What evidence supported Virginia Giuffre’s allegations against Prince Andrew and what was established in court filings?

1. What Giuffre alleged and where those claims first appeared

Giuffre’s claims — that she was sex‑trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and forced to have sex with Prince Andrew on multiple occasions when she was 16–17 — were set out in sworn affidavits and civil complaints beginning with filings in Florida in 2015 and later in New York in 2021 under New York’s Child Victims Act ^{[1] [4] [5]}. Her New York complaint specifically alleged three encounters in locations including Maxwell’s London home, Epstein’s Manhattan mansion and Little Saint James island, and tied those allegations to the broader pattern of trafficking she described in earlier filings ^{[1] [4]}.

2. The evidentiary anchors Giuffre’s lawyers advanced

The publicly discussed pieces of evidence cited in filings and reporting included Giuffre’s sworn statements and a photograph showing Prince Andrew with his arm around Giuffre’s waist — an image Giuffre’s team said was taken shortly before an alleged assault — plus corroborating timelines and references to earlier legal submissions in Epstein‑related litigation ^{[2] [4] [1]}. Court papers and media accounts also emphasized documentary discovery potential that Giuffre’s lawyers argued would yield further proof about movements, contacts and contemporaneous records tied to Epstein’s network ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Prince Andrew’s denials and legal defenses

Prince Andrew consistently denied the sexual‑assault allegations, and his lawyers mounted multiple procedural and substantive defenses: they argued Giuffre’s earlier settlement with Epstein precluded her claims, contended the events did not give rise to liability and characterized her motivations as financial, and at one point framed consent as a contested factual subject given the age and jurisdictional issues; Andrew’s team also sought to force broad discovery from Giuffre’s residence history and to litigate jurisdictional questions ^{[3] [5] [6]}. Reporting noted the defense said Andrew would have been prepared to take the case to trial if necessary ^[7].

4. What the court actually established before settlement

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Andrew’s motion to dismiss in January 2022, allowing Giuffre’s case to proceed to discovery and a planned deposition — a ruling that rejected several grounds raised by the defense and opened the path to probing documents and testimony ^{[1] [5]}. The case never reached a jury: the parties announced an out‑of‑court settlement in February 2022, under terms that included a substantial, undisclosed payment and a pledged donation by Andrew to Giuffre’s charity; the settlement expressly contained no admission of liability by Andrew and led to a dismissal with prejudice after the payment was made ^{[3] [2] [8] [9]}.

5. What remains established, what remains unresolved, and the incentives at play

Court filings and rulings established that Giuffre’s claims were legally viable enough to survive early dismissal and to compel discovery and deposition, and they confirmed the existence of documentary and testimonial avenues that would have been pursued had the case proceeded to trial ^{[5] [1]}. What the settlement did not establish is a judicial finding of guilt: parties expressly recorded no admission of liability, and the out‑of‑court resolution means contested factual disputes — including whether specific sex acts occurred and who saw them — were never adjudicated at trial ^{[3] [9]}. The timing of the settlement, weeks before a scheduled sworn deposition, and the defense’s prior tactical motions have prompted observers to note potential incentives for both sides — Giuffre securing compensation and official recognition, Andrew avoiding the risks and exposure of a public trial — an inference supported by reporting about the timing and the defense’s earlier insistence on litigating the case ^{[3] [2] [5]}.