Can Keir Starmer save himself from the Mandelson scandal?

This is a Global Player original podcast. I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you. Sorry that so many people with power failed you. Sorry for having believed Mandelson's lies and appointed him. I'm sorry that even now you're forced to watch this story unfold in public once again. That was Keir Starmer this morning and honestly the most full throated and I think sincere message directly to the victims of Geoffrey Epstein that we have heard

from any political leader, frankly, from anyone in power. And the question is now, can he distance himself, his premiership? from what he knew about Peter Mandelson when he appointed him last January. The feeling in the Parliamentary Labour Party among Labour MPs is sulphurous. Has this affair crippled Starmer's authority? Whether he resigns now or later, is it all over for him? Welcome to the news agents.

The news agents. It's Lewis. It's Emily. And this morning at around eleven o'clock, Keir Starmer popped up in Hastings and he wanted to, I guess, talk about renewal, talk about the Labour project. But he was conscious that none of that would sink in without first addressing the elephant, the Mandelstein the Mandelson Epstein. I mean that from Mandelstein kind of works, doesn't it? The files.

And the first thing pretty much the first thing he said was that apology, which I thought was actually really, really welcome and really convincing and he he went on to say we won't look away, we won't allow the powerful to treat justice as optional, we'll do everything within our power. to ensure accountability is delivered, it's what victims deserve and it's what I will do. And I guess the subtext to this is I'm on your side, victims.

and I'm deeply sorry that I appointed the man we all know now to be I mean, where to begin, you know, somebody who was not only a very very intensely good friend of a convicted pedophile, but somebody who was betraying his own government. At the time. It takes us back to this question, which will soon become more apparent, I guess, from what we're allowed to read, which is What did Kirstarmer know at the time he appointed him? And what kind of questions was Mandelson asked?

in the vetting. Yeah, and I think that is going to be absolutely crucial. The contents of the documents and in particular how onerous and how substantial the questions about Epstein were. We were saying when we recorded yesterday that it looked likely that the government would have to backtrack on exactly how the release of those documents would work. And indeed that is exactly what what happened. Just to recap. The government initially wanted to publish

the documents to accept the strictures of the humble address, that was the bit of parliamentary business that was compelling the release of these documents about Peter Mandelson and his appointment. But initially they wanted to decide which documents wouldn't be released

On the basis of it not being in the national interest or national security and so on,'cause you can imagine there are things that could embarrass the US UK relationship, whatever it happens. As we saw in the case of Kim Darek, the former UK ambassador who ended up resigning because His his quite frank memos had been leaked. Absolutely. So you can understand that. But what became clear in the commons yesterday, and I do think this is crucial for the question of Keir Starmer's authority.

It became clear that once again, despite that huge majority that he has got, that on a very practical basis it wasn't there. Because Labour MPs, even during the course of Prime Minister's questions yesterday, Hearing the Prime Minister say aloud, something that to be honest we all knew already, but hearing him say aloud that he knew that Mandelson continued his relationship

with Epstein, even after his conviction for paedophilia, hearing him say that aloud seemed to curdle the blood of Labour and Peace. Now you can have a discussion, I think we probably should about whether that's hypocritical'cause like as I say, Everyone kind of knew that anyway, but hearing say it aloud seemed to crystallise something. And through the course of that debate it became clear that even his own MPs did not trust

their own number ten, to oversee the release of those documents. And so, in the end, they ended up with a compromise position where the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is going to oversee it and decide which documents are released and what is put into the public domain. But as I say, in terms of the Prime Minister's authority, which relies on the confidence of the Commons,

He didn't enjoy it yesterday. Yeah. Which is a crippling blow. It's worth explaining if you're wondering why we're talking about people knowing that Epstein was a convicted paedophile. that he had a conviction on one count of what they then called child prostitution. I I think we'd probably call it child rape now, quite frankly. But the the bulk of his crimes

had not then been convicted. Not he had never been brought to justice for the the mass number of rapes and and abuse that he had committed. So he was convicted on that very slim sort of one count. I mean that's a whole story in itself.

