But they also appear to be attempting to shift the narrative, alleging in a blistering court filing that Giuffre’s claims are motivated by money. CNN has contacted Giuffre’s lawyers in relation to the fresh claims; in their initial filings for the case, her attorneys said Andrew had inflicted “emotional distress” on Giuffre that was “severe and lasting.”
“Giuffre has initiated this baseless lawsuit against Prince Andrew to achieve another payday at his expense,” Andrew’s lawyers wrote in the documents filed on October 29 — the clearest sign yet that they are planning to go on the offensive as they battle to save the reputation of the Queen’s third child.
Giuffre says the assaults happened in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands, that Andrew was aware she was a minor at the time, and that she had been trafficked by Epstein.
Where do things stand in the court case?
A key pre-trial conference in the civil case, filed by Giuffre at a district court in New York, is due to take place on Wednesday, the courthouse confirmed to CNN.
That agreement, Andrew’s lawyers say, included a “general release” of all claims against Epstein and numerous other people, including Andrew. Details of the settlement were redacted from the court filing made by Andrew’s attorneys.
Andrew has until July 14 next year to potentially answer questions about the case under oath, following a ruling made by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan last week. The scheduling order signed by the judge in New York means that if lawyers for Giuffre want to question Andrew, they must do so outside of court and submit the interview by that date.
What is Andrew’s legal defense?
Andrew’s attorneys will present their argument to the court on Wednesday, but their filings last week make clear that they are attempting to change the shape of the trial by turning the tables on Giuffre.
The documents acknowledge that 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.”
But the papers also seek to paint Giuffre as money-driven and accuse her of “willful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse.”
They allege that Giuffre “was trained to and did, in fact, recruit other young women into Epstein’s sex trafficking ring,” and has since “milked the publicity for all she could,” a dramatic escalation in the case that hints at an unsavory round of legal battles ahead.
Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies, did not responded to CNN’s request for comment on the allegations in the court documents filed by Andrew’s lawyers.
Boies said in a statement to the New York Times last week that Andrew’s attorney’s motion to dismiss “fails to confront the serious allegations” the prince faces.
“Most people could only dream of obtaining the sums of money that Giuffre has secured for herself over the years,” Andrew’s lawyers say in their October 29 document. “This presents a compelling motive for Giuffre to continue filing frivolous lawsuits against individuals such as Prince Andrew.”
Prince Andrew’s lawyers declined to comment when contacted by CNN.
Will Andrew have to face questions himself?
Andrew has previously been accused of not cooperating with attempts to interview him as part of the investigation into the alleged sex trafficking ring Epstein and Maxwell are alleged to have operated.
If Giuffre’s court case continues into the New Year and beyond, he will likely have to reckon with the mid-July deadline to answer questions under oath.
Until then, though, he is not scheduled to appear in court and is unlikely to speak to the media about the case.
What does this mean for the royals?
British tabloids often refer to the duke as the Queen’s favorite child, so his lengthy association with Epstein and Giuffre’s allegations against him signal a hefty fall from grace.
While the monarch and other senior royals have so far avoided damage to their own reputations as a result of the Giuffre case, the prospect of Andrew being forced to answer questions under oath will be an unwelcome one for the wider institution.