also been approached for comment regarding these revelations.

Beyond the immediate royal connections, the release also implicated other prominent British figures. Prime Minister Starmer was questioned about a £10,000 (approximately $13,692) payment made by Epstein to Reinaldo Avila da Silva, the partner of Lord Mandelson, in 2009. Lord Mandelson, a high-profile Labour peer, faced significant repercussions over his association with Epstein. While the article initially presents a confusing timeline about his ambassadorship, Starmer clarified that Mandelson "was removed as ambassador in relation to the further information that came to light in September of last year." This suggests a past event where Mandelson’s connection to Epstein led to his removal from a significant public role.

In the email exchange, da Silva provided Epstein with details for an osteopathy course and his bank information, expressing gratitude for "anything you can help me with." Epstein responded within hours, stating, "I will wire your loan amount immediately," followed by da Silva’s confirmation the next day: "Just a brief note to thank you for the money which arrived in my account this morning." When questioned by reporters, Lord Mandelson asserted that he had been "very clear" about his relationship with Epstein in previous interviews with the BBC and declared, "I have nothing more to add." Starmer, for his part, remained firm on Mandelson’s past removal, stating, "I’ve nothing more to say in relation to Peter Mandelson."

The latest unsealing represents a vast repository of information, including more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images, though many of these documents are heavily redacted, with some pages entirely blacked out. This partial transparency has prompted further demands from Democratic members of the US House Judiciary Committee, who have called upon the Department of Justice to arrange immediate access to the full, unredacted case files. The formal inquiry highlights the "urgent" need to review these files, partly in preparation for an upcoming public committee hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi. The panel has also raised questions about why the Justice Department has released only half of the estimated pages related to Epstein, suggesting that significant information may still be withheld.

It is crucial to note that being named or pictured in these newly released files does not automatically constitute an indication of wrongdoing. Many individuals identified in previous releases have vehemently denied any involvement in Epstein’s criminal activities. However, the sheer volume and nature of the newly public information continue to fuel intense public scrutiny and underscore the wide-ranging, dark network Epstein cultivated, leaving a lasting shadow over many prominent figures and reigniting calls for comprehensive justice for his numerous victims.