Prince Laurent's statements about Jeffrey Epstein-contacts raise more questions

Questions about Prince Laurent's ties to the convicted and dead sex offender Jeffrey Epstein arose on Sunday after Flemish liberal daily Het Laatste Nieuws reported that the name of the king's brother cropped up in the Epstein files. There’s an email from Epstein to an assistant asking him to add Laurent to his address book. This never happened.

On Monday 2 February, Laurent responded in a written statement to the Belga press agency. He denied ever having attended an event where Epstein was present, although Epstein had repeatedly sought contact, including during Laurent's internships in the US.

A few hours later, however, a second statement followed: Laurent acknowledged that he had met Epstein twice in private, although there had been no in-depth contact.

‘That's where he made a big mistake,’ says reputation coach and crisis communication expert Jeroen Wils. ‘He violated the basic rules of good crisis communication. In a crisis, you have to be completely transparent and tell the whole truth at once. Anything you hold back will come back to haunt you later.’

Fragmented statements

In his first statement, Laurent indicated that Epstein wanted to use the royal prince of the House of Belgium to make contact with his parents, retired King Albert and Queen Paola, among other figures. According to Laurent, he replied that they were ‘not for sale’. Laurent also said that Epstein had asked him to participate in a project that the prince believed was ‘clearly intended to commit corruption’.

The prince later told the Belga press agency that his first statement ‘was perhaps not clear enough’. ‘When I said that I had never attended an event where Epstein or his entourage were present, I was referring to public events or gatherings with other people. However, I did twice meet Epstein in private, at his request, once in the early 1990s and a second time in the early 2000s.'

The prince did not clarify the purpose of these meetings or where they took place. According to Wils, this is a problem. ‘If you — as he has done — reveal part of the story in two instalments, it immediately sets off alarm bells. It looks like panic football: someone who is in a tight spot, is being badly advised and is only revealing drips and drabs,’ he says.

This, despite the fact that Laurent's first statement was well put together, says Wils. ‘The announcement was precise, contained many details and immediately clarified what attempts at contact had been made and what the response had been.’ So far, so good, but now more questions have arisen, and that is precisely what you should avoid, according to the communications expert.

Intervene much earlier

According to Wils, Laurent should have communicated about his contact with Epstein much earlier. ‘He knew or should have known that he had been in contact with someone who might not be trustworthy, and that this would eventually come out. Yet he seems to have waited until the very last moment to come forward,’ says Wils.

What is the best thing for Laurent to do now? Wait and see. ‘We don't know what information he still has, but for now, it's best for him to wait and see if this spreads further. It could just as easily fade away quickly. If he notices that the media or the public don't believe him and find his communication implausible, he will eventually have to dispatch a stronger signal.’

In that case, completeness is crucial, Wils emphasises. ‘The message must be clear and complete in one go, with all the details and context.’

‘In cases like this, you cannot afford to withhold even a single element, even if you have nothing to hide,’ he says. ‘And if it turns out that he had more contact with Epstein, or did not properly assess how suspicious it was at the time, then it is best to be honest about it right away. Acknowledging mistakes immediately prevents greater damage later on.’