Prince Andrew breaks cover after US civil lawsuit: Duke is seen driving near Windsor Castle

31

View
comments

Prince Andrew has today been seen breaking cover after his lawyers submitted a blistering 36-page motion to dismiss a US civil case against him.

The royal, 61, has been spotted riding around the grounds of the Windsor estate on horseback, having earlier been seen driving a Range Rover near Windsor Castle.

He was photographed wearing a navy blue jacket and maroon jumper, both emblazoned with the crest of the Grenadier Guards.

Earlier this year the Duke of York retained his honorary role as colonel of the elite infantry unit, despite stepping back from front line royal duties amid sexual assault accusations.

It comes after his legal team filed a motion to dismiss a US civil case lodged against him by Virginia Giuffre.

The 38-year-old, previously known by her maiden named Roberts, claims she was sex trafficked to Prince Andrew on three occasions by convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the first time when she was 17. 

The Duke has consistently and vehemently denied her claims. 

Now Prince Andrew’s legal team in the US has lodged legal papers challenging his accuser over her claims she was abused.

The papers claim to expose Ms Giuffre’s ‘sex kitten’ past and accuse her of procuring ‘slutty girls’ for Epstein – who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

In court documents filed on Friday night, Andrew’s US legal team called Ms Giuffre’s lawsuit ‘frivolous’, saying: ‘She has initiated this baseless lawsuit against Prince Andrew to achieve another payday at his expense.’

They said she had profited from her association with Epstein, the convicted sex offender, for years and was willing to ‘milk the publicity’ for all she could but had not kept her stories straight. 

Lawyers also cited a story published in the New York Daily News in 2015 that claimed Giuffre recruited young women into Epstein’s sex trafficking ring and referenced former friends who had described her as a ‘money-hungry sex kitten’ who enjoyed a lavish lifestyle.

In a section of the legal papers headed ‘Giuffre’s role in Epstein’s criminal enterprise’, lawyers cite Crystal Figueroa, the sister of one of Giuffre’s ex-boyfriends, who claims she was asked by Ms Giuffre for help in recruiting underage girls.

The quote reads: ‘She [Giuffre] would say to me, ‘Do you know any girls who are kind of slutty?’

The court filing adds: ‘It is a striking feature of this case that while lurid allegations are made against Prince Andrew by Giuffre, the only party to this claim whose conduct has involved the wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse is Giuffre herself, including while she was an adult.’ 

In the New York Daily News article, which is cited in Prince Andrew’s response, one of Giuffre’s ex-lovers who would drive her to Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion told the news site: ‘She was like head b****.

‘She’d have like nine or 10 girls she used to bring to him. She never looked like she was being held captive…

‘She and the other girls would walk out of there smiling, with their little bathing suits on, like they had just come from the beach. She’d have like four grand. 

‘And then I’d take them all to the mall and they’d get their nails done.’

When Giuffre was in the middle of settling a lawsuit with Epstein in March 2015, the publication said former friends even claimed she was actually more of a ‘money-hungry sex kitten’ who enjoyed the lavish lifestyle than someone who was enslaved by the convicted paedophile.

Andrew’s lawyers have said in response: ‘Virginia Giuffre may well be a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein…and nothing can excuse, nor fully capture, the abhorrence and gravity of Epstein’s monstrous behavior against Giuffre, if so.

‘However, and without diminishing the harm suffered as a results of Epstein’s alleged misconduct, Prince Andrew never sexually abused or assaulted Giuffre.

‘He unequivocally denies Giuffre’s false allegations against him.’

The court documents went on to point out that ‘for over a decade, Giuffre has profited from her allegations against Epstein and others by selling stories and photographs to the press and entering into secret agreements to resolve her claims against her alleged abusers, including Epstein and his ex-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell’. 

It adds: ‘Epstein’s abuse of Giuffre does not justify her public campaign against Prince Andrew.’

The motion said that her ‘pattern of filing a series of lawsuits against numerous high-profile individuals should no longer be tolerated, as it continues to irreparably harm many innocent people’. 

