Scott Mills sacked, Epstein and Ramsey Elkholy emails

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. It's 2009 and we're in the German mountains. A man straps himself into a car on the world's most dangerous racetrack. He whispers to himself, It's time to put my balls on the dashboard. As he starts the engine. In 15 minutes, he's in an ambulance, unconscious. In 15 years, he's a billionaire. This is Toto Wolff, Formula One's most powerful team boss and the breakout star of Drive to Survive. This week on Good, Bad, Billionaire, how Toto Wolff made his billions. Listen wherever you get your BBC podcasts.

1:03is the former Radio 2 presenter of the Scott Mills Breakfast Show, which is the largest breakfast show in the UK. Now, last Tuesday, Mills signed off his last programme saying, I'll be back tomorrow at 6.30, and then was not on air for the rest of the week. Then, the following Monday, news broke out that he'd been sacked by the BBC following allegations about his, quote, personal conduct. The BBC said at the time, quote, while we do not comment on matters relating to individuals, we can confirm Scott Mills is no longer contracted to work with the BBC. Then The Mirror, that's a newspaper in the UK, broke the story of issues around, quote, personal conduct relating to a historic male relationship dating back more than 10 years.

1:41The next day, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that in 2016 it had investigated allegations of, quote, serious sexual offences against a teenage boy, reported to have taken place between 1997 and 2000. On Tuesday, they clarified the teenager was under 16. Now, Mills was questioned by police in 2018 and the investigation, which started in 2016, was closed in 2019 after the Crown Prosecution Service deemed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges. We have had no confirmation that the police investigation is the reason he was sacked from the BBC. And it has emerged that the BBC failed to reply to a question about allegations to do with Scott Mills from a freelance journalist in May last year.

2:24The BBC said, quote, We received a press query in 2025 which included limited information. this should have been followed up and we should have asked further questions we apologize for this and we'll look into why this did not happen they continued saying quote more broadly we would always urge anyone who has concerns or information to raise it with us the bbc also says it did know about the police investigation into scott mills in 2017 but that he was sacked after new information came to light in recent weeks after that new information they did speak to scott and as a result, the BBC says it acted decisively in line with its culture and values to terminate his contract on the 27th of March.

3:03They said they're going to do more work to understand the detail of what was known by the BBC at the time. They also said there is a limit to what they can say because they have to be mindful of the rights of those involved. Now, it is being reported that the BBC sacked Scott Mills because they discovered the alleged victim in the police investigation was under 16. Last night, Scott Mills issued his first statement. He said the announcement of his sacking had led to, quote, the publication of rumour and speculation. He confirmed that he was the person at the centre of the Metropolitan Police investigation.

3:34He added, quote, since the investigation related to an allegation that dates back nearly 30 years and the police investigation was closed seven years ago, I hope the public and the media will understand and respect my wish not to make any further comment on this matter. Mills said he fully cooperated and responded to the police investigation in 2018. He added, quote, I wish to thank from the bottom of my heart all those who have reached out to me with kindness, my former colleagues and my beloved listeners who I greatly miss. In his statement, Mills does not address the substance of the allegations, provide any further detail about them or offer a denial.

4:06He also does not go into what happened at the BBC and the reason for his sacking.

4:14But for the rest of the programme, we are back in the Epstein files. Now, you know that since their release, There have been shockwaves around the world. We've told you about some of it on this program, but now attention has turned to the modeling industry and Epstein's relationship with owners of modeling agencies. Joining me, of course, to go through this is our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent, who's going to be on his best behavior today. Aren't you, Sean? I am ready, Anushka. How are you doing? I just want to like hash out that Sean has instilled within me an insecurity. He has repeatedly told me that I have a gigantic head and a gigantic head of hair.

4:49And now I hide. I don't go outside. I shun the light. So thanks for that, Sean. And I just dyed my hair. And he said it looked awful. I did not say. It's a very interesting color. I said, I like your hair. You have a lot of hair. Yeah, that's the adjective I want to use. Interesting is, yeah, that's what I was going for. You have a beautiful head of hair. You are a hair person. Now, look, we've done this before, Sean. We've gone through the files across a couple of episodes. We're always looking in different places. I think the aftermath of them being released is going to go on for a really long time because it's impacting so many different areas, industries, professions, etc.

