LONDON: Members of a United States congressional committee investigating the Jeffrey Epstein case have intensified their calls for Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to answer questions about his ties to the late financier and sex offender, the BBC reported on Saturday (Nov 1).
King Charles stripped Andrew of his title of prince and evicted him from his mansion in the grounds of Windsor Castle on Thursday, responding to the outrage that had built around the royal over years of damaging headlines about his behaviour.
Buckingham Palace said the censures were needed even though Andrew has continued to deny the allegations made against him.
In the US, the king’s move led to more calls for Andrew to reveal all he knows about Epstein, particularly in the light of the expression of sympathy for victims of abuse in Thursday’s statement from the palace.
The BBC said at least four Democrat members of the House Oversight Committee investigating the US government’s handling of the Epstein case had renewed calls for Andrew to testify.
It quoted one of them, Democrat Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, saying: “Come clean, come before the US Congress, voluntarily testify, don’t wait for a subpoena, come and testify and tell us what you know.
“Not just to give justice to the survivors but to prevent this from ever happening again.”
Another Democrat Congressman, Suhas Subramanyam, said Andrew could appear remotely with a lawyer and speak to the panel privately.
Buckingham Palace has been asked to comment.
On Friday, United Kingdom trade minister Chris Bryant told the BBC that Andrew should go to the US to answer questions about Epstein.
Separately on Saturday, the police watchdog for England and Wales, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, said that in light of media reports about Andrew, it had contacted the Metropolitan Police to “understand if there are any matters that would meet the criteria for a referral to us”.
In response, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said that in 2016, officers had concluded that “other jurisdictions and organisations” were better placed to pursue the specific allegations and a decision was made not to proceed to a full criminal investigation.
