Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-26385House OversightDeposition

Defense argues Giuffre mother's deposition statement lacks reputational impact

The passage merely discusses a procedural argument about the relevance of a mother's deposition testimony in a defamation case. It mentions no new evidence, financial flows, or high‑level officials, a The defense questions whether a 2016 deposition comment about Giuffre's behavior in 1999‑2001 can be The argument focuses on the lack of public dissemination of the mother's statement. No specific da

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #011375
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage merely discusses a procedural argument about the relevance of a mother's deposition testimony in a defamation case. It mentions no new evidence, financial flows, or high‑level officials, a The defense questions whether a 2016 deposition comment about Giuffre's behavior in 1999‑2001 can be The argument focuses on the lack of public dissemination of the mother's statement. No specific da

Tags

legal-strategygiuffre-casedefamationlegal-exposurehouse-oversightcourt-testimony

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 h2 H3VOGIU1 in to show reputation." Let me explain why I believe that argument is fundamentally flawed, and that will, of course, carry over to other illustrations, as well. The statement to which defense counsel was referring was a statement that Ms. Giuffre's mother made during a deposition as a witness in this case where the only people in the room were the court reporter and the attorneys. The fact that when asked, "What did you think of your daughter 17 years ago? Well, I thought at the time that she was a liar," wasn't something that goes to Ms. Giuffre's reputation because there's no evidence anybody knew about it other than, you know, the mother who is now being deposed in 2016. Moreover, the question was, "What did you think about the fact that your then 17-year-old child was running away from school? Well, I thought she was lying to me about that." That would go, I guess, to her reputation back in, what, 1999, 2000, 2001, that time period, but of course the damages that are at issue in this case are damages around 2016 and thereabouts when the defamatory statement is released. So it's hard to see even an argument for the statement of the mom in a deposition going to reputation. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, maybe there's some marginal relevance that can be distilled out of all of that. But of course then your Honor has to weigh whatever marginal value that has as to reputational issues against the very significant SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone(212) 805-0300
Wire Refreferring

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.