{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "204-4",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-4 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 6\n\n- AK did not express any concerns about anything to the attorneys. AK may have asked something like whether the attorneys are asking SDNY to re-do the Florida investigation because AK was trying to understand what the attorneys were proposing: was it looking at the same conduct that was investigated in Florida and mishandled, or was it looking at different conduct and possibly ongoing conduct? AK recalls asking questions to clarify that point.\n- AK is sure one of the things she asked would have been venue oriented to understand what the attorneys were describing and what the conduct was. AK would not have responded to a question asking about why AK wouldn't just open an investigation. Purpose of the meeting was for AK to understand what the attorneys were trying to convey, not for AK to make any representation about her thoughts or what she was going to do.\n- Brad Edwards's book suggesting that the AUSA seemed \"confident that a case would be brought\" does not seem accurate to AK. AK did not intend to give such an impression during the meeting. That decision is not one for AK to make alone, in any event.\n- AK does not recall any mention that the number of victims in NY far exceeded the number in Florida.\n- Brad Edwards's description of wanting a case against Epstein is consistent with AK's recollection that the focus was on Epstein.\n- If anyone called AK, she does not remember that, and she would not have mentioned the comity shown to other USAOs around the country.\n- AK does not recall anyone ever approaching her to ask if SDNY would consider charging Maxwell with perjury.\n  - AK has a vague memory that the attorneys called or emailed AK at some point and told her that there had been depositions, presumably by contact from one of these lawyers, but AK cannot recall the specifics. AK does not remember one way or the other if any of the attorneys referenced the possibility of perjury.\n  - AK recalls thinking that a perjury investigation would have the same challenges. AK recalls thinking in her mind that if the depositions were about the underlying conduct that had all of the issues that gave AK pause after the meeting (length of time that had passed, sense there must have been a reason SDFL resolved the case the way they did) were not alleviated by a perjury-based prosecution.\n  - AK does not recall ever knowing anything about the substance of the depositions and does not remember anyone sending her a deposition transcript.\n  - AK does not remember who had been deposed or who might have been the subject of a possible perjury investigation.\n  - No investigation into perjury was ever opened.\n- AK took no further action re Epstein after calling Sean Watson.\n  - Though there may be emails or calls AK cannot remember, she knows that she took no action after the call to Sean Watson. Part of the reason AK felt horrible when reading the Miami Herald article was because AK took no action after calling Sean Watson.\n5\nDOJ-OGR-00003529",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-4 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The rest of the document text",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003529",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "AK",
      "Brad Edwards",
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Sean Watson"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SDNY",
      "SDFL",
      "USAOs",
      "AUSA"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "NY"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-4",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003529"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}