Their confidence is low. The harassment has dissuaded them.
In the long aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, the women who survived him are being asked once more to trust institutions that once turned them away. American lawyers representing multiple survivors say their clients hold information relevant to British investigations into Prince Andrew, but will not come forward — not because justice is unimportant to them, but because they have already learned what happens when they seek it. The failure is not new; it is accumulated, layered across years of police inaction and press intrusion, and it now stands between investigators and the truth they say they want.
- Survivors with direct knowledge of Prince Andrew's alleged conduct are refusing to speak with UK police, leaving a significant investigation without its most critical witnesses.
- When one woman briefly agreed to cooperate with Thames Valley Police, British journalists began investigating her and her family — and her cooperation ended immediately, warning others away.
- Virginia Giuffre's story haunts the process: she filed a complaint with the Metropolitan Police in 2015, was interviewed multiple times, and was then told there would be no investigation — a wound that has never healed for the survivor community.
- UK police have pledged confidential, compassionate treatment and say the door remains open, but lawyers representing survivors describe an institution that must earn back trust it forfeited long ago.
- The investigation moves forward without the voices that could define it, caught between institutional promises and the lived memory of women who have already paid the price for coming forward.
Brad Edwards, an American lawyer representing hundreds of Epstein victims, has told the BBC that women with direct knowledge of Prince Andrew's conduct will not speak to British police. Their reasons are rooted in experience: authorities showed little interest when Epstein was alive, and British journalists have made clear that coming forward invites exposure that can devastate what remains of a survivor's private life.
One of Edwards' clients alleges she was brought to the UK for a sexual encounter with the former prince at Royal Lodge in 2010, and was later invited to Buckingham Palace for tea — making her the second woman to make such an allegation in Britain. She initially agreed to cooperate with Thames Valley Police, but when journalists began investigating her and her family, she withdrew. Others watched and drew their own conclusions.
The skepticism runs deeper still. Sigrid McCawley, another American lawyer representing survivors potentially trafficked to the UK, said she has received no contact from the Metropolitan Police since the US Department of Justice released the Epstein files in January. Her most prominent client, Virginia Giuffre — who alleged she was brought to the UK in 2001 to have sex with Mountbatten-Windsor — filed a complaint with London police in 2015, was interviewed repeatedly, and was ultimately told there would be no investigation. She settled a civil case against Mountbatten-Windsor for an estimated £12 million in 2022, and took her own life last year.
Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently denied wrongdoing. He was arrested in February and released under investigation on suspicion of misconduct in public office, related to allegations he passed sensitive information to Epstein during his time as a UK trade envoy. Police have not named him publicly.
The National Police Chiefs' Council has pledged that survivors will be treated with care and respect, and that outreach efforts are ongoing. But the lawyers' message is unambiguous: the door may be open, yet no one is walking through it. Trust was broken years ago by inaction, and is being broken again now by press intrusion. Until survivors believe they will be protected rather than exposed, the investigation will continue without the testimony that could give it meaning.
Brad Edwards, an American lawyer representing hundreds of Jeffrey Epstein victims, has told the BBC that women with direct knowledge of Prince Andrew's conduct will not speak to British police. The reason is straightforward: they do not trust the system that failed them before, and they fear the British press will destroy their privacy if they come forward.
Edwards represents multiple clients who could provide information about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. One of them alleges she was sent to the UK for a sexual encounter with the former prince at his home, Royal Lodge, in 2010—before he invited her to Buckingham Palace for tea. She is the second woman to make such an allegation in the UK, following Virginia Giuffre, whose case became public years ago. But these women are staying silent, and Edwards explained why in an interview with BBC News: British authorities showed no interest when Epstein was alive, so confidence in them is low. More damaging still, harassment by British journalists has convinced survivors that speaking out will invite media intrusion that will shred what remains of their privacy.
The pattern is already visible. Edwards said that more than one of his clients initially agreed to cooperate with Thames Valley Police regarding the 2010 allegation. But when UK-based journalists began investigating the woman and her family, the cooperation stopped. Other victims took notice. They saw what happened to her—the exposure, the scrutiny—and decided the cost was too high. Thames Valley Police confirmed they had engaged with the woman's legal team, but her lawyer made clear she would not communicate with police because of privacy concerns.
The skepticism runs deeper than recent media coverage. Sigrid McCawley, another American lawyer representing Epstein survivors who may have been trafficked to the UK, told the BBC she has received no communication from the Metropolitan Police since the US Department of Justice released the Epstein files in January. McCawley represented Virginia Giuffre, the most prominent accuser, who alleged she was brought to the UK in 2001 by Epstein to have sex with Mountbatten-Windsor. Giuffre filed a complaint with London's Metropolitan Police in 2015. Officers interviewed her multiple times. Then they told her there would be no investigation. She later settled a civil case against Mountbatten-Windsor for an estimated £12 million in 2022. She took her own life last year.
Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently denied any wrongdoing. He was arrested on February 19 and released under investigation on suspicion of misconduct in public office—a charge related to allegations that he passed sensitive information to Epstein while serving as a UK trade envoy between 2001 and 2011. He has denied any personal gain from that role. Police have not named him publicly, referring only to "a man in his 60s from Norfolk," as is standard practice before charges are filed.
The National Police Chiefs' Council responded to the BBC by saying that victim-survivors who come forward will be "treated with care, compassion and respect," and that efforts have been made to contact those who have already spoken publicly. The council acknowledged that not everyone has been reached and said the door remains open. But the message from Edwards and McCawley is clear: the door may be open, but survivors are not walking through it. The damage to trust happened years ago, when police declined to investigate. The damage is being reinforced now, as journalists pursue the women who might testify. Until that calculus changes—until survivors believe they will be protected rather than exposed—the investigation will proceed without their voices.
Notable Quotes
Our multiple clients with information about Prince Andrew will not speak with authorities in the UK for two reasons. First, the authorities did not care to do anything when Epstein was alive. Second, the harassment by the British press has dissuaded them from cooperating.— Brad Edwards, lawyer representing Epstein survivors
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would survivors refuse to cooperate with an active police investigation? Isn't that where justice happens?
Because they've already learned that British institutions don't protect them. Giuffre complained in 2015 and was told nothing would happen. That's a decade of watching the system fail.
But this is a new investigation. Surely the police have learned something since then?
The survivors don't believe that. And they have another problem now—the British press. When one woman started cooperating, journalists dug into her life and her family's life. Other victims saw that and thought: I'm not doing that.
So it's not just about the police. It's about the media.
It's both. The police failed them historically. The media is failing them now. Together, they've created an environment where speaking out feels more dangerous than staying silent.
What would it take to change that?
The police would have to prove they're serious—not just say they'll be respectful, but actually shield these women from press intrusion. And the press would have to understand that investigating the accusers, rather than the accused, is its own form of harm.