Did you actually read my post?
Meghan claims the reason she cut off contact with her father is because of a vague, unspecific claim that his bitter ex-wife made 44 years after they had divorced in a diatribe against him. Would you cut off your father for something like that or would you not confront him first and ask him what that's about? I couldn't care less whether Meghan talks to her father or not, but when she is the one rushing to justify to the public why she cut her father off, then I as a member of the public have the right to say that doesn't sound very plausible, especially given how she mixed up the date and this happened many months after her wedding (which itself, according to her, happened three days before it happened) when she already seemed estranged from her father. It seems more the case that she's rushed to retrofit these allegations from her brother to justity her much earlier estrangement from her father and have a dig at the media (while also using them to publicise her version of things).
As for the police passing the letter on to the relevant authorities, there were no relevant authorities to pass it on to because no crime had been alleged in the letter. Meghan herself showed the relevant bit to the tabloids, and all that Roslyn (bitter ex-wife) seems to have written is that Thomas allegedly said to her that he goes to the Philippines and Thailand because 12 year olds are legal there. And this would have been years after their divorce, so what would she really know and we don't even know the context of the conversation. If he really did say it, he could have just said it because he wanted to annoy her (they seemed to have been having a row in that conversation). Meghan implying that there was to be an investigation when there was nothing to investigate makes me even more sceptical towards her.