And I think there were people and I think Mandelson was one, who believed Epstein when he sort of said, Oh, I don't know I that w it was just a little you know, it was just a little slip, it wasn't a big thing, it wasn't it wasn't real, it wasn't bad, it was it was just prostitution, it was kind of like Th there's this weird phrase that come out, it was like it was like stealing a bagel.

grooming children, even if it's one child, then all your antennae should be right. And I guess the interesting thing today is that Mandelson has this week been telling friends that in that vetting procedure he was never asked about Epstein. I put this to somebody who's right at the centre of the vetting system and I said, Is it possible that he was never asked about Epstein. And this person just said, not possible.

Even if he wasn't asked explicitly, he will have been asked if there's anything the appointments process should be aware of. To fail to reply honestly and openly is itself a disqualification. So

I just went on and said, Well, is it possible then they they didn't say Epstein by name? Could they have just not used the name in that vetting procedure? And this person said, Yes, but given what was publicly and readily available about his past friendship, I would have been astounded if he wasn't explicitly asked that. And I say this as somebody who has been through deep vetting.

In other words, I mean maybe it's not a big surprise that Mandelson is telling something that turns out not to be entirely truthful, but he is now trying to say, They never asked me about Epstein. They asked me about my mum. They asked me about my family. They asked me about my past. They didn't mention Epstein.

And from this person it sounds like It was almost impossible that's true, but even still the onus is on the person being vetted to declare anything that could be compromising or embarrassing or prohibiting.

if you're sitting in the chair asking those questions, being asked those questions. There is um there's there's been a question that's been rattling around my own head a lot over the past few days. Not least because in a very small way actually it affects something that I myself sort of did. Uh and I'll get to that in a minute. But like the question is this. If Keir Starmer is guilty of this Terrible Sid.

Is that sin also basically so much of the rest of Westminster and the media and everybody else guilty of the same thing in in politics, i.e. overlooking that two thousand eight conviction of Epstein? And I say that for a very simple reason. Mm. Look, if Starmer has misled anyone and misled Parliament about the contents of that vetting and the questions he was asking, and about the communications that existed at that time, clearly he will have to resign. Because

He has misled everybody about what he said he did as part of the Mandelson process. So that's a separate question. But if these documents do show, beyond a kind of reasonable doubt, that Manelson did mislead him. Then what we're basically saying is, is that Keir Starmer overlooked that 2008 conviction and that that is wrong. But the truth is we all knew that twelve months ago. So why is it that

Such a problem today, like a potential resignation problem today, if it wasn't a problem or it wasn't considered a resignation problem twelve months ago. Now one obvious answer is obviously we're seeing just how lurid and how deep And how profound that connection was between Mandelson and Epstein. But again you can say that could Starmer reasonably have known that? Well, certainly he wouldn't have seen the contents of the emails, presumably. And what I mean by this slightly more widely is this.

I was just looking back at some of the coverage of the Mandelson appointment at the time from across the media. And it's very, very striking. There is almost no mention of the Epstein Connection at all. I should say from the beginning, this would exempt the Financial Times who have been doggedly pursuing this for a long time. But looking across the media

The Guardian, Mandelson's China stance make him bad choice for US ambassador, say critics. The Times Lord Mandelson to be confirmed as US Ambassador despite China claims. The Telegraph, Mandelson rose back on China praise in attempts to woo Trump. GB News, Farage snubbed, as if that's the big story. Farage snubbed. It always is. As Starmer announces new UK ambassador to the US. And then in terms of some individual comment pieces as well, we see a piece

From Michael Gove, why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump. We see another piece in the mail, ruthless, cynical, and cunning. Why Mandy is the perfect choice to be US ambassador. So there's two kind of corollaries to that. One is, twelve months ago, Apart from the Financial Times and a few other people, MPs in particular, generally speaking, the received Westminster consensus was that Mandelson was a good pick.

