Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-29775House OversightDeposition

Attorney seeks admission of police report and testimony in defamation case involving alleged underage abuse

The passage references a routine evidentiary motion in a defamation lawsuit, mentioning a police report, a detective, and a party named Maxwell. It lacks specific names of high‑profile officials, fina Attorney argues for admission of a police report and Detective Recarey's testimony. Claims defendant knew of multiple under‑age abuse incidents. Requests ability to question defendant about knowledge

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #011430
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage references a routine evidentiary motion in a defamation lawsuit, mentioning a police report, a detective, and a party named Maxwell. It lacks specific names of high‑profile officials, fina Attorney argues for admission of a police report and Detective Recarey's testimony. Claims defendant knew of multiple under‑age abuse incidents. Requests ability to question defendant about knowledge

Tags

potential-sexual-misconductcourt-filingevidencedefamationunderage-abusepolice-reportlegal-exposurehouse-oversight

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 25 127 H3vlgiu2 come into evidence because they have been validated by an employee who works at the home and are things that should be able to be utilized at trial, and Maxwell should be able to be shown those and explain whether or not there is some issue with respect to those statements. So your Honor, that's all evidence that we do want to enter at the trial, and certainly we have done our diligence with respect to the police report to make sure that we do have Detective Recarey's testimony on it. I submit if you review that, you will see the reason why that it should come into evidence. But regardless of the hearsay issue and the business records exception, again, as you said in your June 20th order, the point of defendant's knowledge at the time she mad a defamatory statement is very significant in this case, so if she knew ven if she didn't believe my client, if she knew that there had been a number of other under-age minors that were abused in this circumstance, to call my client a liar in the face of all that knowledge is something the jury should be able to consider. So that is a piece that is important and relevant to this case. And you can always give a cautionary instruction. If you're concerned at any level, as you know, you could add a cautionary instruction with respect to the police report. But we should be entitled to ask her questions on the stand when she's under oath about what she knew with respect to this very significant document. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Phone(212) 805-0300

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.