Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records
Snapshot
- The released correspondence documents Jeffrey Epstein offering to introduce Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew and Duke of York, to women, arranging accommodation and transport, organizing social company and discussing visits afterward. Ghislaine Maxwell and David Stern appear as intermediaries in separate chains. These records establish specific arrangements and communications; they do not make every introduction a proven sexual encounter.
- Virginia Giuffre’s 2011 FBI interview and Johanna Sjoberg’s sworn deposition contain distinct allegations involving Andrew. Giuffre alleged sexual encounters in London, New York and the Virgin Islands. Sjoberg described breast touching during a photograph in New York. Andrew denies sexual wrongdoing. Neither allegation became a criminal conviction or a civil trial finding against him.
- The December 2010 massage correspondence preserves a woman’s own account after giving massages to “andrew” and another person. She asked Epstein for help with train travel, explained that she was exhausted and had examinations, and eventually said she had resolved the transportation problem herself. The complete chain is more informative than the isolated massage reference.
- The 2022 settlement statement acknowledged Giuffre as an established victim of abuse, recorded Andrew’s regret for his association with Epstein and provided for a substantial donation to her charity. It disclosed no settlement sum and contained no admission that Andrew sexually abused her.
- Thames Valley Police’s May 22, 2026 update distinguished an ongoing misconduct in public office investigation from its separate assessment of a woman’s report concerning a 2010 Windsor visit for sexual purposes. The February arrest concerned suspected misconduct in public office. The arrest was not announced as a sex offense charge and did not adjudicate Giuffre’s allegations.
- This review is current through September 30, 2026. It follows the publicly located records concerning introductions, women and girls, travel, visits, payments, alleged encounters and subsequent discussions. It is not a complete inventory of every Andrew reference in millions of released pages. Redactions remain intact, repeated productions are treated as copies, and unidentified correspondents are not assigned to named survivors.
Evidence comparison chart
| Record group | What is documented | What remains unestablished |
|---|---|---|
| The 2000 manifest and ledger | A flight manifest names Prince Andrew; two $200 ledger entries refer to massages for “Andrew” | The ledger recipient’s full identity, the masseuses’ identities and ages, and whether either massage involved sexual activity |
| Maxwell’s Peru correspondence, 2002 | Plans for introductions, sightseeing and discretion; Andrew’s agreement to leave the arrangements to Maxwell and her contact | Who was introduced, whether the planned meetings occurred, ages or sexual conduct |
| The August 2010 introduction | Epstein proposed dinner with a woman he described as 26 and Russian; Andrew agreed to contact | A completed dinner or sexual encounter |
| The September palace exchange | Andrew offered Buckingham Palace; Epstein asked about bringing companions; further messages adjusted the guest list | A complete attendance record or what happened during private time |
| The December massage chain | A correspondent reported giving massages and requested transportation assistance | Her age, a sexual act, a completed payment or an explicit full identification of “andrew” in that message |
| The Giuffre and Sjoberg accounts | Identifiable allegations, with overlapping descriptions of a New York photograph involving a puppet | A finding that Andrew committed the alleged acts, or that Sjoberg witnessed Giuffre’s alleged sexual encounters |
| The 2013 Stern message | Epstein proposed another woman for dinner with Andrew through an intermediary | That Stern transmitted the offer, Andrew accepted it or the dinner occurred |
| The 2022 settlement | The parties resolved the civil suit on undisclosed financial terms | An admission of assault, a public damages finding or a verified settlement amount |
How to read the arrangement records
A contemporary email can document an offer, an instruction, a response or a report of an experience. Those are different stages. A booking is not an attendance register. An invitation to a woman is not proof that she was trafficked. A request for money is not a bank transfer. An account of completed conduct deserves attention without being promoted automatically to an independently proven event.
FBI interview summaries preserve what a person told agents. They are not verdicts. Search warrant affidavits contain investigators’ interpretations offered to establish probable cause. Complaints contain a party’s allegations. A settlement ends litigation under agreed terms without necessarily deciding the underlying facts.
The word “girls” does not supply an age. The word “massage” must be read in the context of the particular witness or message. Some witnesses described sexual abuse associated with massages; others described clothed or professional treatments. Names also require care: the corpus contains several people called Andrew, and an isolated first name cannot always be assigned conclusively to the former prince.
The 2000 flight and two massage ledger entries
The estate production released by House Oversight Democrats, page 6, contains a Hyperion Air passenger manifest for May 12, 2000. It records aircraft N908JE traveling from Teterboro, New Jersey, to West Palm Beach, Florida, as trip 1338. Prince Andrew is named alongside Epstein, Maxwell, Adam Perry Lang and a bodyguard. Other passenger entries are redacted or nonspecific.
