44 Kinnerton Street: Ghislaine Maxwell’s London Townhouse

UpdatedOctober 7, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Field	Documented information
Property	44 Kinnerton Street, London
Historical association	Ghislaine Maxwell’s London residence
Area	Belgravia, within the City of Westminster
Purchase agreement	December 19, 1996
Contract price	£290,000 for the unexpired leasehold interest
Completion date specified in the agreement	January 22, 1997
Registered ownership	Trial stipulation identifies Maxwell as registered owner on March 20, 1997
Earlier occupancy	Disputed in the 2021 trial; Maxwell had testified in 2019 that she began living there in approximately 1992 or 1993
Principal survivor accounts	Virginia Giuffre’s account of a 2001 London encounter; testimony from the Maxwell trial witness identified as Kate
Widely published photograph	Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre and Maxwell, attributed to the London house and dated March 10, 2001 in Giuffre’s account
Administrative records	Residence contact sheet and a September 2002 courier invoice
Reported disposal	Sold on April 19, 2021 for £1.75 million, according to published transaction data
Maxwell criminal case	Convicted in December 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in June 2022
Andrew civil case	Settled in 2022 without an admission of liability; Andrew denied Giuffre’s allegations
Last checked	October 7, 2026

44 Kinnerton Street appears in the documentary record as a property purchased by Ghislaine Maxwell, a London household address and a disputed setting in accounts of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse. Its significance extends beyond the widely reproduced photograph of Maxwell, Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew. Property documents, sworn testimony, administrative records and litigation about the timing of Maxwell’s occupation give the house a distinct evidentiary history.

The London photograph and Giuffre’s allegations made the property internationally recognizable. Giuffre alleged that Epstein and Maxwell trafficked her to Andrew and that one encounter occurred at Maxwell’s London home. Andrew denied the allegations. Their civil case ended in a settlement rather than a trial determining what occurred in the house.

The Maxwell criminal trial raised a different London question: whether the witness called Kate correctly identified the house and the year of her first encounters there. The defense produced purchase records from 1996 and 1997; prosecutors pointed to Maxwell’s earlier sworn account of living there before those dates. Ownership, registration and occupation must therefore be kept separate throughout the property’s history.

Important Points

The exact address is supported by a purchase agreement and trial evidence. It is more firmly established than a description based only on press photographs or a general reference to Maxwell’s London home.
Maxwell’s purchase agreement is dated December 19, 1996. It identifies a £290,000 leasehold transaction and specifies January 22, 1997 as the completion date. Registered ownership on March 20, 1997 is separately documented in a trial stipulation.
Those dates do not automatically settle when Maxwell first occupied the house. A disputed earlier occupation date became important in the 2021 trial.
Kate’s testimony and Giuffre’s allegations describe different periods and different events. They should not be combined into a single account or treated as interchangeable witnesses.
The judge limited the purposes for which the jury could use Kate’s testimony. Her account was not itself a charged offense on which the jury could convict Maxwell.
The photograph is relevant to the question of whether Andrew and Giuffre met at the house. It does not depict an assault or independently establish what happened afterward.
Maxwell’s deposition answers, later public statements and an email reported in the 2026 releases need to be compared with their dates and contexts intact. Recognizing the setting, remembering the occasion and authenticating a photograph are different questions.
Household records connect the address to the wider Epstein and Maxwell administrative network. A residence list or delivery invoice does not establish the contents of a package, a visitor’s conduct or criminal knowledge by staff.
The 2021 sale belonged to the period when Maxwell was seeking bail and financing her defense. A proposed arrangement in a bail motion is not evidence that the court approved it or that sale proceeds were ultimately spent in a particular way.
Later owners and occupants are outside the historical allegations. The property’s notoriety provides no basis to implicate them.