And insofar as he was a bad pick, the problem wasn't about Epstein. The problem was about his China and EU relations. Indeed, I would say, I would say that what is particularly grim about this is I think we all know why Starmer appointed Mandel. And it's the thing he can't say, which is he didn't pick Mandelson in spite, in a sense, of his Epstein connections and of being a dark character. He picked him because of it.

Because he was the perfect fit, it seems. For Trump. For the Trump era, for the Trump court. Would and the perfect way of testing that is would Starmer have picked Mandelson if Kamala Harris had become president. No way. Absolutely not. No way. For loads of reasons, including the Epstein Convention.

But the truth is is that the received wisdom and you can see why Starmer did it, is because the sort of man that Mandelson everyone sort of thought he was, this sort of dark arts character, someone who could thrive in the court of Trump, he was picked because he was the sort of person

Who had those Epstein connections. I think that's so interesting reality. Yeah. I think that's absolut I think that's so interesting. And the thing I'd add into that is if you cast your mind back, at the time, Mandelson was going for two extraordinary jobs. One was UK ambassador to Washington and the other was Chancellor of Oxford. And he was up against William Hagen. Obviously

There was no moment where Oxford as a university said, We can't have this. They put him on the short list, he was one of five You know, we went to talk to him specifically about the I was gonna I was gonna mention that and that is the thing that's been rolling around my head because full disclosure, I mean I interviewed Mandelson in November twenty twenty four and I did I was aware of the FT reporting at the time. And I thought long and hard about whether to ask.

about the Epstein stuff. And now I regret not doing so'cause clearly it was the right question to ask and it was a kind of journalistic oversight on my part. And I thought long and hard about why, particularly in the kind of like the light of all of this, that I didn't and the truth is, is that having reflected long and hard about it, there were two main reasons.

One was that as I say the overall kind of like feeling at the time was is that the main encumbrance to him becoming ambassador was about China and the EU, which is what I asked about. And secondly was because I knew from the FTs asking him about it that Mandelson did not engage which told me to a fuck off that would have been a great clip.

But that potentially as well he would be then litigious and then sort of say this would d so the sort of net cost of it for what was to be gained wasn't worth it. Now In the end that was clearly a mistake and I regret it. But I think what it does reveal is the general tenor of the moment of the time. And I think what it does is I you know, c I can't sit here without a sense of hypocrisy and go, Well Starmer was just completely outrageous in appointing him.

Given that he knew what he knew at the time. Because at the time the whole or much of the media and political class and it doesn't show the political media class in a good light whatsoever, by the way, but it is true to say that that was not the emphasis and focus at the time and it speaks to something about just complete honestly speaking. It speaks to something about the psychology of news and the pack and the herd, which we all must try and work better against, but it is nonetheless.

The truth of the situation. A hundred percent. And actually to exactly that point, when we had him on the news agent in the first couple of months, I mean this was like going back four years ago. I remember asking him about his relationship with Oleg Derapasca. He'd been on the yacht. Again, it was his relationship to f powerful men with lots of money offering him freebies.

such a silly girl for asking those silly questions. I mean it's exactly what as a female journalist you you think you're getting, but it's never explicitly sort of spelled out like that and that was him sort of trying to shut it down and make you feel small. Like make he would have made you feel small for asking about that and and slightly threatened. He made me feel small because I raised Der Pasco, I raised the question of like bad Russian money because it was it was at the beginning of the

the Ukraine war. And I think it does speak to something really important, which is to constantly swim against the tide. Absolutely. You will quite if you get the wrong moment, you will be made to feel A wrong, B sort of apologetic, C like you've misunderstood the sort of the tenor of the interview that you should have been doing. But I also think just to go back.