The same production’s ledger pages, pages 4 and 5, record two $200 credit entries classified as checks. One is dated February 11, 2000, with the memo “Massage for Andrew.” The other is dated May 16, 2000, with “Massage Andrew for” followed by a redaction. The accounting category is massage, exercise and yoga. The visible name field on the May entry says “Massage”; it does not name a masseuse.
These are two dated accounting entries, not two independently identified victims. The ledger does not give Andrew’s surname or title, name the recipients, establish their ages, or say the massages were sexual. The May entry is four days after the manifest’s flight, but proximity does not prove that the entry records a treatment on the flight or during a particular stay.
The committee’s release notice itself used qualified language about possible payments to masseuses for a person identified as Andrew. The flight manifest’s explicit royal identification is firmer than the ledger’s first name alone. The ledger should not be described as a check from Andrew to a woman, because it is Epstein’s accounting record.
Giuffre’s London account begins with preparation and an introduction
EFTA01249101, the FBI’s March 17, 2011 interview summary, pages 9 and 10, records the preparation Giuffre described before meeting Andrew. She said Maxwell told her she would be dancing with the Queen’s son, took her shopping for clothing and makeup and used her own credit card. Giuffre described meeting Andrew at Maxwell’s London residence, then traveling to Tramp nightclub with Epstein and Maxwell.
The summary records Giuffre saying that Epstein and Maxwell asked Andrew to guess her age and that he correctly answered 17. It also records her account of him touching her while they danced, their return to Maxwell’s home, a photograph she asked Epstein to take, and sexual activity afterward. These details are Giuffre’s account to investigators, including her allegation of Andrew’s knowledge of her age; they are not independent findings about his knowledge.
Giuffre’s 2021 complaint, paragraphs 36 through 47, framed the encounters as coerced sexual abuse while she was being trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell. Her allegation was not simply that an introduction took place. She alleged that she lacked freedom to refuse and that the adults directing her knew what they were doing.
EFTA01249101 also contains a chronology problem that should not be edited away. Its travel summary places the return associated with the London trip in January 2001, whereas later accounts place the alleged London encounter in March 2001. The discrepancy requires comparison with the underlying travel records. This review does not resolve it by inventing a corrected date or treating one summary as conclusive.
The New York and island allegations are separate encounters
EFTA01249101, page 10, records Giuffre’s account of seeing Andrew approximately two months later at Epstein’s Manhattan home and giving him an erotic massage followed by sexual activity. The summary also describes Maxwell’s puppet of Andrew, joking during a photograph and Andrew allegedly touching another woman’s breast. That surrounding scene can be compared with Sjoberg’s testimony without treating the two accounts as identical.
The same interview records a third meeting on Little Saint James. It explicitly notes that Giuffre’s heavy Xanax use affected her recollection of that visit. Her later civil complaint alleged sexual abuse on the island. The memory qualification in the earlier interview remains important and should accompany the island account rather than disappear from a compressed timeline.
Giuffre’s civil complaint identifies London, Manhattan and Little Saint James as three locations. It does not justify counting every repeated FBI summary, deposition excerpt or press clipping as another encounter. Nor does evidence of a flight or presence on an island establish all the conduct alleged there.
The alleged $15,000 payment and the discussion afterward
EFTA01688916 preserves the March 2011 Daily Mail account stating that Giuffre was paid $15,000 after one of the alleged encounters with Andrew. This is an archived newspaper account of her allegation, not the underlying check, ledger or transfer instruction. The alleged payer was Epstein. It should not be rewritten as proof that Andrew personally paid her or knew about that payment.
EFTA00212332 preserves another contemporaneous press account in which Giuffre described Maxwell praising her the following morning and saying Andrew had enjoyed himself. This is a reported after-event conversation, with a different evidentiary status from a surviving email written that morning. It matters because it describes alleged supervision and feedback, but repetition in the archive does not independently corroborate it.
The $15,000 allegation, the two $200 ledger entries from 2000 and Andrew’s 2022 civil settlement are different money claims. They concern different dates, sources and purposes. No reviewed record connects them into a single transaction chain.
Sjoberg’s photograph account and its limits
EFTA02792145, the May 18, 2016 Sjoberg deposition, transcript pages 21 and 22, contains her description of Maxwell producing a puppet resembling Andrew at Epstein’s New York home. Sjoberg said she sat on Andrew’s lap for a photograph and that he put his hand on her breast. She said she did not recall who took the photograph and had not seen it afterward.
