Epstein survivors back Thames Valley Police investigation into Andrew despite unlawful warrants
A group of Jeffrey Epstein survivors has backed Thames Valley Police’s investigation into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, saying officers must be able to follow evidence without fear or favour. Their statement comes as Andrew challenges whether evidence from searches of two of his properties can be used, after police agreed the warrants authorising the searches were unlawful.
The letter was signed by 14 named women and five others using the name Jane Doe, including members of the Survivor Sisters group that Virginia Giuffre belonged to. Andrew, who was arrested in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office, denies wrongdoing over his links to Epstein. A High Court judge said police are seeking to retain evidence gathered in the searches; a hearing is expected in private in 2027, leaving the question of possible charges unresolved for months.
- Epstein survivors support the police investigation into Andrew.
- Police agreed the property search warrants were unlawful.
- A private High Court hearing is expected in 2027.
New here? Start with this
Jeffrey Epstein was an American financier who faced criminal charges related to the sexual abuse of young women and girls; he died in prison in 2019 before trial. Prince Andrew, a member of the British Royal Family, had a close association with Epstein that became a source of major public controversy after the extent of the financier's crimes emerged.
Thames Valley Police arrested Prince Andrew in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office linked to his relationship with Epstein. Officers searched two of his residences for evidence, but it was later established that the warrants authorising those searches did not meet legal requirements.
The unlawful warrants create an important legal question: whether evidence gathered from those searches can be used in any potential prosecution. The investigation has drawn attention from survivors of Epstein's crimes, who have emphasised the significance of investigating those linked to the financier's activities.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The survivors' backing reflects the gravity of investigating potential misconduct by a prominent figure connected to serious crimes, and they argue that the lawfulness of warrants should not overshadow the substance of what evidence may reveal about Andrew's conduct. Their position emphasises that technical procedural failures by police should not shield individuals from accountability when serious allegations exist and real evidence has been obtained, particularly given the long wait survivors have endured for justice.
The case against
Andrew's legal challenge rests on the fundamental principle that all citizens, regardless of status, deserve protection from unlawful searches by state authorities. The argument holds that excluding evidence obtained through unlawful warrants is essential to the rule of law and maintains integrity of the justice system; permitting such evidence would incentivise police misconduct and create a precedent where procedural violations become acceptable when investigating serious matters.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Jeffrey Epstein survivors back Thames Valley police to investigate Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor after they admitted using unlawful warrants to search his home”.