To whether Starmer appointed him because he was Trump adjacent, I think there's still another question which is We all know that Starmer is a delegator really, and I can't help wondering, and this is not to sort of exculpate or excuse, but there will be other people that were close to Mandelson. and close to Starmer who probably said that's the one you want. I can imagine a world in which Starmer, quite frankly, left Karen Pierce as an excellent

Ambassador, exactly in her role because why would he need to rethink it? And I could sort of I could understand a world in which there was pressure put upon him. Should there have been pressure put upon a Prime Minister? Of course not. But I sort of think we we know the the sort of personality at the centre and I and I can imagine a world in which

That pressure basically became something that he said, Oh fine, get on with it Yeah and and if you sh if you think so, fine. And look it doesn't stop there being a question and an entirely legitimate question about Starmer's judgment which is that a different prime minister and a different leader, despite the fact that they might have seen the kind of logic of Someone like Mandelson how efficacious he might be in the court of Trump. Just go.

You know what? It's just too much of a risk. I don't like the guy. I think he's too much of a risk for too little gain and also, yeah, there's the Epstein, so I'm just not touching it. And so that is clearly it's completely legitimate, these questions, and I think Starmer's authority is clearly damaged by it. He has unwittingly

brought the Epstein files, Geoffrey Epstein, to the heart of Downing Street. And obviously that is not by design, but it is the net cost. But I say as I say, I think it is worth sort of thinking about some of the hypocrisy that we're seeing. And just on Trump. Again This is Trump. Who makes a fool of us all in so many ways? Because in exactly the same way that people say, well, we looked at Mandelson, but we kind of all knew what he was really. We all know what Trump is, really.

We all know what kind of man Trump is really, but we spend day after day and week after week these same people who are now lecturing Starmer lecture everybody else about

you know, what hidden depths there are to the guy and you know, actually what an extraordinary deal maker he is and how he's reshaping global politics. But we all know really the sort of guy that he is. And actually I do think there is something that we should be kind of proud of as A country which is it is much nicer to have a Prime Minister standing up there taking really hard hitting questions from the press which are about his leadership.

about his judgment, about his position, quite frankly, and he takes all of them and he doesn't turn round as Trump does and say, Why aren't you smiling more, Miss Piggy? Right? I mean, you know, we are doing pretty well as a country in terms of from the Epstein Files, in terms of holding those in power to account. And I think that is not a bad place to be actually. Well and and just very briefly, the other irony of of course of all of this is potentially that.

You know, Keir Starmer. I have no doubt actually, in fairness to him, I think Keir Starmer we can see this from his record as DPP as well. He does have a proper record in terms of policy on violence against women and girls. I've interviewed Jess Philips, you've interviewed Jess Philips. I I've you know, she's a a straight shooter. She says it privately as well as publicly when she talks about how passionate Starmer is and how much license he gives to her.

to pursue that agenda. Also, they've literally put it, no government's ever done that before, as one of the you know, put it up in lights as one of the five missions. I have no doubt that Starmer genuinely cares about this stuff. It is of course an irony that we're discussing potentially the downfall

Of a Prime Minister who, yes, he's made a huge mistake, huge miscalculation. Maybe worse. Well let's see what's in these documents. Maybe worse, but assuming there's not But clearly has actual no personal connection to the Epstein files or anything like that. And there are so many men personally right at the centre of this who won't be touched.

Well we've been talking about Starmer's position within the PLP. I've been talking to Brian Leishman, who is a critic of Starmer, I think it's fair to say, but nonetheless someone who has got real concerns about how Starmer has handled this affair. That's coming up. Prime Minister. Conservative Party Kevin Beetner back to the studio. app or the LBC app. Leading Britain's conversation. The news agents.

Well obviously one of the imponderables right now and one of the crucial things right now is what the Parliamentary Labour Party thinks and what the Parliamentary Labour Party is going to do. One of the four hundred or so members of the P L P in the Commons with us now, Brian Leishman, who's the MP for Aloha and Grangemath. Brian, thanks so much for coming in. Back back on the news agents. Thanks for having me. Does the Prime Minister survive?

Uh it's a long way back for'em, I would say. I think though it goes deeper than the Prime Minister. I think we've got to have a proper analysis. objective analysis and diagnosis of the people that surround the Prime Minister. And we've got to then really look at his chief of staff.