The same deposition’s cross examination, transcript pages 81 through 84, provides context that must remain with the allegation. Sjoberg agreed that she sat down voluntarily and described joking around. She expressed uncertainty about part of the seating sequence. Those answers do not erase her statement about the touching, but they prevent a simplified retelling that claims she described being forcibly placed on his lap.
Her answer on transcript page 116 said she had not seen evidence of Giuffre being trafficked to other people. Sjoberg’s account therefore should not be presented as eyewitness confirmation of intercourse between Andrew and Giuffre. It is a separate allegation of touching and an account of a setting that overlaps with Giuffre’s recollection.
Scully’s island observation and other witness accounts
EFTA01248310, an August 9, 2019 FBI interview of island contractor Steve Scully, records him recalling Andrew on the island with a bodyguard and describing Andrew grinding against a young woman in the pool. The public summary does not identify that woman or establish her age. Scully’s observations of other young people elsewhere in the interview cannot automatically be assigned to the woman with Andrew.
EFTA01245482, an August 12, 2020 interview, records a different witness saying she occasionally massaged Andrew, most recently at the New York house. She described approximately $100 per massage during a period of working for Epstein, rather than a salary. The summary does not identify a particular $100 payment for Andrew or allege that her Andrew massage was sexual. It also records that she recalled nothing weird or odd in her relationship with Epstein.
EFTA01248577, an October 14, 2020 interview, page 10, records another witness saying she met Andrew several times without a strange experience. She recalled Epstein telling her to take Andrew to a Miami bar and said the outing with another friend was fine. That is a specific account of an arranged social outing. It neither disproves other women’s allegations nor supplies an allegation that this witness did not make.
EFTA00164939, a later investigative briefing, collates Andrew related allegations, including Maxwell allegedly directing a woman to satisfy him as she satisfied Epstein, Scully’s account and a separate claim about group sexual activity. A collated list is not a set of fresh corroborating witnesses. Its redactions and compressed wording do not permit a reliable count of distinct victims or events.
The clothed massage account recorded in 2020
EFTA01248273, the August 21, 2020 FBI interview, pages 6 and 7, preserves a particularly important distinction. A witness said she returned to Epstein’s New York house and found Andrew in the kitchen with another woman whom she estimated to be in her twenties. Epstein told Andrew that the witness was good at massages and asked her to massage his shoulders and back.
She said Epstein returned with a camera and that Andrew then massaged her back, shoulders, waist and hands. The summary expressly says everyone remained clothed. The witness said she wanted to leave. Her account then describes Epstein taking her into a different room, pushing her against a wall and trying to remove her top while seeking a photograph.
The alleged aggression in that passage is attributed to Epstein in the separate room. The record should not be rewritten as an allegation that Andrew stripped or assaulted the witness there. It also does not establish that Andrew saw what she said Epstein did afterward. At the same time, the witness’s discomfort should not be omitted merely because the massage itself was described as clothed.
The 2001 request for friends and Maxwell’s response
EFTA00087585 is a message from “The Invisible Man” to Maxwell, signed “A,” dated August 16, 2001. From Balmoral, the sender asked whether she had found him “new inappropriate friends” and discussed a late August holiday somewhere warm. The surrounding family passage is not evidence that the girls mentioned there were Epstein recruits.
EFTA00087594 supplies Maxwell’s reply. She said she had found only appropriate friends and joked about church meetings. Reading both messages preserves the tone and the actual response. Neither names a proposed companion, specifies an age or records a completed introduction.
EFTA01625916, a federal search warrant affidavit, paragraphs 48(b) through 48(d), later interpreted this and the Peru correspondence as concerning young females and sexual acts. That is an investigator’s stated interpretation. The affidavit dates the first message to August 16, 2002, while the original email header reads 2001. The original header controls the date reported here; the discrepancy is retained rather than silently reconciled.
Maxwell’s Peru introductions in 2002
EFTA00579641 preserves the planning exchange about Andrew’s Peru visit. Juan Esteban Ganoza proposed sightseeing, meals and other activities, and asked about Andrew’s age in a discussion of women. Andrew responded that he would leave that part of the arrangements to Maxwell and Ganoza. The correspondence shows Maxwell acting as a social intermediary rather than merely receiving a retrospective report.
EFTA00582044, dated March 3, 2002, records Maxwell forwarding Andrew what she had sent to the local contact. She described “2 legged sight seeing,” then specified intelligent, attractive and enjoyable company from good families. She wanted introductions to friends who could be trusted to be discreet, and said Andrew did not want newspaper coverage of whom or what he saw. She said she had supplied his contact with Andrew’s telephone arrangements so they could make plans directly.
