The Truth About THAT 2001 Photo

Matthew Steeples questions the murky motives of those questioning the authenticity of THAT 2001 photo of Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell; it is time that the personal profiteer Lady Victoria Hervey was called out for the fake that she is and it is time to remind the public that it is Ghislaine Maxwell and her avaricious associates who’ve actually been exposed for faking photos

In the 2019 interview he gave to the BBC’s Emily Maitlis, Prince Andrew didn’t say that the March 2001 photograph of him, Ghislaine Maxwell and the young lady then known as Virginia Roberts at the since convicted mucky madam sex offender’s then home at 44 Kinnerton Street in Belgravia, London, SW1 was a fake.

Subsequently, of the image, Maxwell’s own family openly admitted: “[We] do recognise that setting” and subsequently though another photo that did the rounds – that of Ghislaine Maxwell at an In-N-Out burger joint in August 2019 – was exposed as doctored and thus showed the pension pot plunderer’s deviant daughter to be prone to partaking in fakery, the 2001 image that has been shared the world over millions of times has never been discredited.

Now, in spite of the washed-up wastrel wack job Lady Victoria Hervey – a money motivated meddler with utterly no qualification to comment on the authenticity of the price of fish let alone whether an image is genuine or not – chucking in her cloven hooves and attempting to muddy the waters by claiming the photograph a fake whilst lacking an ounce even of relevant proof, Michael Thomas, a New Zealand photographer who photographed the original photograph in 2011, has shared a far more sensible analysis.

Speaking to the New Zealand Herald this week, Thomas remarked:

“As I have said before, it was just an ordinary photo you would have got from a chemist in the days of negatives. Surely, if it was fake, every media outlet in the world would be getting sued for using it. The fact that isn’t happening, to me says everything.”

Of the image, previously in 2019, Thomas commented: “It wasn’t like she pulled the photo of Prince Andrew out, it was just in among the rest of them. They were just typical teenage snaps. There’s no way that photo is fake.”

THAT 2001 Photo Thus Far NOT PROVEN A FAKE – The 10^th March 2001 photograph of Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell

The photograph, taken supposedly by Jeffrey Epstein on the first floor landing at 44 Kinnerton Street, Belgravia, London, SW1X 8ES, United Kingdom, has been shared by the world’s media in hundreds of thousands of articles and analysed countless times by countless experts.

In November 2019, the Daily Mail’s Inderdeep Bains called it: “The photograph that WON’T go away” and it, as of date, has NEVER been discredited. Amongst evidence suggesting it to be perfectly real is that:

• The setting of the photograph has been confirmed as genuine by the Maxwell family. Of it, in March 2021, Ian Maxwell told Radio 4’s Today programme: “I do recognise that setting.”
• The window in the picture has the same features as the front first floor windows of 44 Kinnerton Street.
• The width of the first floor landing is accurate to the measurements shown in the floor plan of the sales brochure prepared on the 14^th October 2021 by estate agents Wellbelove Quested.
• Though he claimed to be “at a loss to explain this particular photograph” during the 2019 BBC interview, the Duke of York has admitted to having visited 44 Kinnerton Street. He stated: “I don’t think I think ever went upstairs… The dining room and everything was on the ground floor.” Contradicting the royal, sources have claimed that the room behind him, Roberts and Maxwell in the photograph was used as a sitting room.
• The heights of all three individuals in the picture look to be accurate proportionately.
• Prince Andrew’s “chubby fingers” are clear to see. The Queen’s second son’s fingers are clearly “chubby fingers” and these very same “chubby fingers” have been seen hundreds of thousands of times in hundreds of thousands of other photographs.
• Prince Andrew has claimed he only ever goes out in London in a suit and tie. Images of him in open necked shirts in the capital – including one of him leaving the nightclub Chinawhite – prove to the contrary.
• Prince Andrew has claimed he does not “do” hugs and and embraces in photographs. Images of him taken in St Tropez embracing the US socialite Chris Von Aspen in July 2007 suggest the alleged non-sweater is wrong also on that score.
• The outfit worn by Virginia Roberts – a woman who has already received financial settlements from Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell – has been seen on her in photographs of her at Naomi Campbell’s 2001 birthday party in France. In spite of some suggestions that a lady only wears an outfit once, we counter that a lady in Miss Roberts’ unfortunate situation would be forced to wear what she was told appealed to those in control of her wished her to wear.
• Matthew Steeples of The Steeple Times and Shaun Attwood of Shaun Attwood’s True Crime Channel have both seen inside 44 Kinnerton Street and the stair rail shown in the photo remains in place and is thus genuine to the setting. Attwood subsequently released film footage of this on his YouTube channel and The Steeple Times shared its most recent image of the open front door with the stair rail beyond in July 2021.
• Many experts have repeatedly stated photo manipulation was in its infancy at the time that this image first surfaced.
• The FBI have never questioned the authenticity of the image.

The TRUE FAKE PHOTO – The August 2019 photograph of Ghislaine Maxwell at an In-N-Out Burger restaurant

It must be remembered that the now convicted mucky madam sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell was likely involved in leaking that infamous “too perfect” photoshopped image of herself at an In-N-Out Burger restaurant in Los Angeles in August 2019. Aside from this wicked woman – whom bangs on about being vegan constantly now – “planting herself for a double-double” burger, that image was subsequently debunked by The Cut. For them, Bridget Read stated:

“The intrepid Daily Mail checked out the location of the burger joint in Hollywood where Maxwell was allegedly spotted by a regular last week and found some odd discrepancies. Notably, a bus stop in the background of the shot shows an advertisement for the movie Good Boys – which the company that operates the ad space said has never been there. The bus stop currently displays an ad for a local hospital, which it says has been there since July 28. Maxwell was supposedly photographed at the In-N-Out on August 12.”

“Questions about Maxwell’s lunch outing have fed into the already robust set of conspiracy theories around Epstein, his high-profile acquaintances, and his death. Why was a second smartphone on the In-N-Out table? Why did Maxwell never stick a straw in either her soda or her shake? Why did the diner who supposedly photographed her have such a nice camera, with a lens that took a very clear photo? It doesn’t help that the In-N-Out employees at that location have been forbidden, supposedly by their employer, to talk about Maxwell’s visit.”

“If Saffian did indeed leak the photo of Maxwell, it was likely to try and throw the FBI off her scent… If the In-N-Out photo is indeed doctored, Maxwell could be anywhere and could show up anywhere she pleases. What’s next? Some predictions: eating a hot dog on the steps of the Met, posing with a cactus at Joshua Tree, riding a unicycle at Burning Man, or painting her nails on the C train.”