DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00913.png

Case 18-2868, Document 281, 08/09/2019, 2628234, Page20 of 66 Second, Ms. Giuffre disputes that her allegations have changed over time, “dramatically” or otherwise. Third, Ms. Giuffre disputes that the press release “suggest[ed]’” that her allegations are “obvious lies,” because Defendant’s press release affirmatively, unambiguously stated that her allegations are “obvious lies” — there is no subtlety, suggestion, or statement of opinion here. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, 165 F. Supp.3d 147, 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“. . . these statements (as they themselves allege), are capable of being proven true or false, and therefore constitute actionable fact and not opinion.” DEFENDANT’S PURPORTED FACTS 23, Second, Mr. Barden intended the January 2015 statement to be “a shot across the bow” of the media, which he believed had been unduly eager to publish Ms. Giuffre’s allegations without conducting any inquiry of their own. Accordingly, in the statement he repeatedly noted that Ms. Giuffre’s allegations were “defamatory.” In this sense, the statement was intended as a cease and desist letter to the media-recipients, letting the media-recipients understand the seriousness with which Ms. Maxwell considered the publication of Ms. Giuffre’s obviously false allegations and the legal indefensibility of their own conduct. MS. GIUFFRE’S STATEMENT CONTROVERTING DEFENDANT’S FACTS This paragraph is another purported statement of Defendant’s counsel’s “intent.” Defendant states: “Second, Mr. Barden intended the January 2015 statement to be a ‘shot across the bow’ of the media, which he believed had been unduly eager to publish Ms. Giuffre’s’ allegations without conducting any inquiry of their own.” Not only does Defendant once again refer to Mr. Barden’s intent, but she also mischaracterizes the statement as a “shot across the bow” of the media. The press release did not threaten or give warning to the media in any way whatsoever. See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 26, GM_00068, full image copied in Ms. Giuffre’s Paragraph 18, supra. Next, Ms. Giuffre disputes the sentence, “Accordingly, in the statement he repeatedly noted that Ms. Giuffre’s allegations were ‘defamatory.’” Barden did not “note” anything in the statement, nor does Defendant cite to any record evidence that he does. Furthermore, Ms. Giuffre 20