The messages document a request for introductions and discretion. They do not identify the women, establish their ages, record their consent to any proposed activity or prove a completed sexual encounter. The insistence on privacy is relevant documentary evidence, but it does not identify the reason for every redaction or supply the missing event.
The island invitation Andrew cancelled
EFTA02332304 preserves the August 24 through 27, 2002 chain about an island weekend and a possible Miami stay. Maxwell discussed changing guest plans, offered alternative accommodation through Philip and later joked about attractive women who would be left to entertain themselves.
Andrew’s replies are decisive for the completion question. He said he would not come because he wanted to spend time with Sarah and his children. His August 27 message repeated that he had not joined Maxwell and gave later travel plans instead. A quotation about the women without those replies reverses the evidentiary meaning of the chain.
The document is evidence of an invitation, negotiations and a cancellation. It cannot properly be counted as an island visit by Andrew or as proof that he met the women mentioned in Maxwell’s message.
Paris accommodation and the acknowledgment afterward
EFTA00769899, September 6, 2009, records Andrew requesting use of Epstein’s Paris apartment and Epstein offering a car and driver. Andrew thanked him and said he awaited contact to finalize arrangements. Because that thanks was written during planning, it is not by itself proof that the stay had already occurred.
EFTA00766424, December 23, 2009, is a clearer after-event acknowledgment. Andrew described a working weekend in Paris involving an American family bank, thanked Epstein again for use of his apartment and discussed Middle Eastern business coverage. The message supports an actual use of the apartment as described by Andrew.
These records establish material hospitality after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. They do not themselves identify women present, a sexual encounter or a payment for one. Keeping the hospitality separate from the sexual allegations makes the documented support more precise.
Andrew, Staley and the June 2010 introduction chain
EFTA00748424 and EFTA01812700 preserve the June 14 and 15 exchanges. Epstein proposed that Andrew show Jes Staley around with a woman Epstein described as a close, attractive friend. Andrew said he had seen Staley at Harry’s Bar, asked about the woman and later reported that an email to her had received no answer. Epstein supplied a telephone route and said she expected Andrew’s call.
Andrew also said he planned dinner with Staley the following evening. That is evidence of a planned dinner and attempted contact with the woman. The chain does not show that she joined the dinner, visited Andrew’s home or had sexual contact with either man.
EFTA01300635, June 16, records Staley asking Epstein whether “she” was free that night. Epstein told him to call. The woman is not identified in that message. Its timing makes comparison worthwhile, but it does not conclusively merge every woman in the surrounding chains into one person.
EFTA01813567 is a separate June 14 message from Epstein to Maxwell relaying Staley’s report that he had seen Andrew with a woman whose name Epstein attempted to spell. The sender himself expressed uncertainty about that spelling. This secondhand observation is not evidence of a sexual encounter and should not be used to unmask a different redacted correspondent.
The August 2010 dinner offer and a confirmation message
EFTA00734505 preserves the August 11 and 12 chain in which Epstein offered Andrew a dinner introduction to a woman visiting London between August 20 and 24. Andrew said he would be back from Geneva on the morning of August 22, agreed to contact and asked what Epstein had told her about him.
Epstein described her as 26, Russian, attractive, intelligent and trustworthy, and said she had Andrew’s email address. The age is Epstein’s representation in the correspondence. It establishes what he told Andrew, not an independently verified birth date. Andrew’s reply also asked how Epstein felt about being free, putting the exchange in the period after his Florida sentence and restrictions.
EFTA02407810 contains a parallel August 12 exchange with a redacted correspondent. Epstein said the evening of the 22nd was confirmed; she responded enthusiastically and asked whether she should email him. The date and wording are consistent with the dinner arrangement. The public redacted version does not display a complete identification of the man or woman, so the connection should remain qualified.
Even a confirmed appointment is not a completed encounter. These records do not show the dinner’s actual attendance, a sexual act or a related payment.
Buckingham Palace and the expanding guest list
EFTA02419708, September 27, 2010, records Epstein saying he was in London with a companion and wanted private time with Andrew. Andrew offered dinner at Buckingham Palace with privacy. Epstein selected that option, and Andrew asked when and how many people would attend.
EFTA00754944 and EFTA00731999 extend the exchange into discussion of bringing companions. Andrew’s response said there was space to talk and that Epstein should bring them. These messages matter because the proposed palace contact included other people, rather than only a private meeting between the two men.
EFTA01811120 records Epstein adding another person whom he described as Romanian and attractive. EFTA00732040 preserves Andrew’s response that this was no problem. The text establishes his acceptance of the proposed addition, but it does not give an age, establish the person’s attendance or identify a sexual purpose.
The request for privacy should be read as written. It is evidence about the setting they wanted, not a license to invent what happened there. Separate guest additions also should not be converted into a precise count of women who actually entered the palace without an attendance record.
