Full Analysis Summary
Met won't reopen probe
The Metropolitan Police said it will not open a new criminal investigation into reports that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly the Duke of York and the King’s brother, asked a taxpayer-funded bodyguard in 2011 to dig up information on Virginia Giuffre, including by passing her date of birth and a US social security number.
The Mail on Sunday originally reported the alleged email, and the Met carried out a further assessment, with Central Specialist Crime Commander Ella Marriott concluding there was "no additional evidence of criminal acts or misconduct."
Several outlets report that the force will consider any new relevant information if it emerges.
Coverage Differences
Tone and emphasis
Mainstream and local outlets (My London, lbc.co.uk, Wandsworth Times) present the decision as a procedural assessment finding no new evidence and stress the Met's statement, while tabloids (Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror) foreground the alleged details of the Mail on Sunday report—such as the social security number, the phrase "dig up dirt" and the smear campaign—and add sharper emotional language about the family's reaction.
Met decision on Epstein probe
Outlets noted the Metropolitan Police previously investigated allegations linked to Jeffrey Epstein but, after consulting the Crown Prosecution Service and US authorities, decided in November 2016 not to open a full UK criminal probe.
That November 2016 decision was reviewed in 2019, 2021 and 2022 and remained unchanged.
Legal advice reportedly concluded that alleged human trafficking activity and suspects were largely based outside the UK, leaving other international agencies better placed to pursue any criminality.
Recent Mail on Sunday reporting prompted a further internal assessment, but it again found no new evidence to justify opening a criminal investigation.
Coverage Differences
Narrative focus (legal/jurisdiction vs. sensational detail)
GB News and The Sun emphasize the legal and jurisdictional rationale—consultation with the CPS and US authorities and multiple reviews of the 2016 decision—whereas tabloids (The Mirror, Daily Mail) combine those facts with more sensational claims (specific encounters, payments, alleged bragging) reported from other sources.
Giuffre allegations and death
Multiple outlets report Virginia Giuffre’s allegations and her death alongside the Met’s decision.
The Independent and The Mirror summarise that Giuffre had accused Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell of trafficking her and alleged she had sex with Prince Andrew, claims he has denied.
They note that Giuffre died by suicide in April, and her family said they were deeply disappointed and feel that justice has not been served.
Several outlets quote family statements expressing disappointment and anger, and saying authorities should have waited for possible new US releases of Epstein-related material.
Coverage Differences
Tone regarding victim and family
Mainstream outlets such as The Independent and local papers (Wandsworth Times, My London) emphasise the family's disappointment and the procedural grievance about timing and forthcoming US releases, while tabloids (The Mirror, Daily Mail) include more graphic specifics from allegations (locations, monetary claims) when recounting the background.
Media coverage of Met assessment
Reporting diverges on peripheral claims and the level of sensational detail included.
Tabloid pieces (The Sun, Daily Mail, The Mirror) add allegations reported elsewhere, such as claims that Andrew bragged about snooping to a royal aide, references to an infamous photo, and reported payments, while mainstream and local outlets stick more closely to the Met's formal statement about the assessment and its invitation to submit new evidence.
Several sources explicitly say the Met will reconsider if any new relevant information emerges.
Coverage Differences
Missed information vs. added sensational detail
Local and mainstream sources (My London, lbc.co.uk, Wandsworth Times, GB News) limit themselves to the Met's procedural account and the family’s reaction, while tabloids (The Sun, Daily Mail, The Mirror) incorporate additional claims reported by the Mail on Sunday and other reporting—such as alleged bragging to Ed Perkins, the infamous photo, alleged payments and more graphic recounting of alleged encounters.
Media coverage summary
The Metropolitan Police's public position, repeated across mainstream and local outlets, is that a renewed assessment found no new evidence to open a criminal probe, but the force will consider any new, relevant material, including information that may emerge from US releases.
Coverage differs by source: local and mainstream outlets emphasize the procedural and jurisdictional reasons for the decision and the family's disappointment, while tabloids amplify sensational allegations reported by the Mail on Sunday.
Reporting draws on the police statement, the Mail on Sunday's leaked-email claims, and family statements, so some details and emphases vary between outlets.
There is no authoritative public evidence in these pieces that contradicts the Met's explanation, but the differing emphases and additional reported allegations leave the overall picture fragmented.
Coverage Differences
Summary/Concluding contrast
Across source types, the core fact—the Met found no new evidence to open a criminal investigation—is consistent (reported by My London, lbc.co.uk, Wandsworth Times and GB News). Differences arise in what outlets prioritise: tabloids (Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror) emphasise alleged email details and additional claims, while mainstream and local outlets emphasise legal advice, prior reviews, and the family's procedural complaints.