THE BBC has come under fire after it interviewed Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer in the wake of Ghislaine Maxwell being found guilty of sex trafficking young girls.
The BBC spoke to Alan Dershowitz, who also previously worked as a lawyer for Donald Trump and OJ Simpson, and who faces the same accusations as Prince Andrew.
Virginia Giuffre has claimed she was trafficked by Epstein, a convicted sex offender and the British royal’s former friend, to have sex with the prince when she was aged 17 and a minor under US law.
In a Netflix documentary series entitled “Filthy Rich”, Giuffre (below) alleged that she had also been made to have sex with Dershowitz.
Both men have refuted the accusations, with Prince Andrew’s lawyers saying he “unequivocally denies” any wrongdoing, and Dershowitz calling it a “total lie” and suing Netflix for $80 million, as well as counter-suing Giuffre in a defamation case.
Despite Dershowitz’s deep connections with Epstein - the two were friends since at least the mid-1990s - the BBC made no mention of his background when introducing him to talk about Maxwell’s guilty verdict.
Being brought on just minutes after Maxwell’s verdict was announced, the BBC News channel introduced Dershowitz only as a “constitutional lawyer”.
READ MORE: Ghislaine Maxwell’s family launch appeal after sex abuse verdict
The emeritus professor at Harvard Law School then proceeded to attack Giuffre without challenge - despite the legal battle ongoing between the two and her suit against Prince Andrew.
Dershowitz said: “The most important thing for British viewers is that the government was very careful who it used as witnesses.
“It did not use as a witness the woman who accused Prince Andrew, who accused me, who accused many other people, because the government didn’t believe she was telling the truth.
“In fact she, Virginia Giuffre, was mentioned in the trial as somebody who brought young people to Epstein for him to abuse, so this case does nothing to strengthen the case against Prince Andrew, indeed it weakens the case against Prince Andrew considerably because the government was very selective in who it used.
“It used only witnesses it said were credible and it deliberately didn’t use the main witness, the woman who started the whole investigation — Virginia Giuffre — because they ultimately didn’t believe she was telling the truth and they didn’t believe a jury would believe her and they were right in doing so.”
The BBC platforming Dershowitz has sparked outrage, with Labour MP Nadia Whittome saying: “Alan Dershowitz, who was accused of the same crimes as Prince Andrew, is on the BBC trying to silence victims following Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction.
“I can’t believe this needs to be said but the BBC should not give a platform to people accused of child sexual abuse.”
We have a responsibility to believe people when they disclose sexual abuse and to create conditions in which they can in the first place.
— Nadia Whittome MP (@NadiaWhittomeMP) December 29, 2021
All details of Epstein’s Network should be published and all victims/survivors are owed justice. This is clearly the tip of the iceberg.
Singer and columnist Chris Thorpe-Tracey added: “Sickeningly passive @BBCnews interview with Dershowitz just now, presenting him as an expert ‘as a lawyer’ rather than as an accused party.
“Interviewer gave no context, allowed Dershowitz free reign to spin the verdict to benefit himself and attack his accuser.”
Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister, said that the interview represented a “huge error by the BBC” while Caoilfhionn Gallagher, a coroner and human rights lawyer, said the corporation had interviewed Dershowtiz “as if he’s a neutral expert”.
“Shocked. Utterly bizarre decision and does the audience a disservice,” she added.
The BBC later conceded that the interview did not meet editorial standards.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel