Epstein Data Wiki

Virginia Roberts Giuffre

Properties2
tagsperson, survivor, cvra, maxwell-case, civil-litigation
aliasesVirginia Giuffre, Virginia Roberts, Virginia L. Giuffre

20 min read

Born1983, California1
Died25 April 2025, Neergabby, Australia2
Known forSurvivor of Jeffrey Epstein who litigated publicly under her own name1
CounselBoies Schiller Flexner LLP, including Sigrid McCawley and David Boies; Cooper & Kirk PLLC in the closing stage of the Dershowitz case34
OrganisationSpeak Out, Act, Reclaim (SOAR)1
Civil actionsGiuffre v. Maxwell, S.D.N.Y. 15-cv-07433 — settled and dismissed on or about 24 May 20175 · Giuffre v. Dershowitz, S.D.N.Y. 19-cv-03377 — dismissed with prejudice, no costs, 9 November 20224 · Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, S.D.N.Y. 21-cv-06702 — settled February 2022, dismissed with prejudice 8 March 2022678
MemoirNobody’s Girl, published posthumously on 21 October 20259

Virginia Roberts Giuffre (1983–2025) was an American survivor of Jeffrey Epstein who, from 2014, pursued her allegations publicly and under her own name rather than pseudonymously.1 She moved in December 2014 to join the Crime Victims’ Rights Act action in the Southern District of Florida, sued Ghislaine Maxwell for defamation in 2015, sued Alan Dershowitz for defamation in 2019, sued Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, then Prince Andrew, in 2021, and addressed the United States District Court in Manhattan at the hearing held after Epstein’s death in August 2019.1061112 Maxwell, Dershowitz and Andrew denied her allegations. The Maxwell and Andrew suits settled without any admission of liability, the Dershowitz suit was dismissed by agreement in 2022 after she said she might have been mistaken in identifying him, and in 2015 a federal judge struck the detail of her allegations from the Florida record as immaterial to the claim before him, without deciding whether it was true.127413 She died in Western Australia on 25 April 2025.2

Her account

Giuffre said that she met Maxwell while working as a locker-room attendant at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach in 2000, that Maxwell offered her the chance to train as a massage therapist, and that what she expected to be a job interview became the start of years of abuse by Epstein.1 Addressing Judge Richard M. Berman on 27 August 2019 she said:1014

When I was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell at Mar-a-Lago, just before I was 17, I thought I was given a big break, and I’d be able to reset my life and become an actual real massage therapist. My hopes were quickly dashed, and my dreams were stolen.

Maxwell denied assaulting her.1 Asked at her deposition of 22 April 2016 in the defamation case how Giuffre had come to Epstein’s house, Maxwell answered “Ms. Roberts held her to be a masseuse and her mother drove her to the house”; asked when she first met her, she said “I don’t have a recollection of the first meeting,” and asked whether she recalled meeting her at Mar-a-Lago, “Like I said, I don’t have a recollection of meeting Ms. Roberts.”15

The CVRA joinder motion, 2014–2015

On 30 December 2014 two further pseudonymous victims moved under Rule 21 to join the Crime Victims’ Rights Act action pending before Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the Southern District of Florida; Maxwell’s later filings in her own criminal case describe that joinder motion as Giuffre’s.1216 The order records that the movant “proffers that she could prove the circumstances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein sexually trafficked her to several high-profile non-party individuals, ‘including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders,’” and that “[s]he names several individuals.”12 The order does not name them; among those named in the motion, according to Maxwell’s later filing, were Maxwell herself, Dershowitz and Jean-Luc Brunel.1216 Neither the order nor the passage it quotes names the prime minister.

