What physical or documentary evidence was introduced in the settlement with Prince Andrew?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The settlement between Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre did not introduce new physical exhibits or documentary evidence as part of a public trial record because the case was resolved out of court and dismissed before trial, meaning there was no courtroom airing of evidentiary materials [1] [2]. The primary documents that featured in pre-settlement litigation were previously existing materials — notably Giuffre’s 2009 settlement with Jeffrey Epstein and a disputed 2001 photograph — which were litigated during motions but were not “introduced” as part of the February 2022 settlement itself [3] [4].
1. Why there was no new evidence presented: settlement ends trial process before evidence hearing
Because the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, the civil case never proceeded to a trial where physical or documentary evidence would be formally introduced and tested before a jury or judge, and the settlement letter expressly prevented a “further airing of accusations and evidence” in open court [1] [2]. The settlement was announced weeks before a scheduled sworn deposition of Prince Andrew and the filing that announced the deal stated the parties would file a stipulated dismissal once payment arrangements were completed, thus foreclosing the discovery‑to‑trial sequence that produces admitted evidence [5] [2].
2. What pre‑existing documents were already in play during the litigation
Before the settlement, Giuffre’s 2009 settlement with Jeffrey Epstein — a previously sealed agreement that was unsealed and published in early January 2022 — was central to motions over whether she could sue other “potential defendants,” and that 2009 document had been cited by both sides in pre‑trial filings [3] [4]. Judge Lewis Kaplan addressed the language in the Epstein‑Giuffre settlement during hearings, noting ambiguities in terms such as “potential defendants” and ruling that the Andrew case could proceed despite claims the earlier agreement precluded it [4].
3. The disputed photograph and evidence custody questions
A photograph dated March 2001 showing Prince Andrew with his arm round Giuffre was a focal point of defense requests for access during discovery: Andrew’s lawyers asked for the original photograph, reporting that the original was not in Giuffre’s possession and that she had at one time given an original to the FBI in 2011 [4]. That photograph, and questions about its provenance and who held the original, were part of pending discovery, but because the settlement precluded trial they were never adjudicated as evidence in court [4] [1].
4. Financial and documentary disclosures tied to settlement payment — what is public and what is not
Court filings announcing the settlement noted financial terms were “not being disclosed” and described a substantial donation to Giuffre’s charity as part of the deal, but the settlement filings did not attach or disclose transactional evidence identifying the payment source in the public record [2] [6]. Subsequent reporting and questions about how Andrew funded the payment — including speculation about loans or third‑party payments — concern post‑settlement finance evidence outside the court’s settled civil docket and were not produced as part of the dismissal documents [7] [8].
5. How the record now stands: admitted evidence versus pre‑existing documents cited in filings
The formal court record that concluded the case consists primarily of the settlement letter and a stipulation of dismissal; it contains no record of new evidentiary introductions such as sworn trial exhibits because no trial occurred [2] [8]. The most consequential documentary materials that shaped pre‑settlement litigation were the unsealed Epstein‑Giuffre 2009 settlement and litigation over the photograph and discovery requests — documents litigated in motions and public reporting but not “introduced” in a post‑settlement trial process [3] [4].
The public record therefore shows litigation over pre‑existing documents and discovery disputes, but the settlement itself did not produce new physical or documentary evidence entered into a courtroom evidentiary record; reporting and follow‑up investigations have pursued ancillary questions (such as payment sources) outside the settled civil docket [1] [7].