DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p01881.png

Case 18-2868, Document 284, 08/09/2019, 2628244, Page30 of 38 and her name was never mentioned before the grand jury. Jd. at 203, 211. No property belonging to Maxwell, including “sex toys” or “child pornography,” was seized from Epstein’s home during execution of the search warrant. Id. at 257. Detective Recarey, when asked to describe “everything that you believe you know about Ghislaine Maxwell’s sexual trafficking conduct,” replied, “I don’t.” Jd. at 278. He confirmed he has no knowledge about Ms. Maxwell sexually trafficking anybody. Id. at 278-79. Detective Recarey also has no knowledge of Plaintiffs conduct that is subject of this lawsuit. Id. at 259-260. a. Reply: Plaintiff offers several misleading “contrary” facts, none of which actually address the facts presented herein, namely whether Ms. Maxwell was ever mentioned by any of Epstein’s alleged victims, whether she was the target of their investigation, and whether any of her property was seized from Epstein’s home. Plaintiff cites to numerous inadmissible pieces of evidence on facts other than those. Mr. Rodriguez, a convicted felon for obstructing justice related to the Epstein case, is dead and his deposition testimony is the subject of a motion in limine because Ms. Maxwell has never had the opportunity to cross examine him. Doc. 567 at 14. Ms. Rabuyo likewise is not a witness who has been deposed in this case, and therefore her “testimony” is not admissible against Ms. Maxwell. The message pads are not authenticated by anyone, as will be the subject of a forthcoming motion in limine. And there is not one shred of evidence that any child pornography, as opposed to a topless photo of a very adult Ms. Maxwell, were ever found in Epstein’s home. The facts should be deemed admitted, as those proferred by Defendant are based on admissible evidence. 49. Undisputed Fact 49: No nude photograph of Plaintiff was displayed in Epstein’s home. Epstein’s housekeeper, Juan Alessi, “never saw any photographs of Virginia 29