[GRADE A1 — EFTA01137786, deposition testimony]
In deposition testimony (EFTA01137786), a reference was made to a victim who "claimed to have had sex on numerous occasions with Leslie Wexner, and was told by — by Sigrid McCawley that —" at which point counsel objected. Darren Indyke objected on attorney-client privilege grounds. The testimony was interrupted and not fully explored.
The victim was recruited through the infrastructure documented in this dossier — an infrastructure built with Wexner's corporate resources.
Congressional deposition — Giuffre denial (v2.3): When Virginia Giuffre's allegations were raised, Wexner stated: "She must be confused" — denying any contact. A congresswoman on the committee then stated that she had reviewed victim emails that named Wexner specifically in connection with sexual activity. This congressional statement does not carry the evidentiary weight of the emails themselves (which were not entered into the public record), but it documents that at least one congressional representative viewed materials she characterized as incriminating.
WHAT THIS SHOWS AND DOES NOT SHOW: A victim claim regarding sexual contact with Wexner is entered into the deposition record but was not adjudicated. It was interrupted by objection. This constitutes an allegation, not an established fact. Wexner's congressional deposition denial ("she must be confused") was challenged by a congresswoman who stated she reviewed victim emails naming Wexner. Alternative explanations include: the victim may have been mistaken about identity, the claim may have been made in the context of a broader narrative, the congressional characterization may reflect interpretation rather than literal content, or the objection may have been sustained on valid privilege grounds. The claim cannot be independently corroborated from the corpus.