Judge Marra denied joinder on 6 April 2015 and, on his own motion under Rule 12(f), struck the factual detail about non-parties, holding that “[t]he factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent to this central claim,” which was whether the government owed the movants duties under the Act.12 The order did not decide whether the struck allegations were true: the court wrote that the movant “is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof,” and a footnote reserved any opinion on whether the attestations she had filed would be relevant, admissible and non-cumulative.12 Dershowitz, a non-party named in the struck material, had moved to intervene to strike it and to seek a show-cause order against her lawyers; the court denied that motion as moot, declined to issue a show-cause order, and said that striking the material “is sanction enough” while cautioning all counsel under Rule 11.12

Giuffre v. Maxwell, 2015–2017

On 2 January 2015 a public-relations representative acting for Maxwell, Ross Gow of ACUITY Reputation, circulated a statement to British media on Maxwell’s behalf denying the allegations and describing them as “obvious lies.”17

Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation over that statement in the Southern District of New York in 2015, in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433, before Judge Robert W. Sweet.1819 The government’s later summary of the case states that “Giuffre alleged that Maxwell had defamed her when Maxwell stated that Giuffre was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell,” and that “Giuffre alleged that Maxwell had made those false statements for the ‘malicious purpose of further damaging a sexual abuse and sexual trafficking victim; to destroy Giuffre’s reputation and credibility; to cause the world to disbelieve Giuffre; and to destroy Giuffre’s efforts to use her experience to help others suffering as sex trafficking victims.’”20 Maxwell was deposed by Boies Schiller, counsel for Giuffre, on 22 April and 22 July 2016.18 The appearances page of the April deposition lists Sigrid McCawley and Meredith Schultz of Boies Schiller Flexner, Brad Edwards and Paul G. Cassell for the plaintiff, and Jeffrey S. Pagliuca and Laura A. Menninger for Maxwell.3 The parties settled and voluntarily dismissed the action on or about 24 May 2017; the terms were confidential and a settlement is not an admission.5

Maxwell maintained her denial after the settlement: her pre-trial motion in the criminal case, filed in 2021, again called Giuffre’s allegations “fantastical.”21

United States v. Maxwell

Two perjury counts in the superseding indictment against Maxwell were founded on her answers at the 2016 depositions in Giuffre’s defamation case.22 Judge Alison J. Nathan held on 16 April 2021 that the perjury charges were “legally tenable” and that Maxwell’s defences to them were for a jury, and separately granted her motion to sever them for a separate trial.2223 They were never tried: at Maxwell’s sentencing on 28 June 2022 the government moved to dismiss the two counts, and the court granted the motion.24

Giuffre was not one of the four women who gave evidence at the trial, which ended in Maxwell’s conviction on five of six counts on 29 December 2021.125 In its sentencing memorandum the government submitted that the Guidelines calculation should include two additional groups relating to two victims, one of them Giuffre, and that although they “do not appear by name in the indictment,” Application Note 6 to U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3 “expressly instructs” that each minor whose abuse forms part of the relevant conduct “shall be treated as if contained in a separate count of conviction”; the government had notified the defence in advance that it intended to prove that the conspiracy involved six victims and “did just that at trial.”26 The defence objected to those two victims being treated as separate offence groups and preserved the objection.27

The August 2019 hearing

Epstein was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on 10 August 2019.28 On 27 August Judge Berman convened a hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss the indictment and invited the accusers to speak, saying he did so in part “as a measure of respect that we have for the victims’ difficult decisions to come forward”; sixteen women spoke and statements by several others were read by their lawyers.29 Giuffre was among those who addressed the court.10 She told the court:1410

I am a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in the dark and cruel and criminal acts they committed against me and hundreds of other girls and young women for years and years and years, unstopped.

and, of the investigation that continued after Epstein’s death:1410

He will not have his day in court, but the reckoning of accountability has begun … The reckoning must not end. It must continue. He did not act alone and we, the victims, know that.

Judge Berman dismissed the indictment on 29 August 2019, incorporating the hearing transcript by reference and underscoring the significance of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.29

Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 2019–2022

The joinder motion of December 2014 alleged that Epstein had forced her to have sex with Dershowitz, and on 16 April 2019 she sued him for defamation in the Southern District of New York, case 19-cv-03377, before Judge Loretta A. Preska, over his public denials of her account.1611 Dershowitz denied the allegation and counterclaimed against her for defamation.214