The December 2010 visit was planned as an extended stay
EFTA02415281 contains Royal Household accommodation correspondence concerning Andrew and protection officers. EFTA02414139, November 27 and 28, records Epstein setting aside a car and driver for the week and Andrew asking what clothes to bring, including whether they might travel somewhere warmer. Andrew said their offices had made arrangements and looked forward to spending time together.
EFTA01980953, November 22, shows Epstein asking publicist Peggy Siegal for “young fun people” for Andrew during the week beginning November 29. It does not give their ages, identify a specific woman or explicitly request sexual activity. The request nevertheless belongs in the arranging record because it describes Epstein seeking social company for his guest.
EFTA02414211, December 2, records Siegal discussing a dinner for twelve, described as six men and six women, along with chairs, table arrangements and flowers. Her planning language cannot establish that every proposed guest attended or that every woman was an Epstein victim. It does document practical preparation for the event.
The dinner followup and the effort to control its publicity
EFTA00749561, December 3, is Siegal’s report after the dinner. She described the evening positively, recalled joking with Andrew about the royal wedding, praised the food and table and discussed copies of The King’s Speech she had left with him. Unlike a prospective guest list, this is a participant’s contemporary description of a completed gathering.
EFTA02414167 shows Epstein objecting beforehand to the possibility that Andrew might be interviewed by a guest. EFTA02413967, December 3, records Siegal advising Katie Couric, after consulting Epstein, to describe the dinner as private and off the record in response to a journalist’s inquiry. Together they show advance concern about questioning and subsequent management of press attention.
EFTA02013432, December 6, adds a further social invitation: Epstein invited Valerie Post to lunch with Andrew and the daughter of an Australian prime minister, and Post replied that she would attend lunch. The alternative later meeting in Epstein’s invitation referred to repeating the previous day, but its wording does not identify a sexual activity. Acceptance of lunch is not proof of what happened afterward.
EFTA00704702, December 22, records Andrew thanking Epstein for time with what he called his American family and anticipating another visit. This direct message after the New York stay must be considered when assessing the later account that the December visit simply ended their relationship.
The dancer’s massage report and request for train fare
EFTA02033077 and EFTA01830301 preserve the December 7 and 8, 2010 chain. A redacted correspondent asked Epstein for a Long Island Rail Road card covering two weeks because rehearsals and time away from work had left her short until payday. Epstein questioned her priorities and said she could have worked for him during those weeks.
She responded that she thought she had been doing that, because she had massaged Andrew and another person. She described exhaustion and approaching examinations, reminded him that he had invited her to ask if she needed anything, and withdrew the request. This is a contemporary report of completed massages, coupled with a description of financial strain. The first name “andrew” is not accompanied by a surname or title in her message; the timing is consistent with the royal visit but does not remove that identification limit.
EFTA01828987 contains Epstein’s next response. He said he did not mind helping her, but argued that dancing distracted from her real work and praised what she did. EFTA01830301 preserves her final answer that she had worked out transportation and no longer needed the assistance.
The full chain does not record a fare payment, let alone a payment for sex. It does not state her age or describe what the massages involved. Its importance lies in the woman’s report of work already performed and the discussion about her access to assistance afterward. Omitting her final reply would falsely suggest a completed financial arrangement.
Kaufman’s account belongs beside the visit records, with clear boundaries
Caroline Kaufman’s 2020 complaint alleged that Epstein raped her at his Manhattan residence in December 2010 when she was 17. She described a modeling pretext, being photographed and escorted to Epstein, and receiving $500 with a threat afterward. The complaint placed Andrew among people she met at the house; it did not accuse him of participating in Epstein’s alleged rape.
Kaufman’s March 14, 2026 interview with The Sun included an allegation that Andrew brushed her chest while greeting her and backed away after she said she was 17. This was her later public account, rather than a detail established by the 2020 pleading. Those later details should not be attributed to the earlier lawsuit. The $500 allegation concerns the aftermath of the alleged assault by Epstein and cannot be relabeled as a payment by Andrew.
EFTA01980953 and EFTA00749561 independently support the planning and occurrence of social events during Andrew’s stay. They do not name Kaufman, show that another dinner guest witnessed her alleged assault or establish that Andrew knew it would occur. The corroborated setting and the unadjudicated personal allegations must remain distinct.
The February 2011 solidarity email and the debt discussion
EFTA01798176 preserves the February 27 and 28, 2011 chain. Epstein proposed another opportunity for Andrew to see Staley. Andrew and Epstein then discussed newspaper coverage, potential complaints and legal letters. Andrew expressed concern for Epstein, described their position as shared and asked to remain in contact.
