Three Head-Spinning Epstein Developments

We owe the Brits a debt of gratitude.

Photo and image courtesy of The Telegraph

There are three notable Epstein developments making headlines. Each strongly suggests the current story, as the Trump White House would prefer us to leave it, is far from complete. The Epstein matter could blow even further open in unexpected ways.

First, following the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, previously known as Prince Andrew, a man named Peter Mandelson, who is the ex-U.K. Ambassador to the United States, was arrested, too. Mandelson was taken in on suspicion of misconduct while in public office, based on evidence obtained in the Epstein probe.

Second, Roger Sollenberger expanded his reporting yesterday about a key victim. That woman had told the FBI directly that Trump sexually assaulted her when she was a child. She was interviewed by agents at least four times. Sollenberger’s new reporting reveals that the victim allegedly refused to cooperate with the FBI against Trump, for as yet unknown reasons, and that her name was initially left unredacted in a previously undisclosed file.

Finally, The Telegraph in the U.K. dropped a blockbuster report yesterday that Epstein had hidden files in storage units across the U.S. and paid private detectives to remove video equipment from his residences, including his place on Epstein Island, to throw off investigators.

These developments are distinct, but they point in the same direction: authorities and press in the U.K., along with independent reporters here, are piecing the puzzle together at increasing speed, and the dominoes are falling. Anyone within the Epstein network should be very worried.

Mandelson arrest

Both Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson were arrested on the same suspicion: passing confidential government information to Epstein. Under U.K. law, if an officer “willfully neglects to perform their duty” or “willfully misconducts themselves” in a way that abuses the public’s trust, it’s a crime.

Apparently the British take this violation of the public’s trust far more seriously than we do here. If Mandelson is later charged and convicted of this crime, it carries a possible life sentence.

Mandelson isn’t well known to us in the U.S., but in the U.K. he’s widely recognized as a longtime Labour Party strategist and one of Britain’s most famous political figures. The latest batch of Epstein documents reveal that in 2009, when Mandelson was a cabinet minister under Gordon Brown, he apparently passed confidential and market-sensitive information to Epstein.

Why he would do that remains a mystery, but as I’ll discuss later in this piece, there may be troubling reasons.

The involvement of Mandelson with Epstein is a full-blown scandal in the U.K and even threatens to topple Keir Starmer as Prime Minister. Two close Starmer aides, who were political allies of Mandelson, resigned earlier this month. That has the British press and British investigators working overtime to chase down new Epstein leads and evidence, given how their own government and public figures are now thoroughly embroiled in this widening scandal. That’s already yielded significant new information, as I’ll also discuss below.

The possibility of serious charges against both Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson could, in theory, result in cooperation agreements with British authorities in exchange for leniency. The possibility that one or both men could sing raises the risk for anyone else in those higher Epstein circles, including, of course, Donald Trump.

Was she too frightened to implicate Trump?

Last week, I wrote twice about Roger Sollenberger’s excellent reporting concerning a key victim of Epstein. As I summarized, that victim had made credible and direct allegations against Trump, but the Justice Department apparently sought to bury the evidence.

I say “credible and direct” because the FBI did us the favor of summarizing her key allegation in a PowerPoint slide under the subheading “Trump.” And I say “bury the evidence” because, as Sollenberger reported, three of the interview forms and associated notes were removed from a list and only reappeared following his reporting. Importantly, none of that evidence has yet to be produced, but there is now a gigantic target on it.

Yesterday, Sollenberger further reported:

• The Justice Department initially exposed the name of the Trump accuser before redacting it;

• It chose to review and release some files in a manner that complicated the process and made it potentially legally problematic; and

• The FBI appears to have approached the victim about a criminal investigation or potential prosecution against Trump, but she “refused to cooperate.”

Whenever the DOJ exposes a victim’s name, even if inadvertently, it raises the stakes for harassment, threats or retaliation. Perhaps that’s the point, but it’s hard to prove this exposure is intentional rather than incompetent; the two often go hand in hand with this regime.