On 9 November 2022 the parties filed a stipulation dismissing the action “with prejudice and without costs or award of fees to either party,” with all rights of appeal waived; the docket was terminated the following day.4 CNN reported that Giuffre issued a statement saying that she had been young when she was trafficked by Epstein and in a “very stressful and traumatic environment,” and that “I now recognize I may have made a mistake in identifying Mr. Dershowitz.”13 CNN reported that Dershowitz said he had never had sex with her, that “I have nevertheless come to believe that at the time she accused me she believed what she said,” and that “[s]he has suffered much at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, and I commend her work combatting the evil of sex trafficking”; he also acknowledged that his own allegation of an extortion plot involving her lawyer David Boies had been mistaken.13 A joint statement said the resolution “does not involve the payment of any money by anyone or anything else.”13

Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, 2021–2022

On 9 August 2021 Giuffre sued Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, then Prince Andrew, Duke of York, in the Southern District of New York before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, pleading battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress and alleging that Epstein had lent her out to him for sexual purposes when she was 17.6 Andrew denied the allegations. In a BBC Newsnight interview in 2019 he said he had no recollection of ever meeting her and that her account of them having sex “didn’t happen”; his answer of 26 January 2022 denied the complaint’s allegation that the suit arose out of his sexual abuse of her and its allegation that she was lent out to him, and admitted that he had met Epstein in or around 1999.130 Judge Kaplan refused to dismiss the case on 11 January 2022, adding that nothing in his opinion should be read as indicating a view on the truth of the charges.31

On 15 February 2022 the parties filed a joint statement recording an out-of-court settlement whose sum “is not being disclosed,” an intention by Andrew to make “a substantial donation to Ms. Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights,” and his acceptance that she “has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks.”7 The statement records that he “regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others,” and contains no admission of liability.7 The action was dismissed with prejudice on 8 March 2022 pursuant to a settlement agreement dated 12 February 2022.8

Advocacy

Giuffre founded a non-profit organisation, Speak Out, Act, Reclaim (SOAR), to advocate for survivors of trafficking.1 She gave her first British television interview to the BBC’s Panorama, broadcast on 2 December 2019 as “The Prince and the Epstein Scandal,” in which she appealed directly to the public: “I implore the people in the UK … to not accept this as being OK.”32 Buckingham Palace said in response to that programme that the Duke “unequivocally regrets his ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein” and “deeply sympathises with those affected who want some form of closure”; that statement did not address her allegation of sexual abuse, which he denied separately.321

Investigators’ assessment of her account

In February 2026 the Associated Press, reporting on internal Justice Department records released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, wrote that investigators had interviewed Giuffre in 2011 and 2019. Giuffre had died on 25 April 2025, over nine months before that reporting; no response from her to the investigators’ findings is recorded on this page, and none could be.233 “Investigators said they confirmed that Giuffre had been sexually abused by Epstein,” the AP reported, “[b]ut other parts of her story were problematic.”33 According to the AP, a 2019 internal memorandum recorded that two other victims she had said were also lent out told investigators they had no such experience, that “[n]o other victim has described being expressly directed by either Maxwell or Epstein to engage in sexual activity with other men,” and that she had “engaged in a continuous stream of public interviews about her allegations, many of which have included sensationalized if not demonstrably inaccurate characterizations of her experiences.”33 The AP reported that Giuffre wrote in her posthumously published memoir that prosecutors had told her they did not include her in the case against Maxwell because they did not want her allegations to distract the jury, and that she maintained that her accounts of being trafficked to prominent men were true.33 The government’s own position at Maxwell’s sentencing, in June 2022, was that it had proved her abuse at trial.26

Death

Giuffre died at Neergabby, Australia, on 25 April 2025, at the age of 41. Her family said in a statement that “[s]he lost her life to suicide, after being a lifelong victim of sexual abuse and sex trafficking.”2 NBC News reported that she had provided information to law enforcement that contributed to the investigation of Epstein and to Maxwell’s conviction.2 Her memoir, Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, was published posthumously by Alfred A. Knopf on 21 October 2025.9

Coverage

  • Renae Merle and Matt Zapotosky, The Washington Post, 27 August 2019, on the CVRA hearing.
  • BBC Panorama, “The Prince and the Epstein Scandal,” 2 December 2019.
  • Kara Scannell, CNN, 8 November 2022, on the end of Giuffre v. Dershowitz.
  • Sarah Fitzpatrick and Rich Schapiro, NBC News, 25 April 2025, on her death.
  • Michael R. Sisak, David B. Caruso and Larry Neumeister, Associated Press, 8 February 2026, on the released Justice Department records.