The same chain moved into “J wages.” Epstein said the person would accept $60,000 in wages, pay tax and finish the dispute, but worried that a payment from him would look like a payoff if reported. Andrew asked whether someone else could pay. That language is a record of their discussion and reputational concern. It is not, by itself, proof that they were paying a survivor to conceal abuse.
EFTA01834972 provides crucial earlier context from January 19 and 20. Andrew referred to Johnny, a proposed $31,680 payment upon signing and a separate Columbia payment to be handled between Johnny and Epstein. The chain concerns a creditor and employment related dispute linked to Sarah Ferguson’s affairs. Its conditional payment instructions are not proof that the proposed sums were transferred.
The financial coordination is relevant to the relationship’s persistence. It should not be mixed with Giuffre’s alleged $15,000 payment or with massage fees simply because all three involve money and Epstein.
Another dinner proposal through David Stern in 2013
EFTA00872353, October 17, 2013, is an email from Epstein to David Stern saying an attractive female friend would be in London the following Tuesday and that Andrew might want to have her for dinner. It is a direct record of Epstein making another proposed introduction through an intermediary.
The recipient is Stern, not Andrew. The document does not contain Stern’s response, proof that he forwarded the suggestion, Andrew’s acceptance or a report that the dinner occurred. It supports a continuing effort by Epstein to reach Andrew’s social circle after 2010. It cannot alone establish renewed direct correspondence or an actual 2013 encounter.
Maxwell’s 2015 draft acknowledged a meeting while denying sexual conduct
EFTA00866922, January 11, 2015, preserves Maxwell’s proposed statement and Epstein’s edits. Maxwell wrote that Andrew came to her house, that the woman discussed in the draft was there and that they met. A longer draft in the chain referred to a 2001 London meeting and a photograph. She simultaneously denied sexual involvement and knowledge of sexual activity with Andrew.
Epstein suggested broadening part of the denial and altering language about witness statements and cross examination. The exchange documents active consultation over a public response. A draft statement is not sworn testimony, and the messages do not prove the denials were true. They also should not be quoted as if Maxwell was denying that any meeting or photograph ever existed.
EFTA02794621, a 22 page court exhibit containing overlapping January correspondence, adds the exchanges among Maxwell, her advisers and Epstein. The advisers discussed the reputational and investigative consequences of saying nothing, and the possibility that Epstein’s interests differed from Maxwell’s. The record shows coordinated response planning, not an adjudication of the underlying allegations.
The frequently excerpted sentence expressing regret for an introduction contains a redaction. This review does not fill it with a guessed identity. The unredacted meeting and photograph passages are sufficient to explain the material conflict without reconstructing protected text.
What investigators said the records did and did not establish
EFTA00022062, an April 3, 2020 United States request for British assistance, sought an interview and communications records from Andrew. It said investigators had evidence of sexual conduct involving an Epstein victim, while also stating that Andrew was not then an investigative target and that authorities had not gathered evidence he committed a crime under United States law. Those statements describe the investigators’ position at that date. They should be presented together, rather than quoting only the allegation or only the qualification.
The request sought detailed information about introductions, massages, meetings, payments and communications through intermediaries. These were investigative questions. A request to identify payments does not establish that any particular payment existed or that the recipient committed an offense.
EFTA00080134, the prosecutors’ October 11, 2021 notice in Maxwell’s case, identified the Duke of York in connection with the Peru correspondence and proposed using the emails to show her arrangements for influential men. The notice is the government’s evidentiary position, not a ruling that Andrew committed a crime or a finding about the women’s ages.
Andrew’s denials and the civil case outcome
Andrew’s January 26, 2022 answer, paragraphs 36 through 47, denied Giuffre’s sexual abuse allegations and expressly denied having sexual acts with her. His denials belong alongside the allegations throughout the record, rather than being treated as superseded by the fact of settlement.
The January 2022 motion ruling allowed the lawsuit to proceed and expressly did not decide the truth of the accusations. A ruling on whether a pleading survives a dismissal motion is not a trial finding that the alleged conduct occurred.
The February 2022 settlement statement said the financial sum would not be disclosed. It recorded Andrew’s intention to make a substantial donation to Giuffre’s charity, acknowledged that she was an established victim of abuse and had suffered unfair public attacks, and expressed regret for his association with Epstein. It also recorded his commitment to support the fight against sex trafficking and its victims.
The statement did not admit that Andrew assaulted Giuffre. It did not retract her allegations, adjudicate them as false or publish the financial amount. The March 8, 2022 dismissal with prejudice ended her civil suit. It was not a criminal acquittal, a criminal conviction or a judicial determination of what occurred during the alleged encounters.
