EXCLUSIVE: The BBC Claimed Sarah Ferguson Congratulated Epstein On the Birth of His 'Secret Son' - I Found the Baby Scan, the Parents, and the Truth

You'll have read the viral claim that Sarah Ferguson congratulated Jeffrey Epstein on the birth of his 'baby boy'. The BBC's promotion of the story continues to be repeated around the world. But...

The following headlines and excerpts have sent the international press and public into a frenzy of speculation this week, with fascinated readers now firmly believing that Jeffrey Epstein sired a secret son.

It even almost duped me at first, with the claim that Prince Andrew’s ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, had emailed Jeffrey Epstein to congratulate him on the birth of a baby boy, leaving me scratching my head and diving into the documents in search of verification.

However, I quickly noticed that the now widespread belief is based on lazy journalism, a lust to produce clickbait, and a complete absence of basic fact-checking.

So I decided to check the facts for you myself. What I found is that Ferguson did NOT congratulate Jeffrey Epstein, but had instead congratulated their (Epstein and Ferguson’s) mutual friend and business associate, David Stern.

David Stern (not to be confused with the late NBA chairman, although numerous mainstream outlets have already done precisely that) is a British businessman formerly associated with multiple companies, including the Witan Group.

This is David Stern:

And this is David Stern with Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew:

An example of correspondence between Prince Andrew and David Stern can be read in the Epstein files by clicking here.

Now, without any fluff or rambling, here is a timeline of what the Epstein Files actually tell us in relation to the ‘mystery baby boy’:

21/02/2011: David Stern sent the below email to Jeffrey Epstein, demonstrating that he (Stern) was in a relationship with a Russian woman named Yana Bogomolova.

26/06/2011: Yana Bogomolova had an ultrasound. I managed to discover that the Epstein files contain a video of that scan, which was later sent by David, at that time a proud soon-to-be father, to Epstein.

As you can see from the data listed on the ultrasound video, the gestational age of the pregnancy is listed as 28 weeks and 3 days, placing it firmly in the third (final) trimester. By using a due date calculator, I found that the baby would have had a due date of mid to late September 2011.

20/09/2011: During the pregnancy, David and Yana got married. And then, on the 20th September, their baby boy was born. In an email later sent to Epstein and other friends and associates of the Sterns, David Stern writes: "Dear Friends, we are delighted to announce the healthy & safe arrival of our son, born on 20 September 2011. He is looking forward to meeting you soon! Best wishes, Yana & David & [baby’s name redacted] Stern.”

21/09/2011: The day after Stern’s baby boy was born, Sarah Ferguson contacted David Stern through BBM (BlackBerry Messenger). In the message, she wrote: “Don't know if you are still on this bbm but heard from The Duke that you have had a baby boy. Even though you never kept in touch, I still am here with love, friendship and congratulations on your baby boy. Sarah xx”. Shortly after, she sent a follow-up message: “You have disappeared. I did not even know you were having a baby. It was sooo crystal clear to me that you were only friends with me to get to Andrew. And that really hurt me deeply. More than you will know.”

On the same day, David Stern sent two emails to Jeffrey Epstein, copying the messages from Ferguson to show him what she had said. Although the sender’s details are redacted, the DoJ forgot to hide the sender’s details fully in the first email, revealing that the sender is David Stern, using his company email account, ds@wittangroup.com.

In the first email that David sent to Epstein at 6:18 am, he wrote “F [Ferguson] writes…” before including Ferguson’s BBM message:

In the second email David sent to Epstein at 6:26 am, he told him what Ferguson had sent next, starting his email simply with ‘Followed by:……’

So there we have it. A friend of Epstein and Ferguson had a baby. Ferguson congratulated him, yet also scolded him for allegedly using her to get close to Prince Andrew before ghosting her. That friend then forwarded her message to Epstein.

The explanation for why David Stern sent Ferguson’s BBM to Epstein is simple. By then, Epstein’s relationship with the Duchess of York had significantly soured.

