I haven't watched it but I thought this article by Julie Bindel was very interesting.
The Hounding of Jane Andrews
She's served her time, bloody well leave her alone, you gutter hacks.
Julie Bindel
Feb 22, 2026
I have known Jane Andrews, subject of yet another salacious TV programme, since 2001. ITV’s new drama series The Lady, which is said to portray the ‘true crime story’ of a ‘rags to riches’ royal aide to Sarah Ferguson, will be on our screens from tonight (22nd February).
In 2001, after being convicted of the murder of her boyfriend Thomas Cressman, she asked Justice for Women (JfW) for help in appealing her conviction. Her grounds? Cressman’s sexually abusive and violent behaviour towards Andrews during their relationship, and her diminished responsibility as a result of child sexual abuse.
There was evidence to support both the abuse by Cressman, and the terrible effects of child abuse, which was presented to the court.
Andrews failed in her appeal; she never really stood a chance. You see, she was notorious for something other than the murder: between 1988 and 1997, she had worked for Sarah Ferguson, then Duchess of York, as her personal dresser. As a working-class girl from Grimsby, she was subjected to class prejudice and ridicule in her role, and came under press scrutiny alongside Ferguson, who was major tabloid fodder at the time.
Toe-sucking, paid for from the public purse (the holiday at least)
Andrews was released from prison in 2015, having served 14 years. Since the conviction more than a dozen documentaries and dramas in which she is depicted have been aired on mainstream TV. Last time around, with the release of an ITV documentary in 2021 entitled ‘Fergie’s Killer Dresser’, Andrews was doorstepped by scumbag hacks who identified her place of work and published a photograph of her taken outside her home. This resulted in her losing her job stacking shelves in a local supermarket.
I wrote about this, in the Telegraph, which you can read here, in order to try to present the other side of the story: The only one we hear, repeatedly, is that Andrews is a cold blooded murderer, who killed her boyfriend because he wouldn’t marry her.
But despite the fact that there are way more newsworthy crimes, that definitely remain in the public interest, than the one committed by Andrews, this story runs and runs, calling into question the notion of rehabilitation and fairness. For example, in the build-up to the 2021 documentary, a hack assigned to the story snapped a photo of her at her workplace car park.
Now The Lady, and what must feel like endless attention for Andrews, as well as Cressman’s grieving family. A tabloid reporter sat in a Mercedes outside Andrews’ home for two days, regularly getting out of the car to door knock. Here she is, captured by a doorbell camera.
The hack from hell: Tracey Kandohla
I post this image in case anyone reading this finds themselves subject to similar press scrutiny, for issues not at all in the public interest. Andrews is not a danger to the public. She has served her time, and is trying to lead a quiet life. But, for the purpose of entertainment, the media continues to harass her relentlessly.
As her legal former legal representative at the appeal (heard in 2003), Harriet Wistrich, Centre for Women’s Justice, has put out this statement regarding the media harassment Andrews has faced. This includes endless regurgitation of the Jane Andrews story by one production company after another – a story that would have had very little traction were it not for the connection to the Royals, plus of course, the current hysteria around the story of the former Duke and Duchess of York.
When I met Andrews, it was to help understand her story for the purposes of the upcoming appeal, supported by Justice for Women, and to get as much information as possible about the build-up to the homicide. I believed her. Not because she’s a woman, not because I am naive, and not because I had any axe to grind or ulterior motive, but because the evidence was compelling. I have kept in touch with Andrews over the years, whenever she has yet again been exposed – including where she works and lives as she tries to get on with her law-abiding life. This latest breach of her privacy has included revealing the name she has been known by since the last wave of intrusion by journalists.
This constant scrutiny, in pursuit of a story elevated only because of the royal family connection, has not helped the family of the deceased in any way at all. Andrews was tried, convicted, and has served her full sentence in prison. This constant hounding is inhumane and cruel.
The Lady has been made, at great expense, by the same people who brought us the similarly inaccurate The Crown. Perhaps it will prove mildly entertaining, even though the story is as well-worn as the shoe leather on the doorsteppers. But it is built on exploitation and reckless disregard – not just for Jane Andrews, but for all those affected by the death of Thomas Cressman. Shame on them.