In a passage from what appears to be a deposition or interview, DOJ-OGR-00022537.tif captures Ghislaine Maxwell making her case that one of the most famous images in the Epstein scandal is fake. The photograph in question shows Prince Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre, with Maxwell visible in the background. Maxwell doesn't mince words. She calls it "the fake" and says she can point to "potentially corroborating evidence" that "this whole thing was manufactured."
The Date Discrepancy Argument
Maxwell's argument hinges on handwriting found on the back of the photograph. According to her testimony, when Giuffre (referred to in the document as "Pasar," likely a transcription error or alternate spelling) gave the photo to the FBI in Australia, she had written on the back that it was taken in January 2000 or 2001. Maxwell states this detail appears somewhere in the discovery materials, though she can't recall exactly where.
The problem, as Maxwell sees it, is that the date later changed. "So now in her handwriting, that she's giving the FBI this picture, suddenly now it's March," Maxwell tells her legal team, which includes attorneys Diego Pestana and Todd Blanche. "So how do you go from her writing it's January to March."
The sentence breaks off mid-thought, leaving her explanation incomplete on this page. But the implication is clear: Maxwell believes the changing date undermines the photograph's authenticity or at least calls into question the circumstances under which it was taken.
What This Document Reveals About Defense Strategy
This exchange shows Maxwell actively participating in her own defense, reviewing discovery materials and identifying what she considers inconsistencies in the evidence against her. She's not passively receiving legal advice. She's directing her attorneys' attention to specific details, offering interpretations, and shaping the narrative.
The phrase "just to be clear" appears twice on this single page. Maxwell uses it when calling the photo fake. Diego Pestana uses it when confirming which photograph they're discussing. This repetition suggests both sides understand they're creating a record, choosing their words carefully for future use.
The Photograph's Journey
The document confirms several facts about the photo's chain of custody. Giuffre provided it to the FBI in Australia. She wrote information on the back herself. That information included a date. And that information appears in discovery materials available to both prosecution and defense.
What remains unclear from this excerpt is whether there are two different copies of the photo with different handwritten dates, whether the date was changed on the same photo, or whether Maxwell is misremembering or misinterpreting what the handwriting actually says. The document cuts off before Maxwell finishes her explanation with "It's because it" and continues on another page.
The Prince Andrew Question
This testimony directly addresses what Pestana calls "the famous one" showing Prince Andrew. The casual reference to its fame underscores how central this image became to public understanding of the case. The photograph has been published internationally, analyzed by photo experts, and discussed in countless news articles and legal filings.
Prince Andrew himself has questioned the photo's authenticity in interviews, though on different grounds than Maxwell raises here. His focus centered on details like whether his hand would rest that way around someone's waist and whether he typically dressed that casually. Maxwell's approach is more technical, focusing on documentation and dates rather than body language or fashion choices.
What the Document Doesn't Tell Us
This page raises more questions than it answers. We don't know what other evidence Maxwell planned to point to as "potentially corroborating." We don't see the actual handwriting she references. We don't know how the prosecution responded to this argument or whether forensic analysis of the photograph supported or contradicted her claims.
The document also doesn't reveal when this deposition or interview took place, though the presence of attorneys Pestana and Blanche and the reference to discovery materials suggests it occurred during active litigation. The formal transcript format with MAGNA Legal Services notation indicates this was an official proceeding, not an informal interview.
Reading Defense Arguments in Context
Documents like this require careful interpretation. This is Maxwell's version of events, presented through her attorneys in a setting where she has every incentive to cast doubt on evidence against her. The fact that she makes an argument doesn't make that argument true. It shows us what defense strategies looked like, what evidence the defense considered potentially exculpatory, and how Maxwell herself understood and explained the case against her.
The date discrepancy Maxwell identifies may have a simple explanation. People often misremember exact dates, especially years after events occurred. January and March are both plausible timeframes for the same event if someone is estimating based on memory rather than consulting records. Or there may be documentation that definitively proves when the photograph was taken, rendering the handwritten date less relevant than Maxwell suggests.
Why This Matters
This document matters because it shows us primary source material about how key figures in the Epstein case approached their own defense. Rather than relying on news reports about what Maxwell claimed, we can read her actual words in a formal legal setting. We can see what evidence she considered important, how she characterized it, and what interpretations she offered.
The photograph in question remains one of the most discussed pieces of evidence in the entire scandal. Understanding the arguments made about its authenticity, provenance, and meaning helps us evaluate competing claims about what happened and when. This single page doesn't resolve those questions, but it documents one side's attempt to do so.