A previously sealed portion of Ghislaine Maxwell's deposition reveals her direct challenge to one of the most recognizable pieces of evidence in the Epstein case. In DOJ-OGR-00022537.tif, Maxwell calls the photograph showing Prince Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre "the fake" and claims she can point to "potentially corroborating evidence" of fabrication.
The Timeline Discrepancy
Maxwell's argument centers on handwriting found on the back of the photograph. According to her testimony, when Giuffre provided the photo to the FBI in Australia, she had written a date on the back indicating it was taken in January 2000 or 2001. Maxwell notes this original dating was "in the discovery" materials, though she couldn't recall exactly which set of documents contained it.
The significance emerges in what happened next. Maxwell states: "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 shift from January to March matters because it relates to when Prince Andrew was actually in London, where the photograph was allegedly taken in Maxwell's Belgravia home. The timeline has been a contested element throughout the case.
The Context of the Statement
The deposition excerpt shows Maxwell speaking with Diego Pestana and Todd Blanche, members of her legal team. Pestana clarifies which photograph they're discussing by describing it as "the famous one where" Prince Andrew is "holding and you're in the background." This confirms they're addressing the widely circulated image that became central to allegations against the prince.
Maxwell's tone in the transcript is assertive. She doesn't hedge her claim that the photo is fake. She states it directly, then immediately offers to show an image to those present, asking "Who wants to look at it?"
What the Document Doesn't Tell Us
The excerpt ends mid-sentence with Maxwell beginning to explain why the date matters: "It's because it" and then the page cuts off. We don't get her complete reasoning for why a date change from January to March would indicate fabrication.
The document also doesn't include any response from her attorneys or any follow-up questions about the photograph. We don't know if Maxwell provided additional evidence to support her claim, or if experts examined the photograph for signs of digital manipulation.
Missing Context
Several key pieces of information remain unclear from this excerpt:
- Whether the handwriting Maxwell references was verified as Giuffre's
- Whether there were multiple versions of the photograph with different dates
- What other "potentially corroborating evidence" Maxwell claimed to have
- How her legal team responded to this line of argument
- Whether forensic analysis was conducted on the photograph itself
The Photograph's Role in the Case
This particular image has been central to public understanding of the allegations. It showed Prince Andrew with his arm around a young Giuffre, with Maxwell visible in the background. Prince Andrew has consistently questioned the photograph's authenticity, at one point telling BBC Newsnight he had "no recollection" of the photo being taken and suggesting his fingers in the image didn't look like his own.
The photograph was taken during a period when Giuffre alleges she was trafficked to Prince Andrew on multiple occasions. The image provided visual corroboration of at least proximity between the parties, even if it couldn't prove the alleged abuse.
Evidence Authentication Challenges
Maxwell's challenge points to a broader issue in cases involving historical evidence. Photographs can be difficult to authenticate decades after they're taken, particularly when the original physical print may have passed through multiple hands.
The handwriting on the back of a photograph represents a form of metadata, but unlike digital photos with embedded EXIF data, handwritten dates can be added or changed at any point. If Giuffre did write two different dates at different times, it could reflect uncertainty about exact timing rather than fabrication. Memory of specific dates can fade, even when memory of events remains clear.
Strategic Implications
Maxwell's statement in this deposition was made before her trial. Her legal strategy included challenging the credibility of her accusers and the evidence presented against her. Questioning the authenticity of this high-profile photograph fit within that broader defense approach.
However, at trial, the photograph was not the central evidence against Maxwell. Testimony from multiple women about her role in facilitating abuse formed the core of the prosecution's case. The photograph represented supporting evidence rather than the foundation of charges.
Reading Between the Lines
The excerpt shows Maxwell was prepared to engage with physical evidence in detail. She references discovery materials, indicates she's tracked down specific documents, and presents herself as someone who has studied the evidence carefully rather than simply denying allegations.
Her use of the phrase "just to be clear" before calling it fake suggests she wanted no ambiguity in the record about her position. This wasn't a casual suggestion of doubt but a direct assertion of fabrication.
The document also reveals the collaborative nature of deposition preparation. Maxwell offers to show an image to her attorneys, suggesting they're working through evidence together in real time.
What We Still Don't Know
This excerpt raises more questions than it answers. The full deposition would show whether Maxwell's timeline argument was developed further, whether she provided the corroborating evidence she mentioned, and how prosecutors or opposing counsel responded to these claims.
Most significantly, we don't see resolution. The document cuts off before Maxwell completes her thought about why the date change matters. That incomplete sentence holds potentially significant information about her theory of how and why the photograph might have been altered or misdated.
The photograph remains in evidence files, but Maxwell's challenge to its authenticity shows how even seemingly straightforward physical evidence can become contested ground in complex cases.