The Epstein Myth Unravels: Why Capitulating to Hysteria Only Fueled Prince Andrew's Downfall

NOTE FROM MT: The following article was originally solicited by and written for Unherd, the British media outlet to which I occasionally contribute, late last week. I was asked to produce the article urgently and swiftly, given the breaking news of Andrew’s arrest, and did so, working through the night Thursday into Friday. The prose therefore contains some stylistic elements tailored to Unherd. I was even summoned to appear on an emergency Unherd podcast Friday morning, in which I discussed many of the same points I’d explain in greater detail in the article. The article was delayed, however, and went through several laborious edits — all factual queries were fully addressed by me, and I added some substantive/thematic modifications where reasonable, based on editorial input. However, I was just told this morning that the article is “not going to work,” for reasons that were not specified. The whole reason I agreed to do this for Unherd was that I thought it would be useful to get some sort of corrective in a British media outlet. But apparently that was not to be. Alas.

---

The folly of ever conceding to the premises of a rapidly-ballooning mass hysteria, in hopes of somehow curtailing it, or making it go away, was illustrated in world-historic detail last week with the arrest of the former Prince Andrew. Though nominally apprehended on hazy suspicions of “misconduct in public office,” Andrew’s perceived offense cannot be separated from the wild and fantastical “paedophilia” crisis that has been declared to suddenly exist across Britain, the United States, and indeed much of the world. All right-minded citizens are now expected to nod in sober agreement about the pervasiveness of clandestine “child-sex trafficking” networks, and the decisive role these networks purportedly play in dictating earthly affairs. Such notions would have once been confined to the most harebrained corners of the internet, but today have been embraced as a thoroughly mainstream sensibility, following the latest release of “Epstein Files.”

Cries of “vindication” have rung out from Epstein “survivors” who hailed the news of Andrew’s arrest as precisely the kind of “accountability” they have so often vaguely demanded. And what makes the development all the more empowering, we are told, is that this long-sought “accountability” was delivered on behalf of the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre — the most visible of all the Epstein “survivors,” who first made allegations of heinous child sex crimes against Andrew. While grand narratives of royal pedophilic predation were once the province of paranoid fringes, today they are splashed on every homepage and news broadcast. “We wouldn’t be here without her,” declared Virginia’s brother Sky Roberts on Newsnight last week. On that score, he is undoubtedly correct.

Yet for all the fanfare around the newly disclosed “Epstein Files,” damning revelations from which are said to have instigated this fast-moving royal downfall, a great many other revelations found in those files could easily cast Andrew’s arrest in an entirely different light. Namely: the central claims of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who for years had maintained that she was systematically “lent out” or sex-trafficked to scores of prominent men — Andrew chief among them. Because as it turns out, US government investigators determined her claims to be brazenly un-corroborated. And by extension, the very basis for her scandalizing malignment of Andrew was deemed, effectively, groundless.

In a September 2019 interview conducted by the FBI and DOJ, who at the time were aggressively building a case against Ghislaine Maxwell, and were thus in search of exactly the sort of evidence that Giuffre could have theoretically provided, credible evidence was proven not to be forthcoming. Notably, agents declined to extend the same boundless credulity to Giuffre that journalists near-uniformly had, as exemplified by a slightly better-publicized interview that aired in November 2019: Andrew’s famed colloquy with the BBC’s Emily Maitlis, widely credited at the time not just as a landmark feat of adversarial journalism, but as proof-positive of Andrew’s guilt — mainly by dint of his admittedly odd affectations, and even odder turns of phrase; protestations around his sweating habits and visit to Pizza Express became seared into the popular imagination.

On a more substantive level, though, Andrew always remained steadfast in his denials. Question after question was put to him by Maitlis in a manner functionally identical to a deposition that Giuffre’s own lawyers would have yearned to conduct. “All we did was amplify her words,” Maitlis said last year — a useful distillation of her interviewing philosophy, which at times could convey a surface-level ethic of “holding power to account,” but ultimately amounted to serving as a dutiful PR proxy for the “victims” and their profit-seeking lawyers, all with dollar-signs gleaming in their eyes. Hindsight should now make plain that mere credulous amplification of Giuffre’s words, as well as those of other purported Epstein victims, has not served the public well in this matter.