Evidence Appearances

Record	Date or period	What it documents	Principal limitation
Document 703-1, sale agreement	December 19, 1996	Maxwell as purchaser of the leasehold interest, price and scheduled completion	A purchase contract does not by itself establish all earlier occupancy
Document 703-1, Grosvenor letter	November 1, 2010	An inquiry about a possible voluntary purchase of the freehold	The letter does not establish that a freehold purchase was completed
EFTA01258927, page 5	September 2002	Shipment from Epstein’s New York office to Maxwell at the London address	It does not disclose the package’s contents or establish Maxwell personally received it
EFTA01257329, page 17	Underlying list undated	A residence contact sheet including Kinnerton Street	Production markings are not necessarily the list’s creation date
Document 160, third bail application	February 23, 2021	Proposed treatment of proceeds from the pending London house sale	A defense proposal, not proof that its terms took effect
Document 703, prosecution letter	December 12, 2021; publicly filed July 12, 2022	Dispute over the defense’s late disclosure of the purchase agreement	Advocacy about admissibility and chronology, not a factual verdict
Document 719, defense response	December 13, 2021; publicly filed July 12, 2022	Defense argument that purchase records undermined Kate’s 1994 account	The prosecution disputed the inference from ownership to occupation
Defense Exhibit A-5	December 2021 trial	Stipulated authenticity of property records and selected Maxwell deposition pages	The agreement authenticates records; it does not reconcile contradictory recollections
EFTA00866922 through EFTA00866924	January 10 and 11, 2015	Maxwell’s proposed statement and correspondence acknowledging a London meeting and photograph	Also contains denials; no forensic conclusion or exact capture date
EFTA01659446	Compiled after the April 2021 sale	A property price webpage and reproduced press material	Released clipping material is not an independent government finding

The Address and the London Setting

The sale agreement identifies 44 Kinnerton Street, while Maxwell’s defense expressly described the property as being in Belgravia. Published sale data places the street in the City of Westminster. References to the wider Knightsbridge area in reporting should not obscure the exact street address or turn it into Maxwell’s separate former home in Kensington.

The distinction became substantive at trial. A description such as “Maxwell’s London house” can conceal more than one property and more than one period of residence. The records concerning Kinnerton Street were compared with records for Maxwell’s earlier Stanhope Mews East property. A chronology based on one house cannot simply be applied to the other.

The house is generally described as a townhouse or mews house. Its importance here lies in documented ownership, historical use and the evidence concerning encounters there. Descriptions of present interiors, current residents, access arrangements or neighboring private households add nothing necessary to the historical account.

Purchase, Completion and Registration

The December 1996 agreement names Ghislaine Maxwell as purchaser. The property being sold was the unexpired term of a lease, with a stated price of £290,000. The agreement specified completion on January 22, 1997. The handwritten date is legible in the page image; an automated text extraction that renders the year incorrectly should not replace the document itself.

The trial stipulation separately authenticated Land Registry material identifying Maxwell’s registered ownership as of March 20, 1997. It also authenticated earlier registration records and records concerning her former Kensington property. These were agreed documentary facts presented to the jury, not merely a journalist’s reconstruction from an estate agent’s listing.

Three dates consequently belong in a careful timeline:

December 19, 1996: the dated agreement for sale
January 22, 1997: the completion date specified in that agreement and reported in published transaction data
March 20, 1997: the registered ownership date stated in the trial stipulation

A summary that says Maxwell bought the house in 1997 is broadly compatible with the transaction history. It becomes misleading if it treats the registration date as the day negotiations began, or assumes that purchase and physical occupation necessarily started together. The dispute about earlier occupation requires its own treatment.

Leasehold and the Later Freehold Inquiry

The November 2010 Grosvenor letter, preserved in the same court exhibit, concerns Maxwell’s interest in buying the freehold voluntarily. It describes the next steps for obtaining a quotation and valuation. It is evidence that such an inquiry occurred.

The distinction matters because a leasehold interest and a freehold interest are different property interests. The 1996 agreement describes the former. The 2010 letter discusses a possible acquisition of the latter. A later sales description using the word freehold cannot retrospectively change what Maxwell bought under the earlier contract.