5:26I want to go through some of the correspondence today in the Epstein files. I'm going to let you do the honors here, though. Please just remind us what being mentioned in the Epstein files means. I think you're doing this to make sure people attack me when I say what I'm about to say again. But simply being mentioned in the Epstein file, here it comes, does not mean anything. The Epstein file is a compilation. It is basically not even a full-fledged investigation. Boy, that sounded like a rap lyric if there ever was one. It is literally just everything that possibly went into every tip, every nuance, everything that could be dealt with Jeffrey Epstein and all of the things that he had done wrong.

6:16And like you say, the files are wide ranging. Anybody could offer a tip off and put anybody's name in there. But there are levels to this. We have tip lines that are unverified. We have survivor statements that are in there. And we also have emails, correspondence back and forth. And this is the kind of evidence that we're focusing on today. So the spotlight is on these messages between Epstein and Ramsey Alcoly, who was a model scout based in the US. And through their correspondence in the files, you can see that he was introducing women as young as 18 to Jeffrey Epstein. He was discussing their bodies, their attitudes to sex.

6:52And I want to warn listeners before we go through some of these messages. the language is pretty graphic and pretty degrading so just be prepared for that the first one i want to pick up on as always we have the efta number that's efta 02030774 just google doj epstein and you can go through the files yourself using that efta number you will get this message this is from ramsey sent to jeffrey epstein in 2011 i'm in riga latvia amazing girls many blondes with great bodies redacted emailed me saying you quote killed her with your words calling her silly etc she is alone this last week in new york and has lost dollars you put the dollar sign on this trip she is desperate for cash i have been working on her she agreed with me that posing in lingerie is part of her job and she told me she would have no problem to do that with you but she doesn't have the courage to propose it herself i know it doesn't seem like much but it's a step.

7:50She plans on coming back to New York. So I'm thinking she could be an ongoing project. For me, it's a great experiment taking a girl who hadn't been with a guy until she was 23, open brackets, exclamation mark, close brackets, and then getting her to this point. I think you're in a good position because she is a drama queen. And in the past, she has said similar things, open brackets, Jeffrey killed me with his words, close brackets, and then you would call her the next day and she would be happy. She's sufficiently confused. And I think you can get some mileage out of this smiley face. Otherwise, hope all is fine with you.

8:23We'll keep you updated on my travels. Now, a few days later, Alcoli wrote again, quote, Jeffrey, please, in all caps, just try her in bed, dot, dot, dot. I really need that so I can feel whole about this because she's such a pain in the ass. I also think it would be good to get her to know what it's like to get really, he uses an expletive. We're not going to do that here right now, but that's what was said. Now, Alcoli claims he sent this email, so he admits to sending it, and he says he sent it with the woman's permission. We don't know what that woman has to say about that. Her name is redacted.

8:55Sean, I want to pick up on the language. I just read you that correspondence. Quote, she's alone. She's desperate for cash. I have been working on her. She's sufficiently confused. She could be an ongoing project. Now, she is redacted in that file, but if the woman in question sees these messages, identifies that it is her he is talking about. Can she raise this with the police or Sue saying, maybe I did know this message was being sent, but I didn't know at the time I was being groomed. But reading this message back, understanding coercive control, I can see now I was being coerced. I could see from a prosecution standpoint, utilizing that language to say that it mirrors what sex traffickers have been known to do.

9:42I could see a creative prosecutor taking language, and they have used language such as that to say, this is what we want to stop with sex trafficking. This is the language that the prosecutors utilized in the DIDI trial to say that this is coercive control. This is the language that our legislators have tried to take away from individuals to stop because it suborns the will of young folks who have not been properly developed, whether they are financially destitute, emotionally destitute. And we have people in positions of power and authority taking advantage of that situation and putting these young ladies into a situation they don't want.