Footnotes

  1. “Virginia Giuffre: What we know about Prince Andrew’s accuser,” BBC News, 12 January 2022. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59974220 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  2. Sarah Fitzpatrick and Rich Schapiro, “Virginia Giuffre, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s most prominent abuse survivors, dies by suicide,” NBC News, 25 April 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-giuffre-one-jeffrey-epsteins-prominent-abuse-survivors-dies-s-rcna203027 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y.), taken 22 April 2016, transcript p.2, the appearances page (page 2 of the PDF). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003556 ↩ ↩2

  4. Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice, Giuffre v. Dershowitz, No. 19-cv-03377-LAP (S.D.N.Y.), Document 506, filed 9 November 2022, page 1 of 3 (“the parties to the above-entitled action hereby stipulate that said action be dismissed with prejudice and without costs or award of fees to either party. All rights of appeal are hereby waived.”), signed for Giuffre by Cooper & Kirk PLLC; first filed as Document 505 on 8 November 2022 and returned by the clerk for a signature deficiency. Docket terminated 10 November 2022. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.513818/gov.uscourts.nysd.513818.506.0.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  5. Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition, page 91 of 237 (“On or about May 24, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and voluntarily dismissed the civil action”). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00095067 ↩ ↩2

  6. Complaint, Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, No. 1:21-cv-06702 (S.D.N.Y.), Document 1, filed 9 August 2021, paragraphs 1–6 and 10 (paragraph 10 pleads battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress and states her age as 17). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.1.0.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Joint letter to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and its attached statement, Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, Documents 78 and 78-1, filed 15 February 2022. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.78.1_1.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. Stipulation of Dismissal, Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, Document 83, filed 8 March 2022, page 1 of 2 (“pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and the parties’ settlement agreement dated February 12, 2022”). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.83.0.pdf ↩ ↩2

  9. Hillel Italie, “Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre wrote a memoir. Months after her death, it’s coming out,” Associated Press, 24 August 2025 (memoir titled Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, from publisher Alfred A. Knopf, set for release 21 October 2025). https://apnews.com/article/virginia-giuffre-memoir-jeffrey-epstein-11a44440f4d0e50c8d6f3741640540d2 ↩ ↩2

  10. Renae Merle and Matt Zapotosky, “‘The reckoning must not end’: Epstein’s accusers urge prosecutors to pursue his enablers,” The Washington Post, 27 August 2019 (“‘The reckoning must not end. It must continue,’ said Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who sued Maxwell in 2015”). https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/at-hearing-to-dismiss-jeffrey-epsteins-charges-those-who-say-he-abused-them-given-chance-to-be-heard/2019/08/26/35cb03c2-c83a-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  11. Complaint, Giuffre v. Dershowitz, No. 1:19-cv-03377 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 16 April 2019. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017935 p.1, read at the image on 2026-09-14. The identifier’s corpus row is not one page but a 174,119-character merge of the whole 28-page filing, so a pin taken from the row binds nothing — but the sheet is one sheet, and an earlier version of this footnote ran the two together and said the identifier “could not be rendered and checked at the image level”. It reads. It is the complaint’s caption page, stamped Case 1:19-cv-03377 Document 1 Filed 04/16/19 Page 1 of 28, captioned VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. ALAN DERSHOWITZ, Defendant, headed COMPLAINT over “Boies Schiller Flexner LLP”, with the case number line left blank. What is true of the route is that the site’s PDF store returns HTTP 403 for HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_* identifiers. Nothing on this page quotes a specific page of the complaint beyond that caption; the general description above is confirmed against the complaint’s own text. A page-specific citation to the body of this filing should use the cleanly split duplicates at https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017936 through https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017962 (pages 2–28), which were not opened by this pass. ↩ ↩2

