DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00954.png

Case 18-2868, Document 281, 08/09/2019, 2628234, Page61 of 66 AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL PRACTICE, RESISTANCE, Women, Autobiography, Theory A Reader edited by Sidonie Smith & Julia Watson. Indeed, even a cursory look at the manuscript penned by Ms. Giuffre informs the reader that she is trying to put forth a more palatable and more empowering narrative to over-write that powerlessness she felt when being abused by Defendant and Epstein. While Ms. Giuffre explored trying to publish her story to empower other individuals who were subject to abuse, she ultimately decided not to publish it. See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 5, Giuffre Dep. Tr. 249:16- 18; 250:19-251:3. DEFENDANT’S PURPORTED FACTS 53. Ms. Giuffre’s publicly filed “lurid” CVRA pleadings initiated a media frenzy and generated highly publicized litigation between her lawyers and Alan Dershowitz. On December 30, 2014, Ms. Giuffre, through counsel, publicly filed a joinder motion that contained her “lurid allegations” about Ms. Maxwell and many others, including Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Jean-Luc Brunel. The joinder motion was followed by a “corrected” motion and two further declarations in January and February 2015, which repeated many of Ms. Giuffre’s claims. These CVRA pleadings generated a media maelstrom and spawned highly publicized litigation between Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers, Edwards and Cassell, and Alan Dershowitz. After Ms. Giuffre publicly alleged Mr. Dershowitz of sexual misconduct, Mr. Dershowitz vigorously defended himself in the media. He called Ms. Giuffre a liar and accused her lawyers of unethical conduct. In response, attorneys Edwards and Cassell sued Dershowitz who counterclaimed. This litigation, in turn, caused additional media attention by national and international media organizations. MS. GIUFFRE’S STATEMENT CONTROVERTING DEFENDANT’S FACTS See Ms. Giuffre’s Paragraph 7, supra, explaining why the allegations were necessary and appropriate for multiple reasons. Ms. Giuffre disputes Defendant’s false characterization of these events, and, indeed, the media attention was caused by Defendant’s issuing her defamatory press release. 61