Because concurrent to the Maitlis interview, as federal prosecutors and FBI agents conducted their own interview with Giuffre, they were compelled to note with evident disquiet that she had strangely failed to maintain a consistent narrative of her own victimization, within just that one single interview. She had also falsified myriad claims, they said, and destroyed key evidence. And in the “continuous stream of public interviews” she was giving around this time, Giuffre had repeatedly “sensationalized” her most lurid “sex trafficking” tales. No specific examples of sensationalized interviews are cited in the internal DOJ memo, but it is dated December 19, 2019 — not long after Giuffre’s debut appearance on BBC Panorama, airdate December 2, 2019. In that well-publicized programme, Giuffre emotionally describes the infamous alleged incident in which Epstein and Maxwell first forced her to submit to Andrew’s predatory lust. “I had just been abused by a member of a royal family,” she said, weeping.

Another “Epstein survivor” featured on that Panorama programme, ostensibly to corroborate Giuffre’s account, was Sarah Ransome, who had first met Epstein as an adult escort. She once claimed to possess sex tapes of Andrew, as well as Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and Richard Branson — then admitted she made it all up, and there were no such tapes. As time has gone by, Ransome’s behavior has grown increasingly disturbing and erratic; emails from the past several years show her sending off frantic ALL-CAPS manifestos demanding, for instance, the immediate arrest, on child sex-trafficking charges, of Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak, Volodymyr Zelensky, and Emmanuel Macron. Based on evidence available only in the alternate universe she has constructed. Ransome also eventually started denouncing Virginia Roberts Giuffre, declaring “I don’t believe Prince Andrew raped you and never did,” and imploring that Giuffre “return every cent back to the British Monarchy.” Curiously, there appears to have been no Panorama sequel featuring these updates. Ransome’s appearance on the original programme was nonetheless cited by her lawyers David Boies and Sigrid McCawley (who also represented Giuffre) as an example of how she had “bravely shared her story with the media,” and was therefore owed the maximum possible settlement payout from Epstein’s well-endowed estate.

On top of finding no corroboration for Giuffre’s foundational claim of having been sexually “lent out” to Andrew and others, US government investigators found not a single other purported victim of Epstein who ever claimed they were “directed by either Epstein or Maxwell to engage in sexual activity with any other men.” This was the sole invention of Giuffre — yet it forms the entire crux of the common Epstein mythology: that is, a massive child-sex trafficking and blackmail operation, in which scores of high-profile men were ensnared, and secretly filmed in compromising sexual encounters. But contrary to Giuffre’s longtime assertions to this effect, the FBI found no evidence of hidden cameras in any bedrooms or bathrooms at any of Epstein’s properties. Indeed, they found no images or videos of any sexual abuse at all. It was just one big confabulation — the origins of which can be traced back ineluctably to Giuffre, who first introduced the concept of a sinister trafficking/blackmail scheme in a fateful December 2014 court motion.

Regrettably, her confabulations were progressively legitimized over the years by a cohort of unscrupulous lawyers, and then amplified uncritically by journalists. The newest “Epstein Files” not only fail to surface any evidence for these enduring myths, they have in fact yielded a wealth of flatly countervailing evidence. One would think as the main Epstein mythos unravels, so too should the presumed veracity of any sex-crime accusations against Andrew — hinging as they always did on the personal say-so of this one individual, Virginia Roberts Giuffre. While the average casual news consumer could still point to that notorious photograph of Andrew gripping a teenaged Giuffre’s waist, the photograph unto itself has of course never constituted evidence of any sex crime. (And for what it’s worth, continues to be of disputed authenticity.)

Regardless, given the collapse in his accuser’s credibility, if there is anyone who should be entitled to claim vindication at the moment, it’s Andrew. And if there is any investigation of “misconduct” that might be launched as a result, ample grounds already exist for suspicions of fraud — namely to do with the destination of the approximately $15 million Andrew and his mother foolishly handed over in their 2022 settlement with Giuffre, which they appear to have even more foolishly thought would actually settle the matter. Because by conceding to the premise of a confabulated hysteria, the Royals only poured fuel to the fire of a growing inferno that was soon to fully engulf them.