The published exhibit does not, on its own, establish that the proposed freehold acquisition completed, its final price or the full sequence of later title changes. The safest account preserves the actual transaction language instead of converting a preliminary inquiry into a completed deal.

The House in Household and Courier Records

The residence sheet in EFTA01257329 includes a London entry for 44 Kinnerton Street alongside entries for properties in New Mexico, the United States Virgin Islands and Paris. The relevant page is separately marked EFTA01257345 and carries an older SDNY production identifier. Its operational significance is the collection of several household locations into one reference document.

The sheet connects the London house to the administration of the broader property network. It does not transfer ownership of Maxwell’s London home to Epstein, establish that every listed residence had the same function or prove what any staff member knew. Its underlying date is not established simply by a later release date or the date of a public records production.

The September 30, 2002 FedEx invoice provides a more precisely dated example. Page 5, marked EFTA01258931, records a package sent from Epstein’s Madison Avenue office to Ghislaine Maxwell at 44 Kinnerton Street. The shipment was dropped off on September 24 and recorded as delivered on September 26. The scan, rather than faulty OCR reading September 28, supplies the latter date.

This is a direct documentary link between the New York office and Maxwell’s London address in 2002. It records a delivery, not the package’s contents. The recipient field names Maxwell, but the delivery entry does not show that she personally accepted the package or was present when it arrived. No inference about illicit contents follows from the invoice.

Kate’s Testimony About London

Kate testified on December 6, 2021, during Maxwell’s federal criminal trial. She described meeting Maxwell in Paris when she was approximately 17, around 1994, and subsequently visiting Maxwell’s London home. She identified a photograph of the building admitted as Government Exhibit 702. During cross examination, the address was expressly identified as 44 Kinnerton Street.

Her account of the London encounters, at transcript pages 1173 through 1186, described Maxwell introducing Epstein and later arranging a massage during which Epstein initiated sexual contact. Kate said Maxwell supplied massage oil and left the room. The evidentiary issue was Maxwell’s alleged role in creating the encounter and facilitating Epstein’s conduct, rather than the mere fact that the witness had visited an expensive London home.

Cross examination returned to the location and timing, including transcript pages 1235 and 1253 through 1254. Kate maintained her approximate 1994 chronology and her identification of the Kinnerton Street property. That combination made the purchase date potentially significant to the defense.

Kate’s testimony was given under a court authorized pseudonym. Her account should remain attributed to that name. It should also remain separate from Giuffre’s account of visiting London in 2001. A reader cannot use an uncertainty in one witness’s chronology as a factual resolution of another witness’s allegations years later.

What the Jury Was Allowed to Do With Kate’s Evidence

Judge Alison Nathan’s limiting instruction, at transcript pages 1167 through 1168, is essential to understanding this testimony. The judge explained that Kate was above the relevant age of consent during the conduct she described and was not a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment. The jury was not allowed to convict Maxwell for that conduct itself.

The evidence was admitted for limited purposes relevant to the charged case. It could not be treated simply as proof of a bad character or a general propensity to commit crimes. The distinction is especially important in a property article, because a list of places mentioned during a criminal trial can easily be mistaken for a list of separately adjudicated offenses.

The December 2021 conviction and June 2022 sentence established Maxwell’s criminal responsibility in the charged scheme. They did not produce a separate verdict determining every disputed historical detail about Kinnerton Street. The prosecution’s sentencing announcement included Maxwell’s London residence in its account of the broader conduct, but the trial instruction still defines the limited use of Kate’s evidence.

The Dispute Over 1994 and 1997

The prosecution’s December 12, 2021 letter sought to exclude a sale agreement that the defense disclosed after the government’s main presentation of evidence. The government argued that the document should have been produced earlier under the applicable discovery schedule. It also challenged the defense’s proposed inference: a purchase in 1996 or 1997 did not necessarily establish that Maxwell had not lived at the address before then.

