Case Explained: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest shows money talks louder than women’s testimony – Legal Perspective

Was the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor the most distressing display of law enforcement yet in the decades-long horror about Jeffrey Epstein’s power and influence?

Andrew was not arrested and interviewed when his monstrous friend Epstein was jailed for child sex offences in 2008. Nor was he formally interviewed after Virginia Giuffre’s accusations that she had been raped by Andrew, nor when it became clear he had been lying about severing associations with a known paedophile, nor when the Epstein files revealed communications, deeply troubling images and timelines that showed how deeply mired in Epstein’s world Andrew has always been.

Nor when Andrew’s own mother paid money to “settle” the Giuffre complaint that he maintained was untrue. Nor when Virginia, that brave young woman, could not live anymore with the consequences of what she said had been done to her and took her own life. Giuffre alleged she was the victim of sex trafficking and abuse by Epstein from the age of 16 and that she was forced to have sex with Mountbatten-Windsor on three occasions while aged under 18.

Authorities said they were “keen” to speak to him about all this, but he was not co-operative. So that was the end of that.

But — money.

Loading…

When potential access to money is misused, when information that might lead to the making of money is taken advantage of, the police will descend like the furies and bundle you up and take you to a dank Berkshire police station, no matter that you have a golden crown sadly put aside in some old storage box.

Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office on Thursday and “released under investigation” after almost 10 hours in custody.

Money.

The allegations appear to centre on him sharing confidential UK trade documents with Jeffrey Epstein in 2010, while he served as Britain’s special representative for international trade and investment.

How dare Andrew interfere in the fair, unfettered flow of intelligence about a nation’s investments and potential prosperity.

Could there be a worse, more disloyal crime?

In all the weeks of this Epstein horror, this is the moment with which I am most struggling: that accusations of child abuse won’t get authorities out of bed, but accusations of sharing trade information will, and I want to howl to the heavens with anger.

Children were raped and that accusation isn’t enough to get you shoved in a divvy van.

For years, both the US Department of Justice and the FBI said they wanted to speak to Andrew as part of the Epstein investigation but publicly complained he had offered “zero cooperation.”

Andrew’s legal team in turn claimed he had offered assistance “on at least three occasions”, but there was no indication he had ever been interviewed under caution by US or UK law enforcement about Epstein himself.

When we see the speed at which British authorities can actually move to action after allegations of misuse of trade information, it beggars belief that these all-powerful authorities could not do what they have done now and formally interview Andrew.

Emails in the recently released US Justice Department Epstein files show Andrew forwarded sensitive reports and insights from his 2010 official tour of Southeast Asia to Epstein.

These included communications from his adviser about the trip, potentially breaching rules on handling classified or sensitive government information.

Why is an email about the trade trip apparently more compelling than the detailed and painful evidence of a woman?

Why do the scales of justice tip heavily towards a memo about investments than the traumatised memory of a trafficked girl?

We know the answer to those questions, so I’m sorry to waste your time in asking them, but this indignant police performance, that may or may not lead to charges, twists the knife in the wound of how women are not believed.

A popular social media psychologist, Jeff Guenther — Therapy Jeff — this week asked “Why aren’t men more enraged by the files and how can we get them there?”

Putting aside the extraordinary notion that it’s someone else’s job to “get” men to be angry about an international ring exploiting girls and women, I think we have just seen the answer to his question: because money talks — and it’s always louder than a woman’s screams.

This weekend our reporters in the West bank hear directly from Palestinians about how they fear their hopes for a homeland are now lost. It’s a compelling and important read.

Have a safe and happy weekend and, as Emerald Fennell’s film Wuthering Heights sweeps all before it, I find myself often wondering if Kate Bush has seen it and what she makes of it. There is no doubt that this florid, Sloane Ranger version could never have been made if Kate had not incarnated the Bronte classic in modern minds through her immortal song. 

Which has in turn led me back to high-rotation playing of all of Kate’s catalogue — a state I’m never really far from, truthfully. This one charted higher in Australia back in the day than anywhere else — we got her right from the start — and it’s an absolute banger. Turn it up. Go well. 

Virginia Trioli is presenter of Creative Types and a former co-host of ABC News Breakfast and Mornings on ABC Radio Melbourne.