‘Most people could only dream of obtaining the sums of money that Giuffre has secured for herself over the years,’ the legal papers read, noting that the money could serve as a ‘compelling motive for Giuffre to continue filing frivolous lawsuits against individuals such as Prince Andrew’.

The court documents also said that Giuffre has created ‘a media frenzy’ in the press, which has led ‘sensationalism and innuendo (to) prevail over truth’.  

Giuffre has been one of Epstein’s most outspoken accusers, claiming that she was a victim of his sex trafficking ring throughout the early 2000s when she was a teenager.

Giuffre’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley told the Sunday Times yesterday: ‘If Virginia Giuffre had stood silent in the face of outrageous statements like those Prince Andrew routinely churns out — his motion to dismiss the litigation being no exception — the decades-long sex-trafficking ring his friend Jeffrey Epstein operated and he participated in would have never been exposed.

‘On the subject of money, let’s be clear: the only party to this litigation using money to his benefit is Prince Andrew.’ 

The contents of the court papers outraged women’s groups and campaigners, with Andrew’s lawyers claiming Ms Giuffre had secured sums ‘most people could only dream of’ by filing lawsuits against Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, that were settled out of court. 

Joan Smith, former co-chairwoman of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women group said: ‘The Duke of York seems to be living in the 1950s when abused women were often described as gold diggers. Accusing a known victim of sexual exploitation of being motivated by money is about as low as you can get.

‘It is victim shaming and further evidence of his appalling judgment. Andrew is just dragging his reputation further into the gutter.’

Karen Ingala Smith, chief executive of NIA, a London-based charity aimed at ending sexual and domestic violence against women, said: ‘His lack of empathy and contempt for the victim-survivors of sexual violence is deplorable.

‘It is grossly dishonest to claim on one hand that sexual violence is abhorrent and then on the other to brand those seeking legal redress as frivolous money grabbers.’ 

Meanwhile Ms Giuffre’s lawyer last night said she may subpoena Andrew’s ex-wife Sarah Ferguson and daughters Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie and force them to testify under oath. 

Sigrid McCawley and her team are examining Andrew’s infamous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis for ‘inconsistencies.’

She wants to quiz Andrew’s ex-wife and daughters about his alibi, including that he was in Pizza Express in Woking on the day in 2001 when Ms Giuffre claims she was first forced to sleep with him.

Ms Giuffre’s legal team may also seek the Duke’s medical records after he claimed he could not have been ‘sweating profusely’ on a dance floor, as Ms Giuffre alleged, because he suffers from a medical condition which stops him perspiring. 

A legal source familiar with the case told the Mail on Sunday: ‘It is not a good look for Andrew and his team to victim shame his accuser. This could backfire badly in the court of public opinion.’

The first pre-trial hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday in New York.

Last night, a source close to Prince Andrew, 61, said: ‘He has utter sympathy for all and any women who are victims of attacks. But he has himself been accused of the most heinous crime and he is adamant he is innocent. For too long he has kept quiet and his accuser has poured vitriol and foul unproven accusations towards him.

‘So guess what, he is fighting back with all his might to achieve justice in the courts and in the court of public opinion. He is saddened that the legal fight is so personal, but this was not something he started. He is fighting for his life.

‘His lawyer is merely pointing to documents which are part of the evidence which will be crucial to whether his accuser is seen as truthful and convincing or lacking. Andrew hates the personal nature of what has emerged and what has been said about him, but his lawyers want to use everything possible to show that he is not guilty as accused.’

The prince’s friend added: ‘It’s an affront to natural justice that somebody can be accused of the most vile of crimes and yet when forced to defend himself runs into trial by mob and lobby. Let’s not forget that Mrs Giuffre launched this legal suit and the duke is perfectly entitled to mount a legitimate defence as part of the process.

‘Allegations are easy to make and it is near impossible to fight once they’ve been made, but it is not victim blaming to point out inconsistencies and defects in the plaintiff’s claims. We all seek the same end result: the truth.’