The journalist who interviewed Andrew about his relationship with Epstein in 2019 has some thoughts on his settlement. Photo / Getty Images
The journalist who interviewed Andrew about his relationship with Epstein in 2019 has some thoughts on his settlement. Photo / Getty Images
The BBC journalist who broadcast Prince Andrew's infamous Newsnight interview has claimed his court settlement is "contradictory".
Emily Maitlis claims Andrew's statement in his settlement with his accuser Virginia Giuffre contradicts the answers he gave in the 2019 interview, reports the Daily Mail.
Maitlis sat down with Andrew to discuss Giuffre's claims she was forced to have sex with him when she was just 17 after being trafficked by paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
The Duke strongly denied the claims during the interview, continuing to do so even after the settlement this week.
The interview, in which Andrew made a series of claims - including that he had a medical condition which meant he couldn't sweat, and that he couldn't have been with Giuffre because he had been dining at a Pizza Express restaurant - became infamous as an embarrassment to the royals.
Maitlis has now shared her thoughts after the settlement, in which the Duke is set to pay Giuffre a sum believed to be around £12m ($24m).
She wrote for the BBC: "At the heart of the settlement is the biggest question of all: why is a Prince who told me he had 'no recollection of ever meeting this lady' now paying her what we understand to be upwards of £10m?
"I distinctly remember putting Virginia Giuffre's accusations to him directly: 'She says she met you in 2001, she dined with you, danced with you, you bought her drinks in Tramp nightclub and she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia'.
"And I have the Prince's reply in front of me now. Three words only: 'It didn't happen'.
Prince Andrew has consistently denied Virginia Giuffre's allegations. Photo / File
"There are only three possible explanations then for the settlement: either he was lying in that response - and remembered her well; or he genuinely had no recollection - and was adamant they hadn't met - only for his memory subsequently to be jogged; or that he maintains his innocence, but feels the weight of legal and public opinion against him now make settling the easier option, albeit without accepting any liability."
Maitlis added that it was not her place to declare which statement was true, but noted the careful wording of the settlement statement, which "put distance between an acknowledgement of Giuffre's pain - and any responsibility he may or may not have had for it".
She admitted she was "journalistically disappointed" that the case would not play out in court.
"There would have been huge satisfaction in the sense of an ending - any ending - that saw the prince make his legal defence so comprehensively," she wrote.
It comes amid calls for the financial arrangements of the settlement to be revealed, as Buckingham Palace repeatedly denies whether it will be partially funded by the Queen herself.
Andrew's mother is expected to foot some of the bill to avoid further controversy ahead of her long-awaited Platinum Jubilee celebrations this year.