The defense response dated December 13 described the contract as impeachment evidence. Its argument was that the purchase chronology contradicted Kate’s identification of the house as the setting for encounters in 1994. The defense also maintained that it could not have known the document’s significance until Kate gave her testimony.

Maxwell’s own April 9, 2019 deposition complicated that argument. In that separate civil proceeding, she had described beginning to live at Kinnerton Street in approximately 1992 or 1993. Prosecutors proposed using her account to answer the suggestion that the later purchase date excluded earlier residence. Her testimony was itself a recollection, not a contemporaneous tenancy record.

The December 16 trial discussion, particularly transcript pages 2302 through 2312, shows Nathan distinguishing ownership from occupation. She considered a route that would put the ownership documents and the relevant deposition testimony before the jury while allowing each side to argue what followed from them.

The following day’s stipulation, at transcript pages 2729 through 2731, authenticated the relevant Land Registry records and selected deposition pages. It preserved the difference between documentary title history and statements about residence.

The resulting record supports a precise but qualified conclusion. Maxwell’s late 1996 agreement and 1997 registration are documented. Her asserted earlier residence and Kate’s 1994 recollection were placed in dispute. Neither a property transfer date nor a lawyer’s characterization of the evidence should be substituted for a judicial finding of the first day Maxwell lived there.

Virginia Giuffre’s Account of the 2001 Visit

Giuffre’s August 2021 complaint against Prince Andrew alleged that Epstein and Maxwell compelled her to have sexual intercourse with Andrew at Maxwell’s London home. Paragraphs 37 and 38 place the allegation in the house and reproduce the photograph of Giuffre, Andrew and Maxwell. Giuffre was 17 during the London visit described in her account.

Giuffre’s published account dates the visit to March 10, 2001. The allegation became closely associated with a visit to Tramp nightclub and a return to Maxwell’s home. Those details form part of the narrative disputed by Andrew; the photograph alone does not establish the entire evening’s itinerary.

The complaint’s reference to Maxwell’s London home and the separate records identifying Kinnerton Street work together in the historical account. They should not be compressed into a claim that the complaint itself supplies every address, date and transaction detail. A civil complaint presents a claimant’s allegations. It is not a finding of fact by the judge merely because it appears in an official court file.

Andrew denied sexual contact with Giuffre. His denial and the later settlement belong beside the allegation, rather than being relegated to an unrelated biography. Neither side obtained a trial verdict on the alleged London assault.

The Photograph and Its Provenance

The image reproduced in Giuffre’s complaint shows Andrew with his arm around Giuffre, with Maxwell visible behind them. Its evidentiary importance lies principally in the question of whether the people depicted were together, in the setting Giuffre identified, rather than in anything the image shows about sexual conduct.

Giuffre described the picture under oath in May 2016. At transcript pages 208 through 212, she said Epstein took it with her yellow Kodak camera. She believed it was developed after she returned to the United States and recalled a March 2001 processing date, although her answers did not establish the precise laboratory or processing location.

The same deposition excerpt records that the FBI copied and returned the photograph during an interview in 2011. By the time of the 2016 deposition, she was uncertain exactly where the original print was, believing it was among packed belongings. Her account of the FBI handling the print is sworn provenance testimony. It is not an independently produced forensic report finding the photograph authentic.

An earlier sworn declaration supplies a more specific claimed processing date. In the declaration filed in January 2015 and later enclosed in a letter to the Metropolitan Police, Giuffre said the photograph had been developed on March 13, 2001 and taken shortly before then. Her narrative placed the photograph after the group returned from Tramp. This is her sworn account of the sequence and print date. The declaration, her later deposition and the commonly reported March 10 dating should be identified by source rather than blended into an independently verified photographic timeline.

Those distinctions prevent two opposite errors. It is inaccurate to write that there was never any account of an original print. It is also inaccurate to elevate every detail of Giuffre’s recollection into independent laboratory confirmation. The image, testimony about its origin and later statements about it are related pieces of evidence, each with a different evidentiary role.