In a statement accompanying the settlement, Andrew was quoted as saying he “commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre,” and moreover that he “pledges to demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein by supporting the fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims.” According to the Times, the late Queen personally deposited $2.7 million into the account of a “trafficking awareness” charity established at Giuffre’s behest. However, this “charity” never discernibly did anything at all — other than to serve as a personal online publicity portal for Giuffre. While the organization was putatively based in Australia, her place of residence, and operated under the name “Speak Out, Act, Reclaim (SOAR),” a representative for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission told me last fall that they could find no such organization listed with that name. (Credit to my Australian researcher/colleague Will Evans). The organization’s only known registration was in Florida, under the precursor title “Victims Refuse Silence,” and its tax-exempt status was revoked by the IRS on May 15, 2023 — just over a year after the Andrew settlement was finalized, and after proper paperwork had not been filed for the preceding three consecutive years. This was the recipient entity of millions of dollars from Queen Elizabeth, as a gesture of solidarity for benighted “sex trafficking” victims? What happened to the money? Prior allegations by counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell that this outfit was merely a “sham not-for-profit,” created solely as a diversionary litigation tactic, would seem to have gained substantial credence.

The standard cliched analogy goes that just as Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, rather than racketeering or murder, Andrew likewise richly deserved his current criminal comeuppance, even if passing along “sensitive” emails would not seem to be among his most loathsome known offenses. But the analogy breaks down upon barest inspection, as Capone really was the kingpin of an organized crime syndicate, whereas by all available evidence, Andrew was never feasibly shown to have been culpable in any paedophilic sex crimes. Indeed, even if one were to stipulate that Andrew did in fact have sexual contact with Virginia Roberts Giuffre when that contact was alleged to have taken place — Belgravia, London in March 2001 — she would have been above the legal age of consent in England! Making the contact on its face legal, even if one may find it unseemly or inadvisable. But to declare it an unpunished “paedophilia” crime would be extremely strange, unless one were to likewise declare that state-authorized paedophilia has been allowed to run rampant in England, where adult consensual sex contact with persons aged 17 is legal, just as it is in virtually all of Europe, as well as a significant majority of US states. Giuffre would have been around 17-and-a-half.

The counter-argument is that during the time she is said to have encountered Andrew, Giuffre was a “sex slave,” or so she purported — and as such, her “enslavement” made any sexual contact intrinsically non-consensual, even if she was above the legal age of consent in the relevant jurisdiction, and even if the sexual contact was contemporaneously perceived as consensual by both parties. A tenet of modern “trafficking” theory goes that by virtue of being “trafficked” (which in the US, could mean as little as having one’s transportation indirectly facilitated) one is thereby also necessarily “enslaved.” Even if during this period of her purported enslavement, from roughly 2000-2002, Giuffre was employed at various restaurants in the Palm Beach area, as well as a veterinarian’s office. And she had contacted police for assistance on several occasions, not to free her from bondage, but with more pedestrian matters such as moving her belongings out of an ex-boyfriend’s apartment. While her fervid tale of confinement in Epstein’s sex-slave captivity culminates with her “fleeing” the United States to Thailand, and then eventually to Australia, in September 2002, seldom is it told that a local Florida warrant had been issued for Giuffre’s arrest on charges of petit theft, in June 2002 — also coincident with her “enslavement.”

At this point, what grounds are really left to criminalize Andrew for anything? While concern for the actual evidence has been aggressively discarded amidst the fast-moving freight train of moral panic, those who wish to remain tethered to some marginal version of reality might at least find it edifying to learn that no, Jeffrey Epstein was not a “convicted paedophile” — despite the universal ascription to him as such. And moreover, he never exhibited paedophilic attraction to pre-pubescent children, at least according to all available evidence, of which there’s now quite a bit, especially after millions more “Epstein Files” have been indiscriminately mass-released. Yet it’s still taken for granted that Andrew, among countless other reviled Epstein associates, now deserves to be pummeled with the harshest possible censure, because they surely must have known that Epstein was an active danger to children — but Andrew and the rest unforgivably looked the other way. However, this is just another groundless myth. The most Andrew or anyone else could have possibly known, at least based on Epstein’s criminal record post-2008, is that he had been convicted of two prostitution offenses — not “child-sex trafficking” or “paedophilia” — and that the only minor “victim” he was ever adjudicated as “victimizing” was a 17-year-old female who told police she had consensual intercourse with him literally one day before her 18th birthday. She also disclaimed any desire to see Epstein prosecuted.

Further, when Epstein was federally indicted in July 2019, there was not even an allegation that he’d engaged in any wrongful sexual activity with any person under the age of 18 from at least 2005 onward. Which covers exactly the period in which Andrew and others are being denounced for having supposedly failed to save thousands of helpless children from Epstein.