The victim in this case is being given particularly close attention and safeguards by the DOJ, yet the department is still recklessly exposing her identity. Sollenberger notes,

As independent journalists Nina Burleigh and Kate Chenoweth reported last week, this woman appears to have had a unique status in the Epstein case: No other victim or witness in the DOJ’s full Epstein case file index is marked “PROTECT SOURCE.” Any victim or witness in this case would have a reason to fear retaliation from any number of wealthy, powerful, well-connected men. Only one of them — the Trump accuser — appears to have this note next to her name, which the DOJ still managed to publish.

The fact that there is a victim tied directly to Trump has not been lost on investigators. An internal FBI email dated July 22, 2025, just two days before Todd Blanche interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell in prison, lists “Names in JE files.” The very first name on the list is Donald Trump, and the email notes “one identified victim claimed abuse by Trump but ultimately refused to cooperate.” No other names have notes by them.

As I wrote earlier, we have some indication why she may have refused to cooperate. In the one FBI interview that was released (out of the four that exist), the victim’s attorney cited “fear of retaliation” when Trump’s name came up.

Epstein storage lockers? Really?!

The Telegraph broke a potentially huge story yesterday: Jeffrey Epstein kept storage lockers around the country that apparently have never been searched. This is almost too wild to be true, but it backs up the reporting with receipts. The first four paragraphs alone are enough to fill a whole new chapter of this saga:

Jeffrey Epstein hid computers and photographs from United States authorities in secret storage lockers across the country, The Telegraph can reveal.

Documents uncovered by this newspaper show the paedophile paid private detectives to remove equipment from his Florida home in an apparent attempt to prevent investigators from finding it.

The documents also show that he rented six storage units across the US and used them to house items from his properties, including computers from Little Saint James, his private island in the Caribbean.

He leased at least one unit from 2003, when he was part of a Florida social set that included Donald Trump. Credit card receipts obtained by The Telegraph show regular storage payments continued until 2019, the year of his death.

Those are some forensic deep dives. And now I and many others have big questions.

First, why didn’t the FBI ever search these storage lockers? If they contain computer and video equipment, they may contain footage of crimes being committed at his residence, which he allegedly recorded using hidden cameras.

Second, could this explain why relatively little photographic or video evidence has been produced so far? Do they really have it all and are simply withholding it, or is it still in the damn lockers?

Third, was Epstein using this material for blackmail or other nefarious purposes? The Telegraph earlier reported that Epstein had ordered staff to install secret cameras inside Kleenex boxes at his home after a contact told him “the Russians may come in handy.” Not suspicious at all, right?

Fourth, the FBI previously said there was no evidence that Epstein was stashing away compromising material. But don’t they watch crime dramas, where the bad guys always rent off-site storage lockers?

Fifth, Epstein’s many residences had plenty of basement and storage space. Why would he also need storage space off site, if not to hide things he didn’t want authorities to discover?

The Telegraph provides just one example of how the paper trail points to the existence of missing digital materials. Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre, now deceased, had filed a civil lawsuit in 2009 against Epstein, and she sought materials from one of his detectives, Bill Riley. His email to Epstein’s lawyer is telling:

“Over the weekend I learned that plaintiff’s counsel are looking to get from me the computers and paperwork I took from Jeff’s house prior to the Search Warrant.

“I have them locked in storage and would like to know what to do with them. They are no longer needed in the criminal case, I assume. Is it possible to give you these items for your review and safekeeping or give it to Darren Indyke [Epstein’s lawyer] or back to Jeff, etc.?”

The email further said the drives in lockup were to be copied, or “cloned.” But it’s unclear what happened to the originals or any copies.

Congressional investigators and the U.K. press will be keen to follow up on what, if anything, may still exist in these Epstein storage lockers. Perhaps they’re long empty, but perhaps not. The fact that there may still be much more and the FBI simply ignored it—or worse, actually obtained it but never publicly disclosed that fact because it was trying to protect powerful people—is a potential game-changer.

The mere existence of previously unreported rented storage lockers strongly suggests that we’ve only just begun to peel away the outer layers of what’s out there on Epstein and his circle of pedophiles. We owe the British authorities and the British press a big thank you for doing what we have been incapable of because our own institutions are so badly corrupted.

But owing to the Brits, powerful figures are being arrested in the U.K. and the truth is now far closer to coming out.

Indeed, it could break like a dam.