10:21As you understand, Anish, as we've talked about, the person can consent, but they really are not consenting because they have taken away the will of that person. Yes, I want to work at your house, but I have nowhere else to work, and so I have to work for pennies on the dollar. Yes, I volunteered to have sex with you, but I didn't want to because I was in such a position that I didn't enjoy this. Yes, I got on your fancy plane or your boat, but you took advantage and you knew that I was in a weakened state of mind. So this could be looked at as a very scary language. Yes. And I understand the civil system in the U.S.

10:56is often the pathway that is open to justice for a lot of people because you can't force the police to open an investigation. This was sent in 2011, this email. But obviously the files were only released recently. If the young lady in question says, I didn't know this was written. I want the police to do something about this. I wasn't aware this existed. Could it bypass the statute of limitations? Because she's like, I literally didn't know this existed before, but this is, I believe, clearly indication that there was wrongdoing, criminal wrongdoing going on. Here comes my phrase. That's a great question.

11:30And you can look at it in two different ways. First, in a civil parlance, it's a new or should have known. When you are readily on notice that you should have known is what starts the statute of limitations. Like you said, I didn't know this email exists. I didn't know I was being coerced. I would not have known until 2026, and that would have been the argument that that is the date that the statute of limitations runs. In a criminal arena, specifically in the federal system, there's almost always about a five-year statute of limitation window, and it's not a new or should-have-known standard.

12:05It is the time in which the crime actually occurred. And we have those statute of limitations for a reason. Now, if you look in the federal system, they usually have them in five-year windows. there's a five-year statute of limitations for almost all misdemeanors and felonies. When you get to a more violent-esque type crime or crimes that could have some type of death, then you have a 10-year statute of limitations. Some of them have 20-year statute of limitations, but anytime you have charges, for the most part, involving minors, there are no statute of limitations whatsoever. Good federal prosecutors, however, Anushka, creative federal prosecutors come up with ways.

12:44You might have seen a trial that happened a year or so ago, RICO. You utilize the RICO charge and something of that nature to increase the statute of limitations as a possibility. But no, I guess the simplest way to answer your question, just finding out today, my belief does not increase and take the statute of limitations back to 2011. Yeah. And so for those of you who weren't with us during the Diddy trial, that RICO, So, I mean, you want to roll your R's? I don't know if I, Sean likes to say Rico, but I don't think that's how it's officially said in court. It's not official. It'll be changed.

13:22I'm working on a change on that. Oh, good to know. So that's what you're doing during the day. Alleging that they were running a racketeering enterprise, running a criminal organization. That was the allegation used against Diddy, obviously, that he wasn't convicted of that. But running a criminal organization to facilitate the sex trafficking of these individuals for their own personal sexual desires and proclivities, you're saying a creative federal prosecutor could try and raise that charge. It's quite hard to bring a RICO charge, though, right? Oh, completely. As you saw from the Diddy trial, just because I'm saying it doesn't make it easy.

13:56It's very hard to do that. And one of the reasons they had to do it is on a state level, the allegations that Diddy was looking at in California for abusing people and other states for abusing people, the statute of limitations had run. If you look in America, that statute of limitations is used a lot. Probably a great example. In 1950, the mob did this great Brinks truck robbery. Shut up, Anushka, and let me be a dork. In 1950, there was this. Here we go. The great Brinks truck robbery. the mob actually robbed this branch truck of like$3 million at the time. The statute of limitations on that state level was for six years.

14:34And so all of these mobsters got together. They got away with this crime and they said, nobody do anything. Nobody spend money for six years because if we wait till the end of six years, we can do whatever we want. Five days before the six years ended, one of the people turned snitch and they all ended up getting arrested. So the statute of limitations, did I say that incorrectly? The Statue of Limitations is created and people use it as a sword and a shield sometimes. Some criminals say, we're just going to hide out and wait until that statute runs. And that's one of the reasons that we have Rico, because these mobsters said, we're going to sit around and wait.

15:07And they created Rico so people couldn't just sit around and close their eyes and wait. Don't pick on me. I'm a dork. I'm not going to pick on you. But I do love it when you pull one out the archive, the personal archive. Wow. I caught what you just did there. Personal archives. No, I was not around in 1950, Anishka. Really? You could have fooled me. And they wonder why I talk about your hair. Just saying. You need to moisturize, honey. No, I'm just kidding. This man moisturizes a lot. I know his whole skincare routine. You know what? I'm just going to be quick. Nope. Nope. Nope. It's so interesting, though, because like you say, Sometimes we think of the law as quite a linear practice.