The 2026 British investigation is a separate legal track
Thames Valley Police’s May 22, 2026 statement says a man in his sixties was arrested on February 19 on suspicion of misconduct in public office and released under investigation that day. The statement described the investigation as continuing. Public reporting identifies him as Andrew. Arrest and release under investigation do not establish guilt or a charge.
The same official statement separately addressed the allegation that a woman was taken to an address in Windsor in 2010 for sexual purposes. Police said they were engaging with her legal representative and would treat a report seriously if she wished to make one. That assessment should not be folded into the misconduct arrest as if it were the offense for which he had been arrested.
The latest official update verified for this review is dated May 22. No later verified charge or adjudication is asserted here. A date-stamped status is more accurate than treating an older investigation announcement as a final outcome.
Timeline chart
| Date or period | Record or allegation | Evidentiary position |
|---|---|---|
| February and May 2000 | Two $200 massage ledger entries for “Andrew”; May 12 flight naming Prince Andrew | Accounting records with identity limits; explicit passenger manifest |
| 2001 | Giuffre’s alleged London and New York encounters and later island account | Retrospective allegations; London chronology discrepancy remains |
| August 2001 | Request to Maxwell concerning friends and holiday plans | Contemporary request with a separate joking response |
| February and March 2002 | Peru introductions and discretion discussed | Arranging correspondence, without completion proof |
| August 2002 | Island and Miami plans discussed and cancelled | Cancellation is explicit in the full chain |
| 2009 | Paris hospitality and subsequent thanks | Request followed by an acknowledgment of use |
| June through September 2010 | Staley related introduction, Russian dinner proposal and palace guest planning | Multiple arrangements that must not be collapsed into one woman or encounter |
| November and December 2010 | New York stay, social company request, dinner, lunch invitation and massage report | Planning plus specific contemporary after-event descriptions |
| February 2011 | Press response, continuing contact and debt coordination | Direct correspondence after the claimed December break |
| October 2013 | Epstein proposes a dinner companion through Stern | An offer, with no demonstrated acceptance |
| January 2015 | Maxwell drafts denials while acknowledging a meeting and photograph | Response planning and editorial input from Epstein |
| 2016 through 2020 | Sjoberg deposition and further FBI interviews | Sworn testimony and recorded witness accounts with different scopes |
| 2022 | Giuffre suit settles and is dismissed | Undisclosed financial terms; no trial finding or admission of assault |
| 2026 | Misconduct investigation and a separate Windsor allegation assessment | Distinct unresolved legal tracks in the latest verified official update |
Key takeaways
- Epstein and Maxwell repeatedly acted as intermediaries. The records show requests for introductions, contact details, accommodation, transport, companions and access to private settings.
- Messages after an event change the analysis. Andrew’s Paris thanks and Siegal’s dinner report support completed hospitality. The cancelled island chain and the dancer’s withdrawn fare request prevent false claims of completion or payment.
- The documentary record extends beyond the period Andrew later presented as the end of contact. Direct February 2011 correspondence is stronger evidence of that continuation than a 2013 offer addressed only to Stern.
- The women’s accounts are not interchangeable. Giuffre alleged sexual abuse; Sjoberg described touching; another witness described clothed massages and later alleged Epstein aggression; other witnesses described unremarkable professional or social contact.
- Financial records require transaction level precision. The $200 ledger entries, Giuffre’s alleged $15,000 payment, the dancer’s fare request, the Johnny debt discussions and the 2022 settlement concern different events and sources.
- The settlement did not determine the truth of Giuffre’s allegations. The 2026 misconduct investigation is not a substitute for a sex offense charge or judgment.
Unanswered questions
- Who was the “Andrew” in each 2000 ledger entry, who received the money and what services did the entries record?
- Which original travel and immigration records resolve the chronology discrepancy in Giuffre’s London account?
- What became of the photographs described by Giuffre and Sjoberg, and what can their provenance establish beyond the fact of a meeting?
- Which proposed Peru introductions occurred, and is there a contemporary report from any participant?
- Did the woman in the June 2010 introduction chain meet Andrew or attend the planned Staley dinner?
- Did the August 22 dinner take place, and what record identifies its participants without reconstructing redactions?
- Who actually attended the September palace gathering, and what do visitor and protection records show?
- What were the date, setting and nature of the massages described in the December 2010 fare request chain?
- What independent records can corroborate or contradict Kaufman’s presence and allegations without assigning her to anonymous files?
- Did Stern pass on the October 2013 invitation, and is there an acceptance or after-event response?
- What payments were actually completed in the Johnny dispute, as distinct from the sums discussed?
