Fact check: What did Virginia Giuffre say about Prince Andrew in her 2015 deposition?

Executive Summary — What Giuffre Said in 2015, Briefly and Directly

Virginia Giuffre’s public statements and court filings assert she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and that she had sexual encounters with Prince Andrew, which she dated to when she was a minor; Prince Andrew has consistently denied the allegations. The key documented materials include her diary entries, deposition testimony (filed in related litigation and referenced in later releases), and media extracts that summarize her claims and the defendants’ responses ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

1. Eye-opening Allegations: Giuffre’s Core Claim of Trafficking and Sexual Encounters

In her accounts Giuffre states she was trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell and that she was directed to have sexual encounters with high-profile men, including Prince Andrew; this trafficking claim is central to what she said in testimony and related filings, and the allegation includes the assertion that some encounters occurred while she was underage, which escalated legal scrutiny and public attention ^{[2] [4]}. The narrative underpinning these claims is also supported by a detailed diary entry she kept, which chronicles an alleged encounter with the prince and emphasizes both the preparation for and aftermath of the meeting, adding contextual detail that Giuffre has cited when recounting events ^[1]. These materials portray a pattern of coercion and orchestration by Epstein and Maxwell according to Giuffre’s statements ^{[4] [2]}.

2. Specifics Reported: Times, Settings and Code Words in Testimony

Giuffre’s sworn statements and related records assert specific elements: she said encounters with Prince Andrew occurred multiple times, that organizers used the euphemism “massage” to mean sexual activity, and that intermediaries arranged travel and logistics for meetings in locations including London and New York; these particulars appear across depositions and released documents that later publications summarized ^{[4] [1]}. The 2015–2016 documentary trail and subsequent filings consolidated her descriptions into an account of repeated meetings and an operational pattern by Epstein’s circle to “place” girls with powerful men, a claim Giuffre reiterated in media excerpts and legal statements ^{[5] [4]}. Those elements form the factual backbone of what she reported when questioned under oath and in contemporaneous writings ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Legal Context and Record Releases: How the Deposition Became Public

The materials cited by outlets and in court filings show that Giuffre’s statements first surfaced through legal actions connected to lawsuits against Epstein and Maxwell; a combination of sealed and then released documents, plus media reporting and diary excerpts, brought her 2015–2016 accounts into the public record, prompting further examination of Prince Andrew’s contacts with Epstein’s network ^{[4] [1]}. Court documents summarized her allegations and described trafficking claims—language that framed subsequent civil suits and public debate—while journalists extracted and reported diary passages and deposition summaries to outline the allegations with dates and descriptive specifics ^{[2] [1]}. The release of those records over time allowed multiple outlets to compare Giuffre’s sworn statements to contemporaneous entries in her diary ^[4].

4. Responses and Denials: Prince Andrew’s Position and Public Reaction

Prince Andrew has consistently denied the allegations attributed to Giuffre, and reporting on the deposition materials has emphasized that denial alongside Giuffre’s claims, creating a factual dispute reflected in court filings and public statements; major summaries and timelines of the controversy note both Giuffre’s claims of sexual abuse and Andrew’s categorical denial ^{[3] [6]}. Coverage and legal commentary placed those oppositions in broader context—examining how the allegations affected Andrew’s public role and generated civil litigation—while noting that Giuffre’s deposition and diary entries were relied upon by prosecutors, plaintiffs, and journalists to frame the central factual questions at issue ^{[6] [2]}. The juxtaposition of a detailed accuser narrative and a firm denial by the accused has driven both legal settlements and reputational consequences reported over time ^[3].

5. Corroboration, Disputes and What the Records Do Not Settle

The assembled records and reporting present corroborating details—travel arrangements, diary entries, and testimony about code words—but they stop short of resolving every disputed fact in public view, leaving some details contested in court and in the press; while Giuffre’s diaries and sworn statements provide a consistent narrative, others cited by documents and later reporting have disputed specifics or offered alternative interpretations that remain part of the record ^{[1] [4]}. Journalistic accounts compiled timelines and contextualized the allegations within broader investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, showing how Giuffre’s deposition fit into a larger evidentiary mosaic without singularly deciding contested points of credibility or motive ^{[6] [2]}. The records therefore function as substantial allegations and exhibited evidence rather than as an unambiguous legal adjudication of every contested assertion ^{[4] [2]}.

6. Why This Matters: Legal and Historical Significance of the 2015 Statements

Giuffre’s 2015–2016 deposition excerpts and diary entries played a central role in subsequent civil litigation and public scrutiny of elite networks associated with Epstein, prompting settlements, media investigations, and lasting reputational impact for those accused; these documents were repeatedly cited as foundational to claims about trafficking and recruitment practices attributed to Epstein and Maxwell ^{[4] [5]}. The detailed descriptions in her diary and testimony also influenced investigators’ and journalists’ attempts to map alleged encounters and logistics, and they shaped how courts and the public assessed the broader allegation set against Prince Andrew and other named individuals, contributing to legal outcomes and policy debates about trafficking and accountability ^{[3] [2]}.