Prince Andrew has exchanged dozens of emails with the US Department of Justice, proving he is co-operating with the investigation into his paedophile friend Jeffrey Epstein, a source close to the royal has claimed.
Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney leading the investigation, previously claimed that Andrew had sought to ‘falsely portray himself as eager and willing to co-operate’.
But he has now been accused of actively misleading the media and the public on the extent of Andrew’s co-operation – with the Duke an ‘easy target’.
The Duke of York’s legal team reportedly have a slew of email exchanges with the Southern District, which ‘prove’ Andrew’s willingness to aid the investigation.
Andrew has come under increasing fire after US authorities wrote to the Home Office earlier this month to ask formally to interview him about his relationship with Epstein.
But in a sensational rebuttal, the Duke accused US prosecutors of breaking confidentially rules and issuing ‘complete lies’ and refused to co-operate with them further until they extended an ‘olive branch’.
Now, a source close the Duke has laid bare Andrew’s attempts to co-operate and help the investigation into Epstein.
The Duke of York’s legal team reportedly have a slew of email exchanges with the Southern District, which ‘prove’ Andrew’s willingness to aid the investigation. Pictured is Prince Andrew with Virginia Roberts, Epstein’s sex-slave who claims the Prince slept with her three times, and Ghislaine Maxwell, who allegedly procured young women for Epstein in 2001
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman speaks during a press conference outside of Jeffrey Epstein’s apartment on January 27, blasting Prince Andrew for a ‘wall of silence’
The source told the Spectator: ‘Berman has actively misled the global media and the global audience.
‘The Duke’s legal team has dozens of email exchanges with the Southern District, proving that there has been full co-operation.
It’s also been claimed that the DoJ didn’t make any effort to contact the Duke during Epstein’s lifetime, with initial contact only made after his death and after Virginia Roberts went on the BBC in November 2019 to air her accusations against Andrew.
Even then, the Duke was only approached as a witness and not as a suspect.
His lawyers are thought to have responded immediately and, in early January, sent the DoJ a proposal for how Andrew would deliver his witness statement.
This was apparently accepted by authorities – only for Berman to publicly blast the Duke a week later, accusing him of zero co-operation and of a ‘wall of silence’.
According to the source, the DoJ have ‘targeted’ the Prince since Epstein’s death, with Berman using Andrew to ‘play to the US media’ and to appease the legal firms looking to get money for Epstein’s victims from his estate.
Epstein (pictured) was found dead last year in a New York prison cell, where he was being held on charges of sex-trafficking girls as young as 14
Berman has even implied that the Duke aided Epstein’s crimes, claiming that the financier ‘couldn’t have done what he did without assistance’.
Prince Andrew has denied all allegations against him.
After Berman’s attack on Andrew, there was a ‘very frank exchange of views’ between the Duke’s lawyers and the Southern District.
However Berman went on to attack Andrew again in March, accusing him of having ‘completely shut the door on voluntary co-operation’.
Now, both sides seem to be at an impasse, with a collapse of trust caused more by Berman’s public statements than Andrew’s willingness.
The source blasted Berman after the Home Office request came to light, accusing him of doing everything he can to ‘destroy’ public trust in Andrew.
They said: ‘The Prince was quite simply an easy target.
‘Andrew was the least protected of all the individuals who knew Jeffrey Epstein — a lot less protected than Donald Trump or Bill Clinton or Ghislaine Maxwell, who has simply disappeared. Andrew was a sitting duck, and he wasn’t well protected by the team over at Buckingham Palace.’
The Duke’s legal team did not comment on the latest claims.
Earlier this week, Virginia Roberts branded Prince Andrew a ‘toad’ after the disgraced royal finally admitted that his failure to express sympathy on his car crash Newsnight interview was a ‘source of regret’.
Venting her frustration, the victim of paedophile Jeffrey Epstein said: ‘Oh the gull of this toad – he regrets the BBC interview but not his “friendship” with Epstein because it gave him “great contacts” and much more.
Virginia Roberts, pictured following a hearing in New York last year, has accused Prince Andrew of having sex with her. She is also pictured with him in 2001
‘Look into the house he sold to a wealthy arms dealer, not at the asking price but added on a few extra 100’s of 1000’s.
‘Seems his fat-fingers were in a lot of pies. This man is not a prince but a facet of insidiousness who has proven to get away with it all.’
In the devastating interview aired in November last year the Queen’s favourite son failed to express any sympathy for Epstein’s victims, who were trafficked from as young as 14 years old.
Roberts is one of several women who have accused billionaire Epstein of sexual abuse when they were underage, and has spoken publicly about being his ‘sex slave.’
She has also claimed she had sex with Prince Andrew at the behest of his friend Epstein three times: once at Epstein’s New York apartment, once in the Caribbean, and once at the London home of Ghislane Maxwell, the American financier’s alleged madam, in March 2001.
Speaking about her first alleged encounter with Prince Andrew in London, Roberts said she was taken to Tramp Nightclub where she recalls dancing with the ‘sweating’ prince when she was 17.
After leaving the nightclub, Roberts said: ‘In the car Ghislaine tells me that I have to do for Andrew what I do for Jeffrey.’
A photo that shows Giuffre, Prince Andrew and Maxwell in Ghislaine’s apartment taken in 2001 has been widely circulated.
Prince Andrew has strenuously denied all of Roberts’ allegations.
The prince says he doesn’t even remember meeting her.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .