DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00866.png

Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page47 of 74 about her history of having been sexually assaulted as a minor constitutes more than a general denial, it alleges something deeply disturbing about the character of an individual willing to be publicly dishonest about such a reprehensible crime. Defendant’s statements clearly imply that the denials are based on facts separate and contradictory to those that Plaintiff has alleged.” Jd. Defendant argues that somehow the “context” of the entire statement “tested against the understanding of the average reader” should be the press release as a whole being read only by journalists. This is an unreasonable construct because the ultimate audience for a press release is the public. Indeed, the purpose of a press release is to reach readers. Unsurprisingly, Defendant cites no case that holds that journalists might somehow believe statements of fact are opinion while others do not. This Court has previously covered this ground when it clearly stated: Sexual assault of a minor is a clear-cut issue; either transgression occurred or it did not. Either Maxwell was involved or she was not. The issue is not a matter of opinion, and there cannot be differing understandings of the same facts that justify diametrically opposed opinion as to whether Defendant was involved in Plaintiff's abuse as Plaintiff has claimed. Either Plaintiff is telling the truth about her story and Defendant’s involvement, or Defendant is telling the truth and she was not involved in the trafficking and ultimate abuse of Plaintiff. Giuffre v. Maxwell, 165 F. Supp.at 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). The same conclusion applies now. At the motion to dismiss stage, Defendant had not yet produced the statement she issued to the press. That statement is now in evidence, so there is no ambiguity as to what defendant released to the press. The absurdity of Defendant characterizing his statements calling Ms. Giuffre a liar as mere “opinion” is revealed by the fact that Defendant was the one who was sexually trafficking and otherwise abusing Ms. Giuffre. No reasonable person in any context would construe that as Defendant’s mere “opinion” on the subject, since Defendant knew she was abusing Ms. Giuffre. Indeed, this argument is contradicted by Defendant’s own deposition testimony: 39