Ex-Prince Andrew may not have been at Pizza Express after all
Ex Prince Andrew may not have – Following a recent arrest, the pizza chain Pizza Express has launched a formal investigation into the alibi provided by Prince Andrew, Duke of York, for a specific date in 2001. The inquiry centers on whether he was present at the Woking branch of the restaurant on the night in question, when he was allegedly involved with Virginia Giuffre Roberts. The findings of this internal review have raised new questions about the reliability of his claim, according to reports.
Arrest and Investigation
Prince Andrew, who is 66 years old, was arrested in February of this year on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest occurred shortly after the U.S. Justice Department released a set of documents linked to the Jeffrey Epstein case, which included details about his interactions with Giuffre. During the 11-hour custody period, the police confirmed he was being investigated but did not confirm his presence at the restaurant on March 10, 2001.
Alibi in Question
During a BBC Newsnight interview in 2019, Prince Andrew asserted that he could not have been with Giuffre on the night of March 10, 2001, because he was at Pizza Express. The interview became a pivotal moment in the case, as he claimed he was “at the restaurant” and thus unable to engage in the alleged sexual activity. However, new evidence from Pizza Express’s inquiry has cast doubt on this alibi, suggesting that his presence there remains unverified.
Met Police Response
When the Metropolitan Police was asked about whether royal protection officers were present at the Woking branch on that date, they responded with a cautious statement. The Met said:
“Confirming or denying that information is held would reveal whether protection had been afforded to a specific individual other than the King and the prime minister.”
This response has been interpreted as a way to shield the prince’s security details, even as the investigation into his alibi continues.
Family Diary and Contradictions
Six years ago, a family diary of Prince Andrew was leaked, which stated he had a home manicure scheduled in the afternoon before claiming to drop off his then 12-year-old daughter at the Pizza Express restaurant. The diary’s contents were reported by the Daily Mail, highlighting discrepancies between his account and the timeline of events. Princess Beatrice, his daughter, later expressed confusion, stating she had “absolutely no recollection” of the birthday party her father described as having taken place at the restaurant that evening.
Public Criticism of the Inquiry
The inquiry’s findings have drawn scrutiny from political figures. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey criticized the police’s approach, stating:
“Of course, the police are rightly very careful about giving any information about who they give special protection to. I completely understand that and it’s right. But too often we see these types of ‘neither confirm nor deny’ answers where there really isn’t a legitimate security reason – and I think that’s what’s happening here.”
Davey argued that revealing the prince’s past protection would not compromise national security, as the Met claims.
Search for Evidence
Pizza Express has examined its records and interviewed former employees in an effort to verify the prince’s alibi. However, the Woking branch manager, who was central to the investigation, has since left the company and is no longer available for comment. Despite these efforts, the chain found no conclusive evidence confirming or denying his presence at the restaurant that evening. The BBC also reported that its own team had conducted “extensive inquiries” but could not locate any records of someone witnessing him at the establishment on March 10, 2001.
Broader Implications of the Case
The inquiry has reignited debates about the role of royal protection in high-profile cases. While the Met emphasized the need to protect sensitive information, critics argue that the lack of transparency undermines public trust. The case also ties into the broader Jeffrey Epstein scandal, which involved numerous accusers and allegations of abuse spanning decades. Virginia Giuffre Roberts, a key accuser, has been central to the narrative, with her claims forming the basis of the alibi challenge.
Context of the Investigation
March 10, 2001, is the date in question for the alleged encounter with Giuffre. At the time, she was 17 years old, making the incident a focal point of the legal proceedings. Prince Andrew’s claim of being at Pizza Express during that period has been scrutinized alongside other evidence, including statements from his close protection officers. These officers were reportedly asked to “consider carefully” whether they had any relevant observations, though no details were shared publicly.
Public and Media Reaction
The lack of definitive evidence has sparked discussions in both media and public spheres. Some have questioned the thoroughness of the investigation, while others have pointed to the complexity of verifying a royal’s whereabouts decades ago. The case has also been linked to other recent developments, such as the auction of Prince Andrew’s gloves and reports of his desire for continued taxpayer-funded protection. These elements have fueled ongoing interest in the matter, with the public closely following updates.
ReCAPTCHA and Privacy Terms
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA, which ensures that users are not robots. By using this service, your information is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. Your data will be processed in accordance with the site’s Privacy Policy, which outlines how user information is collected and utilized. The inclusion of these terms reflects the broader emphasis on privacy and security in the digital age, even as the case against Prince Andrew gains renewed attention.
As the investigation continues, the situation remains a focal point for those examining the intersection of royalty, public accountability, and media scrutiny. Whether the absence of evidence at Pizza Express will impact the broader case or not remains to be seen, but the inquiry has already highlighted the challenges of confirming a royal’s alibi in a high-profile legal context.