  12. Order Denying Petitioners’ Motion to Join Under Rule 21 and Motion to Amend Under Rule 15, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), signed 6 April 2015 by Judge Kenneth A. Marra, pp.5–7, 9 and 10 of the order (pages 6–8, 10 and 11 of the PDF). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003725 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  13. Kara Scannell, “Epstein victim drops allegations against Alan Dershowitz, saying she ‘may have made a mistake’,” CNN, 8 November 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/08/us/alan-dershowitz-virginia-giuffre-allegations-dropped ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  14. Transcript, United States v. Epstein, hearing of 27 August 2019, printed p.56 (page 56 of the PDF), verified against the page image. The transcript redacts the speaker’s name on this page; the identification of this speaker as Giuffre rests on contemporaneous press reporting, not on the transcript itself. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00019994 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, 22 April 2016, transcript pp.16–17 (pages 9–10 of the PDF), verified against the page images. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003556 ↩

  16. Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (S.D.N.Y.), stamped Document 208, filed 16 April 2021, pages 6–7 of 16. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003709 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  17. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six, United States v. Maxwell, page 8 of 16 (the statement of 2 January 2015, quoted as Exhibit N), verified against the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003709 ↩

  18. The Government’s Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant’s Pre-Trial Motions, United States v. Maxwell, No. S1 20 Cr. 330 (S.D.N.Y.), page 90 of 237 (protective order entered 18 March 2016; depositions of 22 April and 22 July 2016). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00095067 ↩ ↩2

  19. Protective Order, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002371 ↩

  20. The Government’s Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant’s Pre-Trial Motions, United States v. Maxwell, stamped Document 204, filed 16 April 2021, page 89 of 239. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002935 ↩

  21. Memorandum of Law in Support of Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (S.D.N.Y.), stamped Document 136, filed 4 February 2021, page 8 of 27 and its footnote 3 (Dershowitz counterclaim). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002410 ↩ ↩2

  22. Opinion & Order of Judge Alison J. Nathan, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 16 April 2021, page 21 of 34. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00029540 ↩ ↩2

  23. Opinion & Order of 16 April 2021, page 2 of 34 (“The Court concludes that severance is appropriate and will try the perjury counts separately”). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00029540 ↩

  24. Sentencing transcript, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, 28 June 2022, page 99 of 101, verified against the page image (“The government moves to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments. THE COURT: The motion is granted.”). In the first superseding indictment the perjury charges were Counts Five and Six; they were renumbered Seven and Eight. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩

  25. FBI New York Field Office summary of United States v. Maxwell: trial began 29 November 2021, verdict of guilty on five of six counts on 29 December 2021, sentence of 20 years on 28 June 2022. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01648995 ↩

  26. The Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, stamped Document 670, filed 22 June 2022, page 17 of 55. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010536 ↩ ↩2

  27. Sentencing transcript, page 50 of 101 (defence objection preserved as to two further victims being treated as separate offence groups). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩

  28. Transcript, United States v. Epstein, No. 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.), hearing of 27 August 2019, printed p.3 (page 3 of the PDF). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00019994 ↩

  29. Larry Neumeister, “Judge ends case against Epstein, with a nod to the accusers,” Associated Press, 29 August 2019. https://apnews.com/article/9032d5b4c8bb4175958da4e545f60543 ↩ ↩2

  30. Answer and Affirmative Defenses and Demand for Jury Trial, Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, Document 71, filed 26 January 2022, pages 1–2. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.71.0.pdf ↩

  31. Opinion, Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, Document 64, signed 11 January 2022 and entered 12 January 2022, printed page 44 (page 46 of 46 of the PDF) (“nothing in this opinion or previously in these proceedings properly may be construed as indicating a view with respect to the truth of the charges or countercharges”). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.64.0.pdf ↩

  32. “Prince Andrew accuser asks public to ‘stand beside her’,” BBC News, 2 December 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50607705 ↩ ↩2

  33. Michael R. Sisak, David B. Caruso and Larry Neumeister, “FBI concluded Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t running a sex trafficking ring for powerful men, files show,” Associated Press, 8 February 2026. https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-epstein-client-list-sex-trafficking-049c96080a2ca2c12c84ac506437e50b ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

Backlinks