You think Morgan McSweeney has to go? I think Morgan McSweeney has got an incredible amount of influence within the Labour Party, his direction, how he shaped it in his own image, and I think he's got uh questions to answer. But do you think he should go? Yes.

And do you think that the Prime Minister were you satisfied? I mean the Prime Minister's been making a speech this morning, he kind of reiterated what he said in the commons yesterday, that Mandelson lied to him, lied to the Cabinet Office, lied to the Foreign Office and everyone who asked him about the extent of his connections with Epstein. Does that reassure you? Not overly, because Peter Mandelson has been living in plain sight. Everyone knows what Peter Mandelson is.

Who he is as a character. He has been sacked repeatedly from cabinet positions in the past. The toxic culture that is at the heart of uh the Labour Party at the moment is largely down to people like Peter Mandelson. Everyone knows who he is. What do you mean by that? Because some people listening to this, particularly our, you know, younger listeners of whom there are a lot and viewers, actually don't know who he is. So what do you mean by that?

The the intense and bitter factionalism that's at the heart of the Labour Party, uh we've seen that in with internal candidate positions, uh stitch ups for want of a better better phrase. the the lack of internal democracy at the party, the stifling of internal debate. And internal debate, Lewis, at let's be honest, if we had robust internal debate on policy then a lot of the misjudgments and the missteps of our first year and a half or so in government would have been avoided.

if listening to backbench Labour MPs. So that culture has been created by people like Peter Mandelson. But is it not the case? Let's just imagine we can't know what's in those documents yet. But let's just imagine that those documents are published and w there is a sufficient kind of range of documents, it's clear that they've not been kind of uh hidden away from us.

And let's imagine that they show what the Prime Minister says, which is that in terms of the vetting that was done, Mandelson misled them, lied about the nature of his relationship. And that therefore you could say that the Prime Minister made a misjudgment. But that it wasn't anything graver than that. I mean isn't that fair enough?

Well it best case scenario, we're looking at it being a misjudgment, a complete misjudgment and a real error on the Prime Minister's point. But isn't it true, Brian? Just to push back on it, it is true to say I mean I don't know what you were saying about it at the time, I suspect you were very critical of it. But it is true to say that

If you look back to the commentary and a lot of the political reaction to this from the time, both from within some parts of the Labour Party but also across the political spectrum, generally speaking A The bulk of the commentary was saying this was a sort of clever move, because Mandelson would be exactly the sort of person who would thrive in Trump's Washington, which is presumably what Starman was thinking.

And that B, insofar as there was a problem, again most of the commentary at the time was saying that the problem is that he's too close to Europe and too close to China. So in a way, we're all just waking up to the fact What was staring us in the face, but we're all as guilty as that, or many of us are as guilty of that as Keir Starmer was. Well I think that you've you've touched on something that is at the heart of this matter, Lewis, and that is the fact that Peter Mandelson has been embedded

in the elite or the inverted commas the political establishment of this country for decades. He has been at the heart of the Labour Party and policy making in this country. Peter Mandelson has repeatedly Shown what side he is on. That of the elites, the super wealthy, anti-trade unionism, anti-working class.

That is the real issue that we've got to the bottom here. So the the wider political commentariat or the wider political establishment were probably quite comfortable and quite happy because they recognised who Peter Mandelson was and what Peter Mandelson stood for.

And a lot of the p the politicians in this country would have been entirely comfortable with that. Do you think that Beater Mandelson should go to prison? I'm not a judge, but I think he's got questions to answer. I think there's a a serious case for him to answer and

put it forward to to relevant authorities. When I was looking through some of the and and and in fairness, the Prime Minister can't have known this bit, and I think we can all probably agree with that. I was looking through in slightly more detail.

the exchanges of messages, which were pretty constant, like a stream of consciousness really, between Mandelson and Epstein, particularly in the last days or the last months of the Brown government. And he was talking about day by day, kind of almost psychological reports about Brown, talking about how he needed to go, how he was persuading to get rid of him, as well as all of the sort of secrets that we now know he divulged to Epstein.

