General Discussion

Wiz Imp

(9,092 posts)

25. I won't dispute any of the points you make, however you are wrong about one thing.

Sat Dec 20, 2025, 02:13 PM

Dec 20

The testimony I posted was NOT from Virginia Giuffre's 2015 civil case against Maxwell. It was from a a 2016 lawsuit by Bradley Edwards & Paul Cassell against Alan Dershowitz. Virginia Giuffre was NOT a party to this lawsuit. She was strictly called as a witness.

Edwards and Cassell were suing for defamation because Dershowitz claimed that they knowingly filed a lawsuit containing falsehoods about him or at least failed to properly investigate their client’s allegations that Dershowitz had sexual relations with her when she was a minor. Again, Virginia Giuffre's only connection to this case was because she was called as a witness. She later filed her own defamation case against Dershowitz.

Here is Giuffre's deposition in her case against Maxwell. Much of the testimony is similar but it is not the same.
https://assets.newsweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/468905-jeffrey-epstein-files-giuffre-v-maxwell-deposition.pdf

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

RockCreek explorer4

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

*****Updated***** I pulled up a random document from the release and found proof that the DOJ [View all] Wiz Imp Dec 19 OP

The coverup continues Blues Heron Dec 19 #1

Well. If this is a transcript of a videotaped deposition, Volaris Dec 19 #2

Good point. Wiz Imp Dec 19 #7

Let the motions and lawsuits to compel compliance begin pat_k Dec 19 #3

It's explicitly stated in the law what can and can't be redacted. Wiz Imp Dec 19 #6

Protecting the criminals. Color me surprised! NOT! BComplex Dec 19 #13

Huh? These restrictions in the law are expicitly to NOT protect the criminals. Wiz Imp Dec 19 #16

Got it! BComplex Dec 20 #23

I understand they have to list legal reasons why each and every redaction was made. halobeam Dec 19 #20

Yep. I believe everything you said is correct. Wiz Imp Dec 20 #22

They probably will claim that [redacted] os an ongoing investigation Bluetus Dec 20 #30

Besides the general hideousness of this (and all the girls, young women violated)... electric_blue68 Dec 19 #4

All redactions by law, were supposed to come with Emile Dec 19 #5

I think that is what is due 15 days from today? halobeam Dec 20 #21

And the Trump Administration moved Maxwell to a much cushier prison too. Botany Dec 19 #8

Agreed. And given the specific question about Victoria's Secret lingerie Wiz Imp Dec 19 #9

Les Wexner is the person behind Victoria's Secrets and the brand but he would have no interest in a woman Botany Dec 19 #12

Sorry, but info released in January 2024 confirms it WAS Wexner she was talking about. Wiz Imp Dec 19 #15

That is surprising Botany Dec 19 #18

Wow. Who is questioning her? Demanding, borderline mean. Horrible. Joinfortmill Dec 19 #10

This was in relation to lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz brought by Giuffre's lawyer. Wiz Imp Dec 19 #11

Ah, that explains it. Joinfortmill Dec 19 #14

Working link: Celerity Dec 19 #17

The only way Bondi will release this is when she sees the handcuffs coming for her. mn9driver Dec 19 #19

Guiffre's 2015 testimony against Maxwell in her civil case mentioned in the OP has long been publicly available AZJonnie Dec 20 #24

I won't dispute any of the points you make, however you are wrong about one thing. Wiz Imp Dec 20 #25

Okay, my bad. I thought your post was in two parts, top and bottom (2015 and 2016 testimonies) AZJonnie Dec 20 #26

Like I said. I agree. Especially about Bondi. Wiz Imp Dec 20 #28

I don't think she understood that president and prime minister are essentially the same thing. everyonematters Dec 20 #27

I think the questioner was trying to trip her up. Wiz Imp Dec 20 #29