Maxwell’s Deposition Answers About the Setting

Maxwell was questioned about the photograph in April 2016, in the defamation litigation brought by Giuffre. At transcript page 110 she identified herself and Andrew in the displayed image. She said she did not recall Giuffre being at the London townhouse or joining the group for dinner and Tramp.

Asked about the surroundings, Maxwell said they were familiar. Later questioning, at transcript pages 234 through 236, elicited recognition of details including a picture and railing. She continued to deny Giuffre’s account and disputed her description of what occurred in the house.

The deposition is important because recognition of people and surroundings is more specific than a blanket claim of knowing nothing about an image. At the same time, the answers do not amount to Maxwell confirming who operated the camera, the date of the photograph or the alleged assault. She said she did not know who took it.

Ian Maxwell also recognized the setting in a March 2021 interview, according to contemporary reporting. He did not claim personal knowledge of the photograph’s creation. That distinction reinforces the need to separate identification of a room or house from proof of a specific event.

Andrew’s 2019 Account

Andrew’s November 2019 Newsnight interview brought the house and photograph into a direct public exchange. He denied sexual contact with Giuffre and said he did not remember meeting her or the photograph being taken. Asked about the alleged date, he described taking his daughter to Pizza Express in Woking and returning home.

Contemporaneous reporting of the interview records his broader explanation of his relationship with Maxwell and Epstein. The interview was Andrew’s account of the disputed events, not a tested alibi finding by a court. He also questioned the photograph’s reliability and discussed whether he had been in the upstairs part of Maxwell’s home.

A responsible account distinguishes his denial of the alleged encounter from the narrower question of whether he had ever visited Maxwell’s London house. It also distinguishes a challenge to an image from proof that it was altered. Public controversy over those answers did not itself adjudicate Giuffre’s claim.

Later Claims About the Photograph

Maxwell again disputed the image in her July 24, 2025 DOJ interview. At printed transcript pages 139 through 148, she denied the London allegations and said she believed the photograph was fabricated. She also advanced an account involving her mother’s birthday and being away. These were Maxwell’s claims during an interview, not a government finding establishing an alibi or image manipulation.

The same discussion included uncertainty about whether Andrew and Giuffre might have been at the house at the same time. Maxwell did not recall a meeting but could not exclude a visit by Andrew while Giuffre was there. Reading the complete passage matters because isolated denials can obscure qualifications within the same interview.

The January 2015 correspondence in EFTA00866922 supplies a contrasting documentary account. The three page chain contains an Epstein reply dated January 11 and a quoted message from Maxwell that day. Maxwell wrote that Andrew had visited her home and met the woman under discussion. The same message denied sexual involvement or knowledge of the alleged activity.

The earlier draft statement on the second page, marked EFTA00866923, follows a January 10, 2015 message header. It places the woman with Maxwell’s friends, including Andrew, in London in 2001 and acknowledges that a photograph was taken. It also denies asking her to massage Andrew. Although names are redacted in several places, unredacted references to Virginia elsewhere in the chain supply context. The draft does not give the street address or the exact date the photograph was taken.

February 2026 coverage highlighted the correspondence as evidence supporting the meeting and photograph. Its significance is substantial, but specific: acknowledging a meeting and picture differs from admitting an assault. The exchange is also not a forensic examination of the original image. It should be compared with Maxwell’s later denials without converting a private draft into a judicial finding.

The Civil Settlement and What It Resolved

The February 15, 2022 settlement filing announced an agreement between Giuffre and Andrew. The amount was not disclosed in the filed statement. Andrew recognized Giuffre as an established victim of abuse, expressed regret for his association with Epstein and committed to a substantial donation to her charity supporting victims’ rights.

The court docket records dismissal with prejudice on March 8, 2022. The settlement ended the lawsuit without a trial of the London allegations. It contained no admission that Andrew had committed the assault Giuffre alleged.

The outcome is neither a criminal conviction nor a judicial exoneration. It resolved the civil action through agreement. Maxwell’s separate conviction does not transform that agreement into a finding against Andrew, and Andrew’s settlement does not determine the disputed first occupation date of the London house.

