INSIDE THE ‘SEX IN THE BATH’ HOUSE
... but was the tub too small to fit two people, as Maxwell allies say? Mail’s first to see it
FoUR doors opened onto the first-floor landing of Ghislaine Maxwell’s London pied-a-terre. Viewed from the top of the stairs to the ground floor, the door on the right led into a master bedroom. That is where Epstein and Maxwell slept together that Saturday night, a source claims. The door on the left (against which the duke and Miss Roberts are seen in the photograph) led to the study-cum-second bedroom. That was Miss Roberts’s room.
directly opposite the top of the stairs were two further doors; an airing cupboard and the entrance to the bathroom. The latter was ‘ where I led ( the duke)’, Miss Roberts recalled in the manuscript of her memoir. ‘It was a beige marble tiled floor with porcelain Victorian- style bathtub in the middle of the room and nowhere near the size of Jeffrey’s residences.’
She wrote: ‘I turned on the taps for the tub and the heat from the water began to steam up the small room . . . Trying to do the best of my youthfulness to try and act seductive, I gradually began to strip off my clothing, piece by piece . . . He loved every second of it as I went over to where he was waiting and watching, then began to undress him . . . We kissed and touched each other before submersing into the hot water, where we both continued to re-enact foreplay. He was adorning (sic) my young body, particularly my feet . . . It wasn’t hard to get him wound up to the point where he just wanted to have the rest of me.’
The explosive conclusion to this encounter took place in her ‘ bedchamber’, she said. But it is the bathroom and, in particular, the bath and its dimensions, that has been the focus of legal interest.
Under oath during Miss Roberts’ defamation action against her, Maxwell said: ‘The tub is too small for any type of activity whatsoever.’
In his book Relentless Pursuit, Miss Roberts’ lawyer Brad Edwards wrote that the bath was discussed when he met Epstein in a Starbucks in Boca Raton, Florida, in 2015. The tycoon had contacted him out of the blue.
He claimed that Epstein had said to him: ‘If I could show you how small Ghislaine’s tub was in that apartment, it would be tough for two people to fit in there.’
Edwards said he dismissed the comment, suggesting it was a weak legal point to force. But other lawyers have tried. Are trying.
The Mail understands that Miss Roberts’ legal team has not had access to the disputed bathroom. But two members of Maxwell’s legal team — she still owns the property — have climbed into the bath together, fully clothed, to test the physical possibility of an assignation such as that described in Miss Roberts’ account.
They claimed not to be persuaded, a source said.
BATH CRAMMED INTO AN ALCOVE
So THE Mail conducted our own inquiries. We have found a floorplan of the bathroom, taken from a 1987 planning application. We have also had access to much more recent images of the room.
There are two observations. one is that the bathroom is indeed ‘small’, as both sides agree; cramped, if one wished to perform anything other than solo ablutions.
The second? There is not a freestanding Victorian bath tub in the middle of the room, as described by Miss Roberts, in either iteration of the bathroom designs.
The historic plan shows a ‘standard size’ — 5ft 6in by 2ft 4in — alcove bath, boxed in on two sides by walls and on a third by the back of the airing cupboard.
The remaining 36 sq ft is largely taken up by a bidet, a lavatory and large sink. It is very bijou.
The recent images show almost the same layout. A sink still faces the door, a shower stall has replaced the bidet on the left, next to a lavatory. An alcove bath is on the right.
We have also received testimony from an old acquaintance of Maxwell’s who said: ‘I have visited the property on several occasions over the years. Even by the standards of a small mews house, the bathroom would be described as compact. There is no more than a couple of inches between the lavatory, sink and bath . . . to manoeuvre.’
She said that others who had regularly visited the property over the past two decades all agreed that ‘no changes have taken place to (the bathroom’s) essential layout.’
THE DEAD ‘KEY WITNESS’
ASIdE from his own poor memory, the duke’s fundamental problem in proving his innocence of the March 10 allegations is this: of the four sources who should be best able to provide an alternative eyewitness account of that evening, one — Epstein — was a convicted paedophile who has since committed suicide, while another — Maxwell — is on remand in a U.S. prison facing charges of perjury and assisting the tycoon in sex-trafficking, charges that she denies.
But what of the duke’s duty police bodyguards for that night? It was their job not only to observe the duke’s movements, but to log them for the official record.
Sources close to the duke say it has been difficult to identify the relevant personal protection officers (PPos) from 2001. This has been blamed variously on ‘chaotic Met Police records’ and the events taking place so long ago, in what was still, largely, an analogue era.
But a ‘breakthrough’ of sorts has been achieved. When he was at home at Sunninghill Park on a weekend
evening, the Duke was protected by one rather than two PPOs, sources claim.
They say the relevant PPO has now been identified. The Mail has been given a name. It has also been confirmed to us by a former senior colleague that this officer has since died. If so, he has taken the Duke’s alibi to the grave — if such an alibi would have been provided.
The fourth first- hand eyewitnesses that night were the domestic staff at Sunninghill.
Through intermediaries, the Mail was told by the duty housekeeper: ‘I worked at Sunninghill Park the weekend of March 10, 2001, with (name withheld) as butler.
‘My duties were housekeeping and help with the Princesses as required. The Duchess and Duke had a rule that one parent was present if the other had to be away. (The butler) and I both helped. I went home after the children’s baths, (the butler) catch (sic) a train to London. The nanny would return for duty on Mon morn’.
But, crucially, the housekeeper cannot remember whether this bath night took place on the Saturday (the evening in question) or Sunday — or whether the Duke was home on both nights.
After all, it was a long time ago, she said. said Indeed it was. was But the fact is that the Duke of York has faced these specific allegations for almost a decade now.
His only defence against Miss Roberts’ detailed accusations remains blunt denial. He has not been able to offer up a credible and corroborated alternative narrative. There has also been a corporate loss of memory as far as those around him are concerned.
One is minded of his horribly complacent remark at the end of his Newsnight interview. ‘I think you’ve dragged out of me most of what is required,’ he said.
That is simply not the case. And in Part Two of this series on Monday, the Mail will fill in more of the holes in the royal narrative — including a confession that explodes another of his Newsnight claims altogether.