I can't think of anything quite like it. This is a man who, as you say, not to your liking, but helped build the modern Labour Party. Might he now destroy the modern labour? Well the destruction of the party. The party is not and I've always rejected when the Prime Minister, for example, describes it as my Labour Party. It's not Keir Starmer's Labour Party. It's not Peter Mandelson's Labour Party. It's the Labour Members Party.

It is a phenomenal movement. The wider Labour movement have championed so many causes and campaigns in this country's history. The Labour Party will not die. But it really needs to rid itself of the toxic and cancerous culture that people like Peter Mandelson have foisted upon it. Do you think that Keir Starmer is now a credible figure with the public?

I think the approval ratings speak for themselves in that one. Nothing you're saying about what you're saying, Brian, indicates to me that you think that the Labour Party isn't in any way better off with Keir Starmer leading it. Let me just see then.

I want Keir Starmer to be a success. I want Keirstamer to improve. But do you think he can be a success? I think that if he is incapable of changing and incapable of being the Prime Minister that the party and more importantly the country needs. Then we've got to get the right person in position and it might not be Keir Starmer. Does he have the confidence right now of the Parliamentary Labour Party?

You know, four hundred odds uh Labour Party uh members within Parliament. I'm only going to speak for myself and I've got serious reservations. I mean you were you at Prime Minister's questions yesterday? I was not. It seems undeniable.

That that blackened the mood of Labour MPs. Is that fair to say? Absolutely fair to say. Of course it does. We saw the performance yesterday in PMQs. We then saw the drama unfold on a almost minute by minute, hour by hour basis in in the Peter Mandelson statement. Wasn't cov covering ourselves in glory. And it was clear as well, in a way yesterday. You just mentioned the kind of what happened afterwards in terms of um what happened with the the humble address. It was clear, wasn't it, then?

That on a very basic level, you talk about kind of or me asking you about the mood of the PLP. Th the mood of the PLP was clear because the government tried to get its way on multiple occasions.

and back down because it knew that it couldn't, because it knew that it would probably lose. And doesn't that show that the PLP has already spoken, that in a sense they don't have confidence in the Prime Minister or at least his authority on this matter? Well what I would say I think the PLP really showed itself up. Yesterday for being the force for good that it is. We've seen that on other occasions. For example, on the welfare debacle from last year as well.

It was backbench Labour MPs that stood up for real Labour Party values, the principles that we were founded on that got the government Away from that horrendous position of cutting seven billion pounds without a welfare. Is the Prime Minister still in control? Well I think yesterday showed that he wanted

A specific uh what was said in the amendment and it didn't happen. The backbench of the Labour Party saved the day yesterday. Of that there is no doubt in my mind. So the PLP's in control? I would say the democracy showed itself in its best form yesterday and showed that the backbench Labour MPs do hold power. It was Angela Rayner of course who made perhaps the pivotal intervention yesterday with regards to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Do you think she'd be a better Prime Minister?

I'm not gonna surv I'm not gonna make predictions on who's gonna be the next Prime Minister or who's gonna even run for it. We'll see what happens in time for that. Do you think that anybody who has had close relationships with Peter Mandelson who might fancy themselves as a future leader? Do you think that that would disqualify them? I would say so, yes, because uh uh you look at Peter Mandelson typifies

the problems that we've got as a political class in this country. So that would include for example West Streeting. I would say any allies of Peter Mandelson to be honest need to have a look at themselves in the mirror and ask their own ask questions of themselves. look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves what? Well the association with such a man, a despicable individual who has, as I say,

Committed umpteen misdemeanours throughout his political life and shown exactly who he works for and in whose interests. Are you confident in the ISC process? Yes, I think so. I think we've got to be the uh it's got parliamentarians on it that that want the very best for the country and I think if if we don't have faith in that then where do we then realistically go as a country after that? I want to see full transparency

Full openness and full democracy. Just finally, Brian, people um who've heard you on this show before and elsewhere will know and can tell even from this exchange you're a straight talker. I get the sense that deep down you think that the Prime Minister's done. Just say it. It's gonna go way beyond my pay grade to say that I have to say, but I've got serious doubts about'em, like I said ri during this interview, Liz.

