Epstein accuser allegedly 'knew what lingerie Victoria Secret boss likes and his other "sexual hang ups"

JEFFREY Epstein accuser, Virginia Giuffre claimed to know details about former Victoria's Secret mogul Les Wexner's taste in lingerie andother "sexual hang ups" according to newly released court documents.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz is currently in a legal battle against Epstein accuser Giuffre, claiming she is trying to extort him by saying he had sex with her when she was underage.

In court documents released on Friday, Dershowitz claims she did the same thing to Wexner, the New York Post reported.

A phone call detailed in the documents between Dershowitz and Wexner's attorney John Zeiger, outlined that a lawyer for Giuffre told Zieger she knew about Wexner's "sexual hang ups" and that he liked girls dressed in "negligees."

"I think there was a general reference to the type of lingerie and – and things like that, but no specifics," Zeiger said on the call.

"It sounds like, you know, she knows he – he owns Victoria's Secret, and imagines that as a result of that, he must be into the kind of lingerie that's sold in the company," Dershowitz said. "But I mean, she had a good imagination."

According to the documents, Dershowitz also claimed to have a recording of one of Giuffre's friends allegedly admitting they were trying to get money from Wexner.

Dershowitz's lawyers further support their claim that Wexner was extorted by relying on Zeiger's language on the phone call, when he asked the professor if other men were being "shaken down."

Wexner claimed not to have knowledge backing up Dershowitz's claim that he was extorted in other documents unsealed earlier this week.

"We believe Mr. Wexner has no non-privileged information relevant to a claim or defense on Mr. Dershowitz's allegations of an extortion scheme," a letter to Dershowtiz's attorney from a lawyer for Wexner read. "As for the remaining allegations in the Lawsuit, we believe Mr. Wexner's deposition would impose an unreasonable burden on him as his testimony would not be relevant and/or proportional to the needs of the Lawsuits and, in fact, is at best merely inadmissible extrinsic, collateral evidence."

Source: Read Full Article