In a deposition transcript preserved as DOJ-OGR-00022537.tif, Ghislaine Maxwell made a striking claim about one of the most widely circulated images connected to the Epstein case: she called it "fake."
The photograph in question shows Prince Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre (then Virginia Roberts), with Maxwell visible in the background. It became central to Giuffre's allegations that she was trafficked to Prince Andrew when she was 17. Maxwell's response in this deposition reveals her defense strategy and raises questions about evidence handling in the investigation.
The Date Discrepancy
Maxwell pointed to what she described as contradictory date annotations on the photograph itself. According to the deposition, when Giuffre provided the image to the FBI in Australia, she had written on the back that it was taken in January 2000 or 2001. But Maxwell claimed that in subsequent FBI discovery materials, the date had changed to March.
"So now in her handwriting, that she's giving the FBI this picture, suddenly now it's March," Maxwell stated. "So how do you go from her writing it's January to March."
The implication was clear: Maxwell believed the inconsistency undermined the photograph's authenticity or at least the reliability of Giuffre's account. She told her attorneys Diego Pestana and Todd Blanche that she could "point you to some potentially corroborating evidence" that "this whole thing was manufactured."
What the Transcript Shows
The exchange reveals several significant details. First, Maxwell clearly understood the photograph's importance to the case against her and Prince Andrew. She didn't dance around it or claim not to remember. She engaged directly, calling it "the fake" and offering to show her legal team an image.
Second, she had studied the discovery materials closely enough to notice the date annotation change. Whether this discrepancy exists as she described it, or whether there's an innocent explanation like different dating conventions or clerical errors, remains unclear from this excerpt alone.
Third, she referenced seeing the annotation "in the discovery" but then expressed uncertainty about "which discovery" it appeared in. This suggests multiple rounds of document production, common in complex federal cases.
The Attorney's Confirmation
Attorney Diego Pestana's interjection is telling: "Just to be clear, the photo, you're talking about, you're talking about the famous one where Prince Andrew is holding and you're in the background?" He needed no further description. By the time of this deposition, the image had become so central to public understanding of the case that "the famous one" was sufficient identification.
The Broader Evidence Question
Maxwell's claim raises uncomfortable questions about evidence authentication in high-profile cases. Photographs can be powerful evidence, but they can also be manipulated, misdated, or misremembered. The context surrounding an image matters as much as the image itself.
If Giuffre did write different dates at different times, it could reflect the difficulty of remembering exact timing years after events occurred. Memory researchers have documented how dates and sequences can shift in recollection, especially for events from adolescence recalled in adulthood.
Alternatively, if Maxwell's characterization is accurate and there are genuinely contradictory annotations in FBI materials, it would represent a significant documentation problem. Federal evidence protocols exist precisely to prevent such discrepancies from casting doubt on legitimate evidence.
What We Don't See
This excerpt doesn't show us the photograph itself, the actual handwritten annotations, or the FBI's chain of custody documentation. We see only Maxwell's characterization of a discrepancy. The document has been viewed 141 times in the archive, suggesting researchers have found it noteworthy, but without the corroborating materials Maxwell referenced, we can't verify her claims.
The deposition also doesn't reveal when this exchange took place, though the document's FOIA source indicates it came from Department of Justice materials obtained through public records requests.
The Defense Strategy
Maxwell's immediate labeling of the photograph as "fake" fits a consistent pattern in her defense: outright denial rather than qualified statements or claims of poor memory. She didn't say "I don't remember that photo being taken" or "I'm not sure about the circumstances." She said it was manufactured.
This aggressive stance carried risks. If prosecutors could establish the photograph's authenticity beyond Maxwell's date annotation argument, her categorical denial would damage her credibility on other matters. But it also served notice that her legal team intended to challenge every piece of evidence rather than concede points and focus defense resources elsewhere.
Why This Matters
The photograph debate illustrates how criminal cases can hinge on seemingly minor details. A discrepancy between "January" and "March" might seem trivial years after the fact. But in a case where establishing timelines, travel schedules, and the ages of alleged victims is crucial, a three-month difference could matter.
More broadly, this exchange shows how evidence that seems straightforward to the public can become contested terrain in depositions and courtrooms. The image that launched countless news articles and social media discussions was, to Maxwell's defense team, a document with authentication problems.
Whether Maxwell's claims about the date annotations held up under scrutiny, we don't know from this excerpt. What we do know is that she saw this line of attack as important enough to raise unprompted and offer to present supporting materials to her attorneys.
The transcript ends mid-sentence, leaving Maxwell's argument incomplete in the available record. Like so much in the Epstein archive, it offers a glimpse into legal strategy and disputed facts without providing final answers.