An eight-year-old letter has become the latest development in the allegations surrounding Meghan Markle's estranged father, Thomas Markle Sr. The Sun reports that it has seen a 2018 letter accusing him of sexually abusing a child, while authorities in the Philippines have confirmed an investigation into separate allegations involving child sexual abuse images. Markle has denied possessing such material.
According to The Sun, the letter was addressed to the Metropolitan Police's Fixated Threat Assessment Centre. Its author allegedly claimed that Markle had abused a child and admitted traveling abroad to abuse children. These are accusations attributed to the letter's author; the reported existence of a letter does not establish that its allegations are true.
Meghan's response has brought renewed attention to the reasons behind her distance from her father. In an October 23 statement provided to Sky News, she said a letter containing allegations against him had been shared with her in 2018 and that she had received assurances the claims were being investigated. She also said her decision to prevent contact with her children was intended to protect them.
But the police position requires a crucial distinction. Sky News reports that London's Metropolitan Police has neither previously investigated nor is currently investigating Markle. Its internal inquiries concern whether royal protection officers passed the letter to Meghan. That inquiry is separate from the investigation in the Philippines.
Reuters reports that Philippine justice undersecretary Nicholas Ty confirmed that a specialist task force in Cebu was investigating the image allegations. Interior minister Jonvic Remulla told the agency that Markle's son, Thomas Markle Jr., had supplied police with material, including a laptop. Those developments confirm investigative activity, rather than a finding of guilt.
Markle Sr. has forcefully rejected the image accusations. Speaking to the Daily Mail, as reported by Sky News, he called them "sick lies." The denial concerns the alleged possession of images; it should not be presented as a specific response to every allegation attributed to the newly reported letter.
The unanswered questions remain substantial: What happened to the information reportedly supplied in 2018, and what will investigators establish about the material now brought to their attention? For now, the letter's reported contents, Meghan's account, and the current investigation must each be assessed on their own evidence.