After being hounded by the press over her association with Epstein, Ferguson gave an interview to the Daily Telegraph, and the Daily Telegraph subsequently published the following quote from her:

“I personally, on behalf of myself, deeply regret that Jeffrey Epstein became involved in any way with me. I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children and know that this was a gigantic error of judgment on my behalf. I am just so contrite I cannot say.”

In her interview, Ferguson admitted that she allowed Epstein to pay off £15,000 of her debts. “Whenever I can, I will repay the money and will have nothing ever to do with Jeffrey Epstein ever again,” she added.

The week after Ferguson’s interview, enraged that she had publicly called him a paedophile, Epstein discussed the situation with a crisis management publicist, Mike Sitrick. Epstein suggested Ferguson could release a statement saying she had been “duped” by lawyers representing some of his accusers.

“She now knows that what she was told was based on falsehoods and fabrications designed to enhance their civil suit,” Epstein said. “She should out the newspapers on the offering of money for stories.”

Sitrick, understood to be working for lawyers Epstein had retained, responded, saying they needed to put pressure on Ferguson to change her account. He said: “Agree, quite frankly, whatever her excuse, she needs to say she was mistaken, she apologises, feels terrible. Jeffrey is not a paedophile. The woman who was the source of the conviction for solicitation of prostitution for someone under 18 was 17-3/4, and she is very sorry. We need all those components. She created this problem. She needs to fix it, and as I know, everyone knows time is of the essence here.”

In the exchange, Sitrick said that if Ferguson did not succumb to “gentle persuasion”, he felt that they should “turn up the heat even to the point of sending her a draft defamation lawsuit”.

Although Epstein expressed concerns that he could not “depend” on Ferguson “doing as we would wish”, Sitrick replied that her retraction was “critical”. He said this would be “a major turning point and be picked up everywhere”.

He added: “This is about your name and your reputation. You really can’t worry about her, in my view, you need to worry about you. She certainly isn’t concerned about you or your reputation.”

Ferguson appears not to have made a public statement in support of Epstein. In private, however, she emailed him. She wrote: “I know you feel hellaciously let down by me from what you were either told or read and I must humbly apologise to you and your heart for that.”

She added: “I was instructed to act with the utmost speed if I would have any chance of holding on to my career as a children’s book author and a children’s philanthropist. As you know, I did not, absolutely not, say the ‘P word’ [paedophile] about you but understand it was reported that I did.”

Regardless, fast-forward to now, and journalists, eager to publish a ‘juicy’ Epstein-related story yet too lazy and/or useless to correctly read and relay a simple email, have quickly seen a message from Ferguson that was sent to Epstein, failed (or have chosen to ignore) the ‘F wrote’ and ‘followed by….’ important pieces of context, failed (or again chose to ignore) the ultrasound video and the fact that David Stern, not Epstein, was the proud father and the recipient of Ferguson’s original messages, and have published a lie claiming that Epstein may have had a secret baby son.

And that lie continues to circulate around the world. It has since been repeated in articles by the Guardian, the Daily Mail, the Independent, the Daily Beast, and in almost every newspaper and media outlet on the planet.

I contacted the BBC, who assured me that their error was ‘being looked into’.

To date, they have not issued a correction or removed or updated their misleading articles. On the contrary, they have since continued to promote the myth in follow-up articles.

So much for trustworthy journalism. And this is just a small example, just one from hundreds of articles containing far more damaging misinformation relating to the Epstein scandal that has been published and promoted by the press and media.

Hardly anyone seems to be reporting the news accurately or without bias anymore.

That’s why I hope you’ll kindly support me moving forward. I’ve been investigating the Epstein scandal for almost 6 years now, interviewing key witnesses, gathering fresh evidence, fact-checking the misleading and damaging lies spread by the media, and striving to deliver to you exactly what you deserve - the truth.

I’m doing this independently, and now rely solely on paid Substack subscribers to be able to continue my work.

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber by clicking the button below.

In the meantime, grab a coffee and watch my latest interview: