If Prince Andrew is as saintly as his lawyers would have you believe — and Virginia Giuffre is indeed a publicity-hungry liar — here’s what His Royal Highness can do to prove it: order the release of records that would substantiate his alibi on the night she alleges he raped her.
In a searing Friday night court filing in New York, the Duke of York’s high-powered legal team called Giuffre’s lawsuit against the royal “frivolous,” proclaiming: “She has initiated this baseless lawsuit against Prince Andrew to achieve another payday at his expense.”
Attorney Andrew Brettler — widely known for representing A-List men accused of rape —added: “Without diminishing the harm suffered as a result of Epstein’s alleged misconduct, Prince Andrew never sexually abused or assaulted Giuffre.
“He unequivocally denies Giuffre’s false allegations against him.”
Brettler added: “Accusing a member of the world’s best known royal family of serious misconduct has helped Giuffre create a media frenzy online and in the traditional press. It is unfortunate, but undeniable, that sensationalism and innuendo have prevailed over the truth.”
In today’s cultural climate, there is a world of difference between the truth, and a competing narrative. Inevitably, a narrative can obscure the truth. But as time has proven, the truth is almost always revealed.
Prince Andrew, ninth in line to the British throne, now faces that moment of reckoning.
To date, the 61-year-old Duke has asked us to take as fact his strenuous words of denial about Giuffre, in declaring he had an alibi in that disastrous November 2019 interview with Emily Maitlis for BBC's Newsnight.
For her part, Giuffre has said that they partied at Tramp, a nightclub in London on March 10, 2001, before going back to the home of Epstein’s alleged pimp, Ghislaine Maxwell, where Giuffre claims she had sex with the Queen’s second son.
He said he was at home after attending a children’s party at Pizza Express in Woking, a town in northwest Surrey.
The prince said: “I was with the children and I’d taken Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking for a party at I suppose four or five in the afternoon … and then because the duchess [Sarah Ferguson] was away, we have a simple rule in the family that when one is away the other is there.”
Undeniable facts lay within the secret files of Scotland Yard, the HQ of Britain’s premier police force, yet they’ve refused to release them.
A Freedom of Information Act request was previously denied, which would presumably reveal the movements of Prince Andrew’s bodyguards’ on that day given the Metropolitan Police provides the royals with security services.
In rejecting the request, Scotland Yard claimed the information “could undermine the safeguarding of national security, allowing those with a criminal intent to gain an operational advantage over the MPS and place those who the MPS have confirmed are afforded protection, as well as protection officers, and members of the public at risk.”
But if he’s innocent, Prince Andrew should tell Commissioner, Cressida Dick, to lift the veil of secrecy.
It would prove his alibi, and substantiate Brettler’s claim that “Giuffre has initiated this baseless lawsuit against Prince Andrew to achieve another payday at his expense and at the expense of those closest to him.”
Despite the seemingly candid opportunity to protest his innocence, it’s not a path Prince Andrew’s legal eagles look like pursuing anytime soon however.
The Royal Observer has confirmed the Prince’s legal eagles are doing a deep dive background check into Giuffre and have hired at least two private detectives “in an attempt to discredit Virginia,” a source told this website.
Brettler comes from the L.A.-based firm Lavely & Singer, presided over by Martin D. Singer, the “pit-bull” attorney-to-the-stars whose known for brass knuckles tactics and a do everything “at all costs and at any cost” litigation strategy, said a legal source.
“The decision to use the privilege of court papers to effectively ‘slut shame’ Virginia is nowhere near as low as Prince Andrew’s team is prepared to go.”
Lavely & Singer’s clients have included Bill Cosby, John Travolta, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Charlie Sheen, Steven Seagal, Eddie Murphy and Nicolas Cage.
Brettler is also presently representing alleged serial rapist Danny Masterson, a Scientologist, who in January pled not guilty to rape in three incidents dating back to the early 2000s. The That ‘70s Show actor has also faced allegations from at least two other women.
“If you thought Lavely & Singer was above attacking a purported victim in today’s #metoo environment, think again,” said one legal foe who has faced off against the firm in multiple court cases.
“You would think that the cultural reckoning might change the firm’s tactics, but it’s the same playbook. Trash, trash, trash — rinse, and repeat. Trash, trash, trash.”
Not surprising, in the wake of Brettler’s 36-page court filing, Prince Andrew was accused of “victim shaming.”
Joan Smith, former co-chairwoman of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women group said: “The Duke of York seems to be living in the 1950s when abused women were often described as gold diggers. Accusing a known victim of sexual exploitation of being motivated by money is about as low as you can get.
“It is victim shaming and further evidence of his appalling judgment. [Prince] Andrew is just dragging his reputation further into the gutter.”
Only the Prince himself can decide if the gutter is where he ought to be — or use the power of being a member of the British monarchy to compel police and prove once and for all his innocence.
If there’s proof he didn’t rape Epstein victim, Prince Andrew should demand it be released.
Dylan Howard is the author of Royals at War and the co-author of Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales. His sequel, with Melissa Cronin and James Robertson, titled Epstein & Maxwell, Inc.: How the US Government Helped Make Spying, Sex Trafficking, and Blackmail Big Business is out later this year. This article originally appeared on Knewz.com.
Howard’s three-part series on Prince Andrew exclusively written for Knewz.com can be viewed below:
Lavish mansions. Millions laundered through tax havens. Clandestine visits to three of Queen Elizabeth II’s royal residences. Secret pay-offs. A super-grass with sensitive kompromat. Thirty-six young victims that US law enforcement agencies have linked to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, at least, six of whom are British born. And a UK police force that has shut down every complaint. Why? Over three parts, a bombshell Knewz.com investigation reveals the full story of a global sex ring that Scotland Yard willfully ignored, and that may now bring down the House of Windsor.
In the first part of our explosive investigation we detailed how the British police force willfully ignored sex crimes committed on British soil by Jeffrey Epstein, in order to preserve his status as government informant – and protect high-profile British figures associated with him. Now we examine just how that cover-up could come crashing down.
For years, the British Metropolitan Police have repeatedly — and it seems willfully — chosen to ignore accusations made against serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Was it in a bid to cover up his associations with the cream of the British establishment, including the Queen’s second son, Prince Andrew? In the third part of our investigation, we uncover just how catastrophic that cover-up could prove… for the Prince, for the Met, and for British national security.