Back to Results

DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00867.png

Source: DOCUMENTCLOUD  •  Size: 309.8 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 94.5%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page48 of 74 Q. Do you believe Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused minors? A. I can only testify to what I know. I know that Virginia is a liar and I know what she testified is a lie. So I can only testify to what I know to be a falsehood and half those falsehoods are enormous and so I can only categorically deny everything she has said and that is the only thing I can talk about because I have no knowledge of anything else. See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 11, Maxwell Dep. Tr. (April 17, 2016) at 174:6-19. Defendant slyly contends in her motion that “Mr. Barden’s “arguments” in the press release 20 constitute ‘pure opinion,’” attempting to disclaim any involvement in making the defamatory statement. However, it is not Mr. Barden’s statement, nor his opinion, that it at issue here. At issue here is Defendant’s statement — a statement attributable to her, that she approved, whose publication she “command[ed],” and for which she hired a public relations representative to disseminate to at least 30 journalists for publication. While Mr. Barden could possibly have had his own opinion as to whether or not his client abused Ms. Giuffre, Defendant cannot express an opinion on a binary, yes/no subject where she knows the truth. As this Court previously articulated, “statements that Giuffre’s claims ‘against [defendant] are untrue,’ have been ‘shown to be untrue,’ and are ‘obvious lies’ have a specific and readily understood factual meaning.” Giuffre v. Maxwell, 165 F. Supp. 3d at 152. Again, at the very least, the jury must pass on such issues. D. The Pre-Litigation Privilege Does Not Apply to Defendant’s Press Release 1. Defendant fails to make a showing that the pre-litigation privilege applies. Defendant’s next argument seeks refuge in the pre-litigation privilege. If we understand the argument correctly, Defendant seems to be saying that because she was contemplating an (unspecified and never-filed) lawsuit involving the British Press, she somehow had a “green light” to make whatever defamatory statements she wanted about Ms. Giuffre. To prove such a 40

Document Preview

DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00867.png

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00867.png
File Size 309.8 KB
OCR Confidence 94.5%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,136 characters
Indexed 2026-02-04 12:26:44.076184