In a transcript buried within the Department of Justice files, Ghislaine Maxwell makes a striking claim about one of the most widely circulated images from the Epstein scandal. During what appears to be a legal proceeding with attorneys Diego Pestana and Todd Blanche, Maxwell refers to the photograph showing Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre as "the fake" and attempts to build a case for why it should not be trusted.
The DOJ-OGR-00022537.tif document captures this exchange on page 145, where Maxwell states: "believe that this whole thing was manufactured, and can point you to some potentially corroborating evidence of this."
The Dating Discrepancy
Maxwell's argument centers on handwritten notes on the back of the photograph. According to her testimony, when Virginia Giuffre (referred to in the transcript as "Pasar") provided the image to the FBI in Australia, she included a handwritten notation on the reverse side. Maxwell claims this original notation indicated the photo was taken in January 2000 or 2001.
The supposed problem, as Maxwell presents it: "So now in her handwriting, that she's giving the FBI this picture, suddenly now it's March. So how do you go from her writing it's January to March."
This is Maxwell's evidence of fabrication. A date change from January to March, she suggests, points to manipulation of the timeline. Her implication is clear: if Giuffre changed the date on her own photograph, the entire image becomes suspect.
What The Argument Reveals
The transcript shows Maxwell was not simply denying the photograph's authenticity in a general sense. She was pointing to specific documentation that she believed existed in discovery materials. "This is in the discovery by the way," she tells her attorneys, though she admits uncertainty about exactly which discovery filing contained the evidence.
This level of detail suggests Maxwell's legal team had examined the physical evidence closely and developed a theory about how to undermine it. The strategy was not to claim the photo never existed or that the people in it were misidentified, but rather to argue the entire thing was "manufactured" based on inconsistencies in dating.
The attorneys in the room appear familiar with which photograph Maxwell is referencing. When she begins to describe it, Diego Pestana cuts in: "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?"
Maxwell confirms this is the image in question, immediately adding her characterization: "The fake, just to be clear."
The January Versus March Timeline
Why would a three-month discrepancy matter? The specific dating of encounters was central to the legal case against Maxwell and the allegations against Prince Andrew. If the photo could be shown to have been taken at a different time than claimed, it might cast doubt on the larger narrative of when Giuffre was in London and what occurred during that visit.
Maxwell's explanation for the date change is that it represents evidence of deliberate timeline manipulation: "It's because it" — and here the page ends, leaving her reasoning incomplete in this excerpt.
The transcript does not include responses from the attorneys about whether they found this argument persuasive or how they planned to use it. We see only Maxwell's presentation of the theory and her assertion that corroborating evidence exists somewhere in the discovery materials.
The Broader Defense Pattern
This exchange fits into a pattern of Maxwell's defense strategy that focused on attacking the credibility of accusers through detailed analysis of evidence. Rather than broad denials, her approach involved pointing to specific inconsistencies, suggesting coordination between accusers, and proposing alternative explanations for documented facts.
The reference to the FBI receiving the photograph in Australia is also notable. It confirms that Giuffre provided this evidence directly to federal investigators overseas, and that the image traveled through official channels with documentation of its provenance. Maxwell's argument requires believing that Giuffre altered her own handwriting on a photograph she was providing to law enforcement.
What Remains Unknown
The document leaves several questions unanswered. We do not see the photograph's reverse side or the handwriting in question. We do not know if the discovery materials Maxwell references actually support her interpretation. The transcript does not include any rebuttal or alternative explanation for why dates might have been written differently.
We also cannot tell from this excerpt whether Maxwell's attorneys found this line of argument useful or whether it ever appeared in court filings. The conversational nature of the exchange suggests this may have been an interview or deposition preparation session rather than testimony before a judge or jury.
What the document does show clearly is that Maxwell was prepared to call the photograph fake, had developed a specific theory about why it should be considered manufactured evidence, and believed she could point to documentation supporting that claim.
The Photo's Role in Public Understanding
The image Maxwell discusses became one of the most recognizable pieces of evidence in the entire Epstein scandal. Published widely in news coverage, it provided visual confirmation of connections that might otherwise have remained abstract. For many people following the case, it was the proof that made allegations concrete.
Maxwell's attempt to reframe it as fabricated evidence represents an effort to remove that anchor point from the narrative. If the photograph could be discredited, an entire chain of events built around that London visit might be called into question.
The transcript shows this was not a casual aside but a deliberate argument Maxwell wanted her legal team to pursue. She specifically asks who wants to look at an image, suggesting she had visual materials ready to support her claim. The level of preparation indicates this was a cornerstone of her defense approach to the Prince Andrew allegations.
Whether that approach succeeded or failed is not visible in this particular document. What remains is the record of Maxwell, in her own words, calling the photograph fake and explaining her reasoning for why investigators should doubt its authenticity.