The 2021 Sale and Maxwell’s Defense Finances

Maxwell’s February 23, 2021 bail application referred to the pending sale of her London house. It proposed placing most remaining liquid assets, including sale proceeds, into an account overseen by an asset monitor. The proposed arrangement included exceptions relating to legal expenses and taxes. It was part of an attempt to persuade the court that Maxwell’s resources could be controlled sufficiently to permit release.

Judge Nathan denied the third bail motion on March 22. The order continued the court’s assessment that Maxwell presented a flight risk and that the proposed conditions did not adequately address it. The motion is therefore evidence of what her lawyers offered, not proof that a court appointed monitor actually controlled the London sale proceeds under that proposal.

Contemporary reporting in March 2021 attributed confirmation of the intended sale to Maxwell family spokesman Brian Basham and described its purpose as supporting her legal defense. That stated purpose should be distinguished from a complete accounting of the eventual proceeds.

Published Land Registry transaction data records a sale of 44 Kinnerton Street on April 19, 2021 for £1.75 million. It also records the January 22, 1997 transaction at £290,000. These are reported completed transaction amounts. They should not be confused with an earlier asking price, an estimated valuation or a currency conversion used in a news report.

The data supports a historical sale date and price. It does not establish how every pound of the proceeds was distributed, whether particular legal bills were paid from those funds or the source of the original purchase money. Those questions require separate financial records.

Property Reporting Inside the Released Files

EFTA01659446 illustrates a recurring source problem. The packet begins with a property price webpage reporting the 2021 and 1997 transactions. Subsequent pages reproduce material from The Steeple Times. A reader encountering the packet through an official release may therefore be looking at collected outside reporting rather than original government investigation.

The packet is useful evidence that such property material was present in the released collection. Its price history can be compared with independently published transaction data. Its press claims still need to be evaluated as press claims, including their attribution, date and basis.

An EFTA page number identifies a released document. It does not certify that every assertion inside that document has been investigated, corroborated or accepted by a court. The same principle applies to property valuations, anonymous remarks, press speculation and later repetitions of those remarks in research summaries.

The administrative invoice, original sale agreement, stipulated registration records and testimony carry different kinds of evidentiary weight. Keeping them separate produces a more useful account than assembling every mention of the house into one undifferentiated list of supposed findings.

Timeline

Date	Event	Status of the evidence
Approximately 1992 or 1993	Maxwell later said she began living at Kinnerton Street	Recollection in her April 2019 deposition; disputed in the 2021 trial
Approximately 1994	Kate dated her early London visits and encounters to this period	Trial testimony challenged by the defense
December 19, 1996	Agreement for Maxwell to acquire the leasehold interest for £290,000	Original contract preserved as a court exhibit
January 22, 1997	Completion date specified in the contract	Also reflected in published transaction data
March 20, 1997	Maxwell’s registered ownership recorded	Land Registry material authenticated by trial stipulation
March 2001	Giuffre described the London visit and photograph, commonly dated March 10 in her account	Allegation and photograph provenance testimony
September 2002	Courier shipment addressed to Maxwell at 44 Kinnerton Street	Business invoice; contents unspecified
November 1, 2010	Grosvenor responded to an inquiry about acquiring the freehold	Preliminary correspondence
January 2015	Maxwell and Epstein exchanged proposed statements concerning Giuffre and the London photograph	Private correspondence released later
April and May 2016	Maxwell and Giuffre were questioned about the photograph	Sworn civil depositions
April 9, 2019	Maxwell gave her account of earlier residence at the house	Deposition later used in the criminal trial
November 16, 2019	Andrew discussed the allegations and photograph on Newsnight	Public denial and explanation
February 23, 2021	Maxwell’s bail application referred to the pending London sale	Proposed asset arrangement
April 19, 2021	Reported sale for £1.75 million	Published transaction data
December 2021	Kate testified; lawyers disputed the house chronology; property evidence was stipulated	Criminal trial record
February and March 2022	Andrew and Giuffre settled; her civil action was dismissed	No trial verdict on the London allegation
June 28, 2022	Maxwell sentenced to 20 years	Criminal judgment and official announcement
July 24, 2025	Maxwell again challenged the photograph in a DOJ interview	Her attributed account
February 2026	News coverage highlighted the January 2015 draft statement	Renewed public examination of the released correspondence

