# Megyn Kelly says Thomas Markle shipping alleged abuse-image devices across oceans makes no sense

Kelly’s point was not that Thomas Markle is innocent, but that the story being sold through family members and tabloids has some very strange plumbing.

From [The Megyn Kelly Show](https://listenerreader.com/shows/megyn-kelly-show) with [Megyn Kelly](https://listenerreader.com/hosts/megyn-kelly)  
By ListenerReader Crime Desk, published 2026-10-28  
Canonical: https://listenerreader.com/story/megyn-kelly-says-thomas-markle-shipping-alleged-abuse-image-devices

[Megyn Kelly](https://listenerreader.com/guests/megyn-kelly) said on The Megyn Kelly Show that the child sexual abuse material accusations against Thomas Markle do not add up, especially the claim that he would pack alleged devices and ship them from Mexico to the Philippines. Kelly did not clear Markle, who denies the allegations, but she argued that several details in the tabloid and police accounts make little practical sense.

This is a bleak place for a podcast to put on its reading glasses, but Kelly’s instinct here is at least recognizably journalistic: stop staring at the headline explosion and look at the wiring. Who found what? Who called whom? Who got paid? Who had a motive? The story she read from the Daily Mail and The Sun is horrifying if true. It is also, in Kelly’s telling, weirdly convenient for a family that has spent years turning estrangement into content.

> I find it very difficult to believe, just my just my own opinion, that a grown man who is a pedophile, who is actively looking for children to violate would say say that to his ex-wife.
>
> Megyn Kelly, on the episode ([1:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG1RWYgKfJE&t=104s))

That line came after Kelly read the allegation attributed to Roslyn Loveless, Thomas Markle’s late ex-wife, who allegedly wrote that Markle said he traveled to the Philippines and Thailand because "12-year-olds are legal there." Kelly’s objection is blunt: criminals hide. They do not usually announce a monstrous itinerary to an ex-spouse like they’re reviewing TripAdvisor.

Is that a complete argument? No. People say insane, incriminating things all the time, especially to people they underestimate. But Kelly’s point is not worthless. The reported quote is so lurid, so perfectly awful, that it demands corroboration beyond the shock value of being repeated in a British tabloid.

## The border-crossing detail is Kelly’s strongest point

> What collector of child pornography do you know who boxes that stuff up on devices and crosses oceans, continents, and borders, and risks those devices being seized by immigrations and customs?
>
> Megyn Kelly, on the episode ([6:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG1RWYgKfJE&t=372s))

That is the piece of the episode with real search gravity. Kelly is asking a practical question, not a vibes question. The allegation she’s interrogating is that Thomas Markle Jr. found hundreds or thousands of images in boxes shipped from Rosarito, Mexico, to Cebu in the Philippines. Kelly’s read: if someone is hiding illegal material, physically transporting devices through borders is a bizarre way to do it.

The verdict: plausible skepticism, not proof. Criminals can be reckless. Elderly people can hoard old devices. Families can stumble into evidence in ugly, chaotic ways. But the international-shipping detail is not a footnote. It is the mechanical heart of the allegation, and it deserves more than the usual tabloid fog machine.

> I almost damn near dropped the phone and threw it away cuz I couldn't believe what I was looking at.
>
> Thomas Markle Jr., on the episode ([8:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG1RWYgKfJE&t=487s))

Kelly also pressed the behavior of Thomas Markle Jr., who described finding a horrific video and images. Her question was simple and ugly: if you really found that material, why keep looking, and why not call the police immediately? She floated the report that he may have been paid $80,000 for the interview. That allegation is not established in the transcript, but it explains why Kelly keeps circling the same drain: the story may be about evidence, or it may be about an estranged son discovering the market value of apocalypse.

> I see Dad every day. I think my brother wants revenge because the money wagon was cut off.
>
> Samantha Markle, on the episode ([10:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG1RWYgKfJE&t=622s))

Samantha Markle’s quote is not independent confirmation of anything. She has her own place in the Markle family grievance economy. Still, it gives Kelly a clean motive to contrast against the horror of the accusation: money, revenge, access, control. The oldest family plot in the world, now with a tabloid invoice attached.

## Then Kelly turns the knife toward Meghan

Kelly’s more combustible move is dragging [Meghan Markle](https://listenerreader.com/topics/meghan-markle) back into it. She notes that Meghan and Prince Harry were reportedly alerted in 2019 to the Loveless letter, then contrasts that with Meghan’s public language about women, girls, MeToo, and empowerment in the Netflix documentary era. Kelly’s implication is that if Meghan truly believed her father was an abuser, her public feminism should have sounded different.

That is where Kelly’s argument gets sharper but less clean. She is good at spotting contradiction as performance, and Meghan has built a brand out of moral clarity delivered in tasteful lighting. But a daughter’s reaction to an allegation against her father is not a press-release test. People freeze. They defer to police. They dissociate. They protect themselves. Kelly is on firmer ground when she asks who had the devices and who called law enforcement. She is on shakier, more familiar ground when she grades Meghan’s trauma response like a bad royal speech.

The hard questions now are not rhetorical. Did Filipino authorities forensically verify the devices? Who possessed them, and when? Did anyone contact police before the press? And if money changed hands for interviews, how much of this story is evidence, and how much is the Markle family business model discovering its darkest possible product?

## Source episode

Meghan Markle’s Father Hit with EXPLOSIVE Child Porn Accusations

- YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG1RWYgKfJE
- Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0awxEJH88Xur0GHXuteBLw
- Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-megyn-kelly-show/id1532976305