I want Keir Starmer to be a success. I'm a Labour Party member, I'm a Labour MP. I want our leadership to be the very best that they can be. But if they're not good enough and they're not up to the job, they need to step aside and let someone in power Do you think that he is capable of doing what you're saying? Turning this around. I hope he has, of course you hope, but you think he is. It would be a monumental comeback.

Right, when we come back, I'll be talking with Emily about the royal side of this story and of course that famous, infamous photograph. Of Andrew and Virginia Gefray and an email which has come out of the files which seems to show that what Andrew told Emily was not true. The news agents. I I have simply no recollection of a photograph ever being taken. The world has now seen the photo that Virginia Roberts provided.

Taken by Epstein, we understand, in Girlaine Maxwell's house. Well, here's the problem. I've never seen Epstein with a camera in my life. I think it was Virginia Roberts' camera. She said a little Kodak one that She lent to Epstein, he took a photo and your arm is round her waist. I don't remember I don't remember. that photograph ever being taken I don't remember going upstairs in the house because that photograph is taken upstairs

I am not entirely convinced. I mean, that is what I would describe as me in that picture, but we can't be certain. as to whether or not that's my hand on on on her uh whatever it is, left left side. So that is of course Andrew, then Prince Andrew, in the famous Newsnight interview talking about the infamous photograph.

Of him, apparently with Virginia Geffray, with his hand around her waist. Of course, as he was doing there, he has always denied that it was him, or at least said that it couldn't possibly be him. We have now seen an email as part of the latest cache of the Epstein Files, where Ghilem Maxwell, who of course is also in the photograph, the disgraced socialite now in prison, appears to acknowledge

that that photograph of Andrew is genuine. The email dated january twenty fifteen, a draft statement intended to rebut press reporting over allegations made By Guffrey, Maxwell wrote In two thousand one, I was in London when Guffrey met a number of friends of mine, including Prince Andrew. A photograph was taken, as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends and family. It is the first time

that Maxwell has admitted introducing Andrew to Guffrey, having previously described her claims as absolute rubbish. Look I think most people had already decided that they did believe what they were seeing in that photograph. But curiously, I was thinking back to the interview in twenty nineteen and I actually took a A photocopy of the photograph with me. In case

He said, I don't know what you're talking about, I've never seen the photo. Um what are you alluding to? And so when I raised the question of the photograph As you heard, his response was so convoluted. First he said he didn't recall it, and then he said, It's clearly me but it's not my hand and then he said he'd never been upstairs in the house and

kind of the golden rule of excuses is make one and leave it at that. And so the more convoluted his explanation was, the less credible I think it began to sound. But what was weird, Lewis, was that I kind of knew this this whole photograph was gonna be a sticking point because we'd done this pre-interview, we'd gone to the palace, we'd met with Prince Andrew and his assistant, Amanda Thirsk, and they both said

This photograph is fake. Go out and prove it's a fake. We think it's a fake that's been put out to smear him. They both said that to me. And they essentially challenged us to prove it was a fake. Now, we were still waiting to hear if we'd got the interview and so we said, Well we're clearly not gonna

prove it's a fake, but we can certainly investigate. We will go and put our best minds on it. And Jake Morris, who was the key producer at the time, said, Yep, I'm gonna take the photograph, I'm gonna speak to, you know, people who know more about photography than we do, quite frankly. You know, can you spot a fake? Is there anything that's ringing alarm bells? And so he asked around and Frankly, no one came back saying it had the appearance of a fake.

No one said it was ringing alarm bells. Now we don't know we didn't know at the time conclusively whether it was fake or real, but it was curious that when we were talking to professionals, no one thought it was a fake.