What the House’s History Establishes

The strongest property evidence establishes a specific address, Maxwell’s purchase of a leasehold interest, subsequent registered ownership and later disposal. The household sheet and courier invoice add evidence of the home’s place in an international administrative network. They provide a firmer foundation than the notoriety of the building alone.

The survivor accounts make the house relevant to the history of Epstein’s abuse and Maxwell’s alleged facilitation. Their evidentiary posture is different: Kate testified subject to an express limiting instruction, while Giuffre’s London allegation against Andrew ended in a settled civil action. Maxwell’s criminal conviction establishes her liability for the charged crimes without resolving every contested statement made about the property.

The photograph and January 2015 correspondence are especially important to the dispute over a meeting. Their significance should neither be dismissed nor inflated into proof of an act they do not depict. The unresolved first occupation date is a separate issue, and current ownership supplies no inference about the historical conduct.

Source List

United States v. Maxwell, Document 703-1: Sale agreement and 2010 Grosvenor correspondence. Original documents reproduced in a court exhibit.
United States v. Maxwell, Document 703: Prosecution letter dated December 12, 2021 concerning disclosure of the purchase contract. First page in Epstein Data.
United States v. Maxwell, Document 703-2: Excerpts of Maxwell’s April 9, 2019 deposition concerning residence.
United States v. Maxwell, Document 719: Defense response dated December 13, 2021. Readable filing text.
Defense Exhibit A-5: Stipulation concerning property records and deposition excerpts.
December 6, 2021 trial transcript, Document 751: Kate’s testimony, cross examination and limiting instruction.
December 16, 2021 trial transcript, Document 761: Discussion of ownership, occupation and admissibility.
December 17, 2021 trial transcript, Document 763: Presentation of the property stipulation, transcript pages 2729 through 2731.
Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 1090-13: Giuffre’s May 3, 2016 deposition excerpt concerning the photograph’s origin and handling.
Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 1335-4: Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 deposition, including photograph and townhouse questions.
Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, complaint: August 9, 2021 pleading, including paragraphs 37 and 38.
Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, settlement letter and statement: February 15, 2022 announcement.
Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, docket: Subsequent dismissal entry.
EFTA01257329: Residence sheet, page marked EFTA01257345.
EFTA01258927: September 2002 invoice, relevant page marked EFTA01258931.
EFTA00866922: January 10 and 11, 2015 correspondence and draft statement concerning the London meeting and photograph.
EFTA00098456: May 2015 letter to the Metropolitan Police with Giuffre’s January 2015 declaration, including paragraphs 32 through 40.
EFTA01659446: Collected property information and press material.
United States v. Maxwell, Document 160: February 23, 2021 third bail application.
United States v. Maxwell, Document 169: March 22, 2021 order denying the application.
Rightmove published transaction data: Historical sale entries for number 44, with HM Land Registry attribution.
The Standard, March 12, 2021: Intended sale and Ian Maxwell’s recognition of the photograph’s setting.
BBC Newsnight interview: Andrew’s November 2019 interview, published by BBC Politics.
ITV News, November 16, 2019: Contemporary account of Andrew’s denials.
DOJ interview of Maxwell, July 24, 2025: Printed pages 139 through 148 concerning the London account and photograph.
Sky News, February 5, 2026: Reporting on the January 2015 draft statement.
CNN, February 5, 2026: Additional reporting on the email, photograph and Giuffre’s published account.
SDNY sentencing announcement, June 28, 2022: Maxwell’s conviction, sentence and the prosecution’s account of the scheme.

PostedOctober 7, 2026