Epstein Chronicles: The Archives
Oct 15, 2026 · 16 min · 9 segments
Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that…
There can be no question that disputed issues of material facts preclude granting summary judgment when in one count defamation case defendant presents the court with a 68-page memorandum of law, a 16-page statement of purported facts, and approximately 700 pages of exhibits.
Indeed, defendant acknowledges a dispute between the parties as to whether she abused Ms. Roberts.
This court already said that this disputed factual question is central to this case.
Whether they ultimately prove to meet the standards of defamation, including but not limited to falsity, is a matter for the fact finder.
But even turning to defendant's claims, the avalanche of aspersions she casts upon Ms. Roberts and her counsel should not distract the court from the fact that the instant motion cannot come within sight of meeting the standard for an award of summary judgment.
The most glaring and emblematic example of the defendant's far-fetched claims appears in her attempt to move away from her defamatory statement by arguing that it was her attorney and not her who issued the defamatory statement for the press to publish, though she is forced to admit the statement was made on her behalf.
This is an untenable position to take at trial and an impossible argument to advance at summary judgment stage as both the testamentary and documentary evidence positively refute that argument.
Defendant incorrectly asked this court to make a factual finding that her defamatory press release was actually a legal opinion issued not by her but by her lawyer to the media despite documentary evidence showing otherwise.
To the contrary, evidence both documentary and testimonial from numerous witnesses corroborate Ms. Roberts' account of defendant's involvement in the sexual abuse and trafficking of Ms. Roberts.
This is a fraction of the testimony that will be elicited at trial about defendant's involvement in the sexual abuse of trafficking Ms. Roberts.
There can be no question that disputed issues of material facts preclude granting summary judgment when in one count defamation case defendant presents the court with a 68-page memorandum of law, a 16-page statement of purported facts, and approximately 700 pages of exhibits.
Indeed, defendant acknowledges a dispute between the parties as to whether she abused Ms. Roberts.
This court already said that this disputed factual question is central to this case.
Whether they ultimately prove to meet the standards of defamation, including but not limited to falsity, is a matter for the fact finder.
But even turning to defendant's claims, the avalanche of aspersions she casts upon Ms. Roberts and her counsel should not distract the court from the fact that the instant motion cannot come within sight of meeting the standard for an award of summary judgment.
The most glaring and emblematic example of the defendant's far-fetched claims appears in her attempt to move away from her defamatory statement by arguing that it was her attorney and not her who issued the defamatory statement for the press to publish, though she is forced to admit the statement was made on her behalf.
This is an untenable position to take at trial and an impossible argument to advance at summary judgment stage as both the testamentary and documentary evidence positively refute that argument.
Defendant incorrectly asked this court to make a factual finding that her defamatory press release was actually a legal opinion issued not by her but by her lawyer to the media despite documentary evidence showing otherwise.
To the contrary, evidence both documentary and testimonial from numerous witnesses corroborate Ms. Roberts' account of defendant's involvement in the sexual abuse and trafficking of Ms. Roberts.
This is a fraction of the testimony that will be elicited at trial about defendant's involvement in the sexual abuse of trafficking Ms. Roberts.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