15:54You learn this, you prosecute this in court, but it's about doing things creatively. I want to read you some of the other sections of these correspondents. This is EFTA number 00771864. Now, this was sent three months after Epstein was released from prison after serving time for soliciting a minor for prostitution. This is what it says, quote, quote, redacted is also 23, very hot, blonde. We could set up a, quote, casting of some sort. I know her the least of all the girls, so maybe that would be the best way to play it. I know 23 is on the old side for you, but I think they're both worth meeting for different reasons.

16:31One is blonde arm candy, not sure if she has a boyfriend, and she's a business-minded sex machine. Then there is this one, EFTA 01059853. Now, this is part of an email chain about the launch of a French magazine in the US and Epstein advised El Coley not to invest. So he's asking him, should I invest in this? Epstein says, stay away. He spells that zero A W A Y. Anyone who's in the files themselves will know that this man frequently has atrocious spelling. It just happens throughout. It's just something we've picked up on, like really incomprehensible spelling. but anyway alcoli responds saying grr think of all the girls i would have effed dot dot dot okay i'll pass it on maybe just buy brazil for a couple hundred k that will ensure a steady stream of panani that is obviously a colloquial term for a vagina and then they go on to talk about no one's interested in print media anymore but it's going digital so they're discussing this business venture The next one is EFTA 00698203, where he says, this is El Coelho to Epstein, a Brazilian fashion magazine is for sale.

17:41If we can get it cheap, would you like to buy it together? All castings can come through New York, so you could easily have 20 to 30 girls trying for the cover each month. Just an idea. This is the last one I just want to read in this run of correspondence, EFTA 02634843. This conversation takes place over January to April 2019. They are discussing women and El Coley says, quote, she will be in London if you want to import her. Sean, I've just read you four or five messages there through these messages. It appears they are coordinating, Epstein and Alcoli are coordinating how to use modelling opportunities, castings and potential business ventures as a means for Epstein to have sexual relations with these women.

18:28We don't have evidence yet of what happened following these emails and we haven't had a response from Al Coley when we asked him about sending women to Epstein. But in one message when they are discussing if Epstein should invest in a modelling agency, Al Coley says, quote, I assume you are more interested in access to the, and then he uses an emoji rather than saying women, it's the emoji of a woman. We know models, Sean, we know this, we know models were among those who Epstein abused, which the FBI have estimated could total a thousand women and girls. In these messages, it's Alcoli who appears to be planning, organizing and acknowledging that Epstein's interest in modeling in the modeling industry was based on his access to the models.

19:08In fact, in one message, he appears to check if Epstein was, quote, getting some mileage out of a model being alone and cashless in New York. There are no known legal claims or charges against him relating to these interactions. The natural question here is, what is the bar, theoretically, for being a co-conspirator? Well, a co-conspirator liability is just that. Two individuals engaged in some type of criminal activity. It just takes two. Usually what you have to require is exactly what I said. Two or more people engaged in some type of criminal activity. The difficulty in proving co-conspirators have done something is what have they done in furtherance of the crime is the problem that most prosecutors have to prove.

19:54They may be into saying they're going to do something, but what have they done in furtherance of the crime? Again, a good, savvy prosecutor looking at those messages could say that these messages are sent in furtherance of a crime. And then all they have to do is prove the crime. So a young lady comes forth and says, I was sent. I went. I did. And then they have the email and say they are co-conspirator liability. And so what ends up happening is the actions that are taken by Jeffrey Epstein can be seen as the same actions as anyone who is tied into the conspiracy. So let's take that one step further, Anushka.

20:37Let's say for argument's sake, they have created a conspiracy. Let's say for argument's sake that these emails say that he has engaged, and just for argument's sake, engaged in some type of sex trafficking. and he's brought somebody over. Hypothetically, hear me, let's say then Epstein kills somebody. Let's say Epstein robs a bank. The co-conspirator is liable for everything that he has done in furtherance of that conspiracy, even though he had nothing to do with that part. And so being tied into a conspiracy ties you into everything your co-conspirator does until you affirmatively pull yourself out of the conspiracy.