As you heard me ask, Virginia Dufre, we knew, she took around one of these do you remember those tiny disposables? Yeah. They were sort of like these little codac people used to have them at sort of weddings and parties. You go on holiday and it was just sort of like twenty four snaps and she took one because she wanted to send back a picture of herself with Andrew to her mum. She'd just met a prince. You know, she's a seventeen year old girl who thinks this prince might change her life and

As we now know, it did change her life, but not in the way that she'd ever believed. And I think what's important about this is that it wasn't just the denial of the photograph, but in denying that the photograph was real. They were rubbishing her. They were rubbishing the victim at the center. They were basically making it sound like It was a fake, she was a fake, she'd made it all up, it was a smear on a royal prince. And the fact that Gile Maxwell

knew and she knew long ago. I mean, obviously she knew. She was in the room. She's in the background of the photo. She knew that Geoffrey Epstein had taken the photo on Virginia's camera. And yet she shut down all the questions about whether or not it was fake. I think just again goes to the heart of this. It's the powerful trying to rubbish the victims.

because if you make people think that they've invented one thing, they don't believe any of it. I was thinking about this um the other day. I mean this is obviously in a way the latest bit of evidence we've got from these files. which show, or almost certainly show, that quite a bit of what Andrew said to you in that interview was not true.

And I know'cause when we talked about this before when your drama came out, your Amazon drama, I mean I know it even then, which was not so long ago, you've always been very at pains to say, look, it's not for me to say whether he's lying, you know, I asked the questions, he gave the answers, it's up to others to judge. But it must sort of change your the complexion in your own head.

Of that day which is obviously so storied and is so important. It is funny that we have to keep saying, you know, we've got this this our own sort of Catechism now, isn't it, which is denies all wrongdoing. Yeah. But for example, he told you that like the relationship ended, right? And we now know is not true. I I heard from an MP today, funnily enough, who said their own daughter

had walked in at the time of the interview and just said, Mummy, why is that man lying? Why is that man on the screen lying? And the MP had said, Oh, isn't it funny that a a fourteen year old you know, a girl of who was fourteen could see that there was a pack of lies who came to it without anything else. She didn't come to it with baggage or knowledge or history of the story. She just looked up and she was like, Why is that blate lying?

And yet it was really important to the whole news night team actually to maintain Something that was not judgmental. We went in to just ask the questions and hear the answers, and that's all the interview has ever been. But it is harder, of course it's harder for me to maintain a a sense of believability, seeing so much of it just crumble now. I mean that

dare I say, is the point of the Epstein Files. You know, if you want to know what the whole point is, of seeing the documents first hand of being able to read this stuff, it's because we can put them side by side, things we were told, things we were led to believe, and go

Well that clearly doesn't stack up. Well I sp I think I think that's so right. I I think the the thing that's whether it's Andrew or Mandelson or or about so much of this stuff, I think what the Epstein files do is they um they expose so much artifice, right, i in almost every way. They are they're revelatory in the litr in the literal sense, which is that they confirm and reveal what we might always have suspected and sort of

Day to day kind of believed to be true, but which then it becomes impossible to ignore. It is time stamped, it is date stamped, and it has those addresses on. You know, uh it it is it is in a way making it much more easy for us to just draw up these chronological timelines of who said what to who when. And I I think you've just I mean

I hadn't even really thought about it, but it's so obvious. Like it is so grim exactly what you just said, which is that I you know, what was clearly engaged upon was a sort of conscious effort To discredit a young girl who had been subject to the most appalling sexual abuse. It's all about discrediting. And and to discredit her and her reputation. And when you consider the kind of asymmetry of power that was obviously there during the sexual abuse that that she endured.

But that abuse sort of basically continued in the years after. It wasn't enough that she was just sexually abused. Her entire reputation had to be destroyed day after day and year after year after that for the sake of power, and that is really grim. We'll be back tomorrow. We'll see you then. Bye bye. This has been a Global Player original production.