The evening before yesterday saw the ‘final’ release by the FBI of the Epstein-related documents which were in total some 3 million pages including 2000 videos and 180,000 images. Although the FBI said this release was final, they have in the past admitted to possessing six million pages of information so by their own admission they are only releasing one half of what they hold. Probably quite by accident, some pages of allegations were released implicating Donald Trump in the probable acts of sex with underage girls but these pages were almost immediately withdrawn once the ‘mistakes’ had been realised – but not before some journalists had made some screen grabs of some of the most damning material. The liberal American media (independent journalists who are funded by subscriptions from their viewers – a mile away from X and TicToc) are broadcasting these with a certain amount of both glee and frustration. To be absolutely fair to Trump and his coterie of extremely rich and influential Americans (Bill Clinton, Elon Musk etc) all of the material released and discussed is in the form of allegations and hearsay evidence. So none of this would probably pass muster in any court case but I did wonder to myself whether, although tittle-tattle s regarded as hearsay evidence, what is the legal position once this reaches ‘avalanche’ proportions? The answer in the UK is this…hearsay evidence can be admissible even when there is an ‘avalanche’ of it, provided it meets specific legal requirements, exceptions, and procedural safeguards. While the general rule is that hearsay is inadmissible, courts in the UK (under the Criminal Justice Act 2003) and in civil proceedings (under the Civil Evidence Act 1995) have broad discretion to admit such evidence, regardless of volume, if it is in the ‘interests of justice’. But I wonder what American courts would make of all of this? What is called the Main Street Media generally steers clear of this type of material until or unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt – after all Trump is suing the BBC for broadcasting (admittedly in the wrong sequence) things that he recorded as having said in the insurrectionist attack upon the White House when he was disputing the fact that he had lost the election in 2020. One can understand the caution of the main broadcasters and, of course it is responsible journalism to make sure that a story is verified before publication but it is this very fact that has allowed sections of the American elites to get away with the absence of scrutiny over the years. The more ‘the lid’ is successfully kept on unfavourable news, the harder it is for justice to prevail as was the case in the Post Office scandal about which I wrote recently. Anyway, watching all of this stuff in the middle of the night and again this morning has made me run extremely late this morning but I am fairly relaxed about that as there is nothing pressing that absolutely needs to be done today. The High Street beckons so that I can pick up my copy of ‘The Times’ which is important as it contains a guide to all of the stuff worth watching TV in the week ahead. When I went down into town, somewhat later than planned, I actually bumped into one of the sons of my Droitwich friend who was on his way to a hockey match in which he was playing, having had (presumably) Saturday morning school. After that, I made a quick visit to the supermarket to pick up one or two items that I had forgotten in my main shopping and then, upon returning home, cooked myself a ‘meat and two veg’ conventional meal for the first time in several days now.
During the next hours and days, it is inevitable that as journalists all over the world are intent upon poring over the latest Epstein file releases. Also each country will pick up those releases of most interest to people in their own particular country and here, in the UK, it is anything to do with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Apart from the photograph, shocking enough on its own, we see the kind of detail Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Sarah Ferguson never wanted us to see. It is embarrassing and exposing. We have known for some time about the closeness between the Yorks and Jeffrey Epstein but if genuine these emails give us a new level of insight, about their interactions with the convicted paedophile, what they shared with him and just how much they saw him as a friend and close confidante. From the emails we can see he was apparently welcomed into the fold and the inner sanctum of their palace life. Offered the chance to come into Buckingham Palace in September 2010, invited to Andrew’s birthday party at St James’s Palace in February 2010, all after his conviction for soliciting prostitution in 2008 and his release in 2009. From the discussions about him lending them money and the exchanges about Andrew being set up with women, you can see he was clearly trusted with their innermost secrets. It is the obsequious tone with which they write to him which will inevitably anger the victims. It feels like Andrew and Sarah were dependent on him, whether for money or contacts. It appears Epstein had made it that way, made himself invaluable to them, which chimes with Sarah Ferguson’s claim last year that she had to appear loyal because he was blackmailing her. The Sunday newspapers tomorrow may well have a field day although it remains an interesting question how much is revealed by the time they go to press on a Saturday afternoon and how assiduous they are in trawling over the mountain of material. Even more murky is the payment made to the husband of Lord Mandelson, ex-ambassador to Washington and it is very unclear why Epstein should be paying over these monies. Epstein sent thousands of pounds to Lord Mandelson’s husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, to help pay for his osteopathy course fees of £3,000+, according to emails included in the files. Another salacious detail is that Bill Gates is reported to have acquired a sexually transmitted disease from a Russian prostitute supplied by Epstein – Gates then asked Epstein for help to acquire some antibiotics which he could surreptitiously give to his wife so that the infection was not passed onto her. This incident apparently was a factor in their subsequent divorce. There is undoubtedly a lot more to be revealed in the days ahead.