21:20The BBC did ask El Coley for a statement, Fame Under Fire. Specifically, we asked him for a response and we haven't received one, but he did respond earlier to the BBC and he said he'd not been part of Epstein's inner circle. He said he regretted the language in some emails and his association with Epstein and that he'd not been aware the financier had been abusing women. I've read you the correspondence. If he says, I thought these women wanted to have sexual relations with Jeffrey Epstein. And I thought what was happening was whining and dining and romancing and everything was good and happy.

21:55Is that his defense to saying, yes, I was setting it up. Yes, I was introducing women to him. But I thought everything was, how was I supposed to know that he was an abuser? This is far reaching. I'm not saying this is actually happening, but if this was an actual scenario, that would have to be his defenses that I did not know. And there is a little charge in the federal system and some state systems that's called willful blindness. And that's where the judge tells the jury, you cannot just close your blind eye and just ignore what you reasonably should have seen. You know, you cannot say, I did not know what was going on because you did not want to look.

22:33As an individual, the federal system says you have a duty to look into some situations. Here's the most realistic example of what ends up happening in our situations. We have a young lady who lives with a man. The man does not have a job. He wears flashy jewelry and has six cars. He has multiple phones and he pays for all the bills and he gives her hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a week. But he does not work and does not file his taxes. And people come in inside the house and she sees white powder substance on her hands. She is interviewed by law enforcement. They say, did you know he's a drug dealer?

23:08I never asked about his business. I didn't know what he was doing. Well, the federal government says that's willful blindness. You should have known what he's doing because of what you're getting. The argument that they can make with those emails and messages is you are sending young ladies to him. You are sending young ladies who clearly, you know, by your own words, have issues, emotional issues, financial issues, you know. And then when you take the phrase that we've all utilized a million times when he says, well, I didn't know that was sex trafficking. The argument is always ignorance of the law is no excuse.

23:42You should have known what you were doing could run afoul of the law. That then creates our co-conspirator liability. And even though you did not know the abhorrent stuff that he was accused of doing, you should have known. And now you're a co-conspirator. Again, I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just giving an example of what could. We have invited Ramzi O 'Kholi to comment, but he hasn't responded yet. But we do need to be crystal clear here. As far as we're aware, he isn't under investigation, hasn't been arrested or charged, and we don't know of any civil claims against him. This discussion about criminal and civil liability is purely hypothetical.

24:14On the other side of this is the civil side, civil lawsuits and the civil route to justice. The women's names in these emails are redacted, but sometimes he appears to be speaking generally about women that he can send over. He says at one point you can fly these girls anywhere. Could the women represented by agencies he's affiliated with, he's a model scout, file a class action against him for workplace endangerment or a hostile work environment saying, we did not know at the time that you were behind the scenes talking to a convicted child sexual predator offering to fly us here, there and everywhere, telling him that we were in cities with no money, telling him our whereabouts and you endangered all of us because of your activity.

24:57So this is a class action. Yes, they could. And then you run into the phrase that we started at the beginning, statute of limitations. But if you look at certain states like New York, who remember when we all started this whole Diddy case, what did they do? The New York legislators went out of their way to re-increase that statute of limitations by creating a statute. And they said, look, this is awful. We should have a look back period a little bit longer because we wouldn't have known these situations. You look at the cases of Bill Cosby, you look at the case of Harvey Weinstein, you look at all these cases where they created these statutes that you could look back and come through, it could be the same situation here.

25:33We focus on these messages between Ramsey Alcoly and Epstein, but the unfolding after effects of the release of the files is far broader. It seems to be a broader reckoning in the modeling industry that goes beyond just this one model scout and his relationship with Epstein. On the 25th of March, 2026, Epstein survivors and fashion models released an open letter to the Attorney General of New York. This has been organized by a non-profit organization, Model Alliance, founded by Sarah Ziff. Ziff and more than 40 other survivors of fashion models impacted by sexual abuse and trafficking within the industry are calling for an inquiry into the modeling industry's role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's abuse.