- What evidence will the separate British inquiries establish, and will a later official decision change the current procedural status?
Chronological receipts at a glance
- The estate manifest and ledger: February and May 2000. Two $200 entries for an Andrew; a separate May 12 manifest explicitly names Prince Andrew
- EFTA00087585: August 16, 2001. Request to Maxwell for new friends, with her response in EFTA00087594
- EFTA00579641: February 2002. Peru plans and the delegation of introductions
- EFTA00582044: March 3, 2002. Maxwell forwards the discretion and sightseeing arrangements
- EFTA02332304: August 24 through 27, 2002. Full island invitation chain, including Andrew’s cancellation
- EFTA00766424: December 23, 2009. Andrew acknowledges using Epstein’s Paris apartment
- EFTA01812700: June 14 and 15, 2010. Proposed introduction involving Andrew, Staley and a woman
- EFTA00734505: August 11 and 12, 2010. Dinner proposal concerning a woman described as 26
- EFTA02419708: September 27, 2010. Palace location and guest planning, continued in the companion messages
- EFTA01980953: November 22, 2010. Epstein requests social company for Andrew’s coming visit
- EFTA00749561: December 3, 2010. Siegal reports back after the dinner
- EFTA02013432: December 6, 2010. Another lunch invitation mentioning Andrew
- EFTA01830301: December 7 and 8, 2010. Complete massage report and withdrawn train fare request
- EFTA01798176: February 2011. Continuing contact, press coverage and wage discussions
- EFTA01249101: March 17, 2011. FBI records Giuffre’s account of earlier encounters
- EFTA00872353: October 17, 2013. Another dinner proposal sent to Stern
- EFTA00866922: January 11, 2015. Draft statement acknowledging a meeting while denying sexual conduct
- EFTA02792145: May 18, 2016. Sjoberg’s sworn account and cross examination
- EFTA01248273: August 21, 2020. Witness describes clothed massages and subsequent alleged aggression by Epstein
Related EpsteinWiki coverage
- Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew provides the broader biographical and relationship context
- The guide to Andrew’s sexual misconduct allegations compares the distinct public claims, including accounts outside the core arranging correspondence
- Caroline Kaufman’s evidence review separates her original lawsuit from her later public account
- Jes Staley and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records follows the overlapping June 2010 correspondence and Staley’s separate records
- Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records examines a different set of introductions, financial ties and disputed allegations
Sources
- EFTA00734505
- EFTA01249101
- EFTA02792145
- EFTA01830301
- The 2022 settlement statement
- Thames Valley Police’s May 22, 2026 update
- The 2000 manifest and ledger
- EFTA00582044
- EFTA02419708
- EFTA00872353
- The committee’s release notice
- Giuffre’s 2021 complaint
- EFTA01688916
- EFTA00212332
- EFTA01248310
- EFTA01245482
- EFTA01248577
- EFTA00164939
- EFTA01248273
- EFTA00087585
- EFTA00087594
- EFTA01625916
- EFTA00579641
- EFTA02332304
- EFTA00769899
- EFTA00766424
- EFTA00748424
- EFTA01812700
- EFTA01300635
- EFTA01813567
- EFTA02407810
- EFTA00754944
- EFTA00731999
- EFTA01811120
- EFTA00732040
- EFTA02415281
- EFTA02414139
- EFTA01980953
- EFTA02414211
- EFTA00749561
- EFTA02414167
- EFTA02413967
- EFTA02013432
- EFTA00704702
- EFTA02033077
- EFTA01828987
- Caroline Kaufman’s 2020 complaint
- Kaufman’s March 14, 2026 interview with The Sun
- EFTA01798176
- EFTA01834972
- EFTA00866922
- EFTA02794621
- EFTA00022062
- EFTA00080134
- Andrew’s January 26, 2022 answer
- The January 2022 motion ruling
- Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew
- The guide to Andrew’s sexual misconduct allegations
- Caroline Kaufman’s evidence review
- Jes Staley and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records
- Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records
- Ellie Leonard’s Andrew email series, Part 1 supplied early correspondence leads checked against the original records
- Ellie Leonard’s Andrew email series, Part 2 supplied the cancelled island visit lead
- Ellie Leonard’s Andrew email series, Part 3 supplied leads for the Staley, Russian dinner and palace chains
- Ellie Leonard’s Andrew email series, Part 4 supplied visit and debt correspondence leads
- Kait Justice’s review of the campaign against Giuffre supplied leads to the 2015 draft statement and adviser correspondence; the underlying records, rather than speculative identifications, support this article
- Document Zero’s review of the Collins banking thread provided contextual leads concerning Stern and Andrew’s network