Delhi | 25°C (windy)

The Unmasking: Ghislaine Maxwell's Email Shatters Prince Andrew's Denials

  • Nishadil
  • February 05, 2026
  • 0 Comments
  • 3 minutes read
  • 7 Views
The Unmasking: Ghislaine Maxwell's Email Shatters Prince Andrew's Denials

Ghislaine Maxwell Confirms Infamous Prince Andrew Photo is 'Real' in 2016 Email

A newly unsealed 2016 email from Ghislaine Maxwell confirms the authenticity of the scandalous photo showing Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre, directly contradicting the Duke of York's repeated denials.

Well, talk about a bombshell. For years, the infamous photograph of Prince Andrew with a then-teenage Virginia Giuffre (who was known as Virginia Roberts at the time) and Ghislaine Maxwell lurking in the background has been a central, often hotly debated, piece of the Prince Andrew scandal. Andrew himself, you might recall, repeatedly cast doubt on its authenticity, even suggesting it could be doctored. But now, it seems those denials have been utterly, definitively shattered, not by some new forensic analysis, but by none other than Ghislaine Maxwell herself, in a 2016 email that has only just come to light.

The revelation comes from unsealed court documents, stemming from Giuffre’s defamation lawsuit against Maxwell. The key moment? An exchange with Vicky Ward, a journalist from Vanity Fair, who was, quite rightly, digging into the Jeffrey Epstein saga. Ward sent Maxwell an email in February 2016, specifically asking about that photo – the one where Andrew has his arm around Giuffre's waist, right inside Maxwell's London townhouse. Ward’s question was direct: "Is the picture of Andrew with Virginia real? Do you know where it was taken?"

Maxwell's reply, delivered just hours later, was succinct, yet incredibly damning. "It’s a real photo," she wrote. And as if to underline her certainty, she added, "I’m standing right there." A simple, unequivocal confirmation. No room for ambiguity, no talk of deepfakes or clever photo manipulation. She was there, she saw it, she knows it's real. This single sentence absolutely torpedoes Prince Andrew's long-standing narrative that he had no recollection of ever meeting Giuffre, let alone being photographed with her in such a familiar pose.

You know, it makes you think back to Andrew’s infamous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, doesn’t it? The one where he insisted he couldn't possibly be in that photo, citing a peculiar alibi about being at a Pizza Express in Woking on the very day Giuffre alleged their encounter. He questioned the photo’s veracity, his memory, everything. Yet, here we have his close friend and associate, Maxwell, essentially pulling the rug right out from under him, years before that interview even took place.

But wait, there’s more. Ward’s email also pressed Maxwell on another crucial point: "Did Virginia Roberts ever work for Jeffrey?" Maxwell’s reply was equally blunt: "Yes, she worked for Jeffrey." This is a significant detail, validating Giuffre’s own consistent accounts of being trafficked by Epstein and, by extension, confirming her direct involvement within Epstein's disturbing orbit, which Andrew always sought to distance himself from. It’s a rather stark, almost chilling, admission, wouldn't you say?

This email isn't just another piece of evidence; it's a definitive historical marker in the ongoing saga surrounding Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein's network. It firmly establishes the authenticity of a photograph that has long been dismissed or downplayed by Andrew’s camp. Maxwell, who is now serving a lengthy prison sentence for her own role in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation, has, through this old correspondence, inadvertently provided perhaps the most powerful and undeniable confirmation yet against Prince Andrew's denials. It's a truth, finally, directly from the source.

Disclaimer: This article was generated in part using artificial intelligence and may contain errors or omissions. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. We makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Readers are advised to verify the information independently before relying on