The above facts are true, whether or not anyone finds them upsetting to discover, and even if they contradict popular assumptions about the moral turpitude that Andrew and other Epstein “associates” are believed to be gravely implicated by. It is comical to suggest that some potential “misconduct in public office” involving Andrew’s private email correspondence was the real salient factor motivating last week’s arrest, and not the unbridled fury over what is incessantly proclaimed to have been Andrew’s “association with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.” The essence of the arrest, as the BBC policing commentator put it, was for having allegedly shared “confidential material with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.” Such framing should certainly arouse suspicion that absent the standout “paedophile” component, Andrew’s suspected email improprieties would’ve been unlikely to trigger the first arrest of a Royal Family member since 1649.

“Many of the survivors want him to pay consequences,” inveighed the “victim” lawyer Gloria Allred on Channel 4, even though no “survivor” except the now-discredited Giuffre had ever made such inflammatory allegations of sex crimes against Andrew. (A former adult dating and/or social companion of Andrew’s declared herself a “victim” last year in order to obtain settlement money from the Epstein estate, but alleges no abuse by Andrew himself.)

But as with any other mythos, the Epstein Mythology has come to evolve and expand with the passage of time — such that the “original sin” of Andrew’s purported sex crime can be found factually uncorroborated, and yet belief in some metaphysical need to punish him still emphatically persists. This is in part because Epstein Mythology has grown to such near-infinitely sprawling magnitudes, and generated such voluminous quantities of primary source material, that anyone and everyone can find something in the bottomless archive to claim vindication for almost any pre-existing worldview. Example: those who subscribe to a #MeToo-derived worldview can certainly find profligate fodder on power imbalances between the sexes, and thus an imperative to “believe survivors.” Those who adhere to a worldview defined by monomaniacal antipathy toward Israel can scour through email threads for scattered indicia to construe as Mossad-backed sexual blackmail tactics. Sufficient grounds are even available for those who’d wish to emphasize perceived nefarious links between Epstein and Russia. He did indeed hobnob with an extraordinary cross-section of world leaders, including Mohammad bin Salman and Fidel Castro, to name just a few. So it would be theoretically possible to spin those “connections” as validating some narrative of endemic malfeasance in the Cuban or Saudi states.

Worldview vindication opportunities are also plentiful within any given country’s domestic political context. Foes of the current governments of Norway and Slovakia were presumably pleased when peripheral “ties” were uncovered between Epstein and the Ambassador to Jordan and Iraq (Norway) and the National Security Advisor (Slovakia) — both subsequently were compelled to resign, and the Norwegian diplomat is now under police investigation, along with her husband. In the United States, foes of the Democratic Party have taken every chance to reprimand the likes of Bill Clinton and Reid Hoffman for their dastardly Epstein connections, while antagonists of the Republican Party and MAGA movement can easily howl at Steve Bannon for the intimate friendship bond he and Epstein apparently shared, not to mention Epstein’s prior cavorting with Donald Trump himself.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that, whatever the actual facts, or whatever precise wrongdoing by Andrew was ever alleged, republicans in the British sense should have found their own Epstein angle to claim worldview vindication. “Republic,” a group philosophically dedicated to abolishing the monarchy, took credit for Andrew’s arrest, bragging that it was spurred by their own submitted complaint. “Make no mistake, this is a result of Republic’s action,” declared the CEO. On the surface, the complaint might have alleged something rather banal — on the surface to do with “misconduct in public office” — but whatever the technical details of the offense, and whatever the fate that might ultimately befall Andrew, it will always be 100% indivisible from the mass hysteria outbreak whose linchpin is wild, flamboyant visions of prodigious child-sex trafficking rings. Which only underscores the futility of the Royals ever giving any credence at all to this feverish clamor. Another shot was fired directly into their collective foot last October when the King formally rescinded his brother’s title, as though that was ever going to satiate the paedo-riled mobs. The only real solution, such as there ever was one, would have been to simply invoke the true facts and evidence: there is no grand paedophilia crisis pertaining to Epstein, no monumental epidemic of unpunished child rapes, no mythical “blackmail” and “trafficking” scheme in which Andrew was explosively incriminated. That’s just a bunch of raving mythology, which has spiraled totally out of control, and can only ever be reined in again by returning, somehow, to reason.

If what we are witnessing is the willful self-immolation of the British state, and with it the implosion of the world’s most revered monarchy, future civilizations will look back in bewilderment that such outbursts of freakish mania could have engorged so many institutions, and so many individuals, who would have otherwise appeared to be anchored in at least some semblance of sanity.

---