The woman on the floor under Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor at Jeffrey Epstein‘s New York mansion is a sex trafficking victim, a senior US politician has claimed.
Two images of the former prince crouching over an unidentified woman in the paedophile financier’s home were among the Epstein files released on January 30.
Their context is unknown, but California congressman Ted Lieu held up the images during a hearing at the House Judiciary Committee in Washington DC yesterday.
He made the claim about the woman being a sex trafficking victim while questioning US Attorney General Pam Bondi over why Andrew has never been prosecuted.
Mr Lieu said: ‘Please put the photos back up, we are looking at a sex trafficking victim under the federal Victims Trafficking Protection Act.
‘Not only is Jeffrey Epstein guilty, but anyone who patronised Epstein’s sex operation is also guilty of a crime. That’s why I find it absolutely despicable that you sought to protect Epstein’s clients, like former Prince Andrew.
‘These two photos staring you in the face are evidence of a crime, and more than enough evidence to predicate an investigation against former Prince Andrew.
‘So I asked you, Attorney General Counsel, why did you shut down this investigation last July? And why have you not prosecuted former Prince Andrew?’
Andrew features a number of times in the Epstein files, including images apparently showing him crouching over an unidentified woman in what appears to be Epstein’s New York mansion
Another image showing Andrew next to the woman released by the US Department of Justice
Two photos of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor are displayed as US Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies during a House Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington DC yesterday
Congressman Ted Lieu questions Attorney General Pam Bondi during yesterday’s hearing
While Ms Bondi confirmed the woman’s face had been redacted under laws protecting trafficking victims, she denied that the photographs proved criminality.
It is not known whether Mr Lieu has had special insight on the Epstein investigations, but some US politicians are understood to have seen unredacted files.
The Department of Justice, which published more than three million documents relating to Epstein in the latest release, has never brought charges against Andrew.
Many women connected to Epstein have previously been described by the US as sex trafficking victims under federal law – but this characterisation had never been given to the woman in the Andrew photos.
There is no suggestion of criminal activity from the pictures themselves, and Andrew has always strenuously denied wrongdoing.
It comes as Thames Valley Police said yesterday that it held discussions with specialists from the Crown Prosecution Service about allegations that Andrew shared confidential reports from his role as the UK’s trade envoy with sex offender Epstein.
Earlier yesterday, Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson told journalists they were ‘in close contact’ with both the Metropolitan and Thames Valley police, but have not been asked for formal advice yet.
Emails released by the Department of Justice appear to show the former duke sharing reports of official visits to Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Singapore.
Files released by US authorities also include claims a woman was sent to the UK by Epstein for a sexual encounter with Andrew in 2010.
Andrew waves goodbye to a woman leaving Epstein’s home in New York in December 2010
Jeffrey Epstein’s home in New York, where Andrew stayed during his visit in December 2010
Separately, the Metropolitan Police has launched an investigation into Peter Mandelson over alleged misconduct in public office.
The inquiry is linked to allegations that Mandelson sent market-sensitive information to the paedophile financier Epstein while he was business secretary during the financial crisis.
On Monday, Buckingham Palace said it would ‘stand ready to support’ the police if approached over the claims. A spokesman added that the King had made clear his ‘profound concern’ at allegations over his brother’s conduct.
Andrew is effectively no longer a royal, becoming a commoner after he was stripped by the monarch of his right to be a prince and his dukedom late last year over his association with Epstein.
He remains in the line of succession, being eighth in line to the throne, having gradually moved down after being born second in line.
Much of the work of the royal family in recent weeks has been overshadowed by the Epstein scandal, despite the King’s attempts to draw a line under the matter when he banished Andrew and removed his titles.
The fresh trove of documents released by the Department of Justice has sparked a string of allegations against Andrew.
They include claims that a second woman was sent to the UK by Epstein for a sexual encounter with Andrew, and also that the former prince and Epstein asked an exotic dancer for a threesome in the latter’s Florida home.
Andrew has never been questioned by police over claims by Virginia Giuffre.
Andrew and Charles at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral at Westminster Cathedral last September
Ms Giuffre, who died by suicide last year, alleged that she was forced to have sex three times with Andrew, including when she was 17, and also in London after she was trafficked by Epstein, and at an orgy on Epstein’s private Caribbean island.
The former duke vehemently denied the claims.
The Met previously said it was made aware in 2015 of allegations around non-recent trafficking for sexual exploitation including to central London in 2001.
But it concluded in 2016 that because the investigation would be largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK, the Met was not the appropriate authority to conduct the inquiries so the matter would not proceed to a full criminal investigation.
The decision was reviewed in August 2019, but in November that year the Met confirmed it would remain unchanged.
In December, the Met decided not to launch a criminal investigation into reports that Andrew asked his taxpayer-funded bodyguard to dig up dirt on Ms Giuffre.
Her family have said they are ‘deeply disappointed’ by the force’s decision to drop the investigation ‘without explanation’.