{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "711",
    "date": "07/12/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 711 Filed 07/12/22 Page 10 of 11\ngenitals. Did not, e.g., feel his erect penis. Body generally against hers. sustained an objection to the introduction of some of these statements on page 2186. that the massages were \"sexualized\" in re-direct, although witness had earlier told the government they were not. 2195:10 - 17 3514-012, p. 2, ¾ way down At that time, limited to massaging and talking about the foot massage. Do not remember the specifics re: what JE was saying. Do not remember it being sexualized or going beyond massaging JE foot. This entry is part of the entry three rows above. The Government objects for the same reasons. Government allowed to put on evidence that the massages were \"sexualized\" in re-direct, although witness had earlier told the government they were not. 2197:23 - 2198: 3514-001 Omission - never told anything about GM being \"disinterested\" Objection. This is not a contradictory omission. To the extent it is, the witness was not confronted with 3514-001 on this point. FRE 613(a) does not require showing the statement. 2209:19 - 2213:5 3514-001 Omission - no mention of wanting JE or GM prosecuted Objection. The Court already sustained the objection to the question about whether Annie told the agent that she wanted Epstein prosecuted. And Nesbitt Kuyrkendall declaration said that all witnesses she interviewed in 2006-2008 did not want Epstein Epstein 10 DOJ-OGR-00011298",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 711 Filed 07/12/22 Page 10 of 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "genitals. Did not, e.g., feel his erect penis. Body generally against hers. sustained an objection to the introduction of some of these statements on page 2186. that the massages were \"sexualized\" in re-direct, although witness had earlier told the government they were not.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2195:10 - 17 3514-012, p. 2, ¾ way down At that time, limited to massaging and talking about the foot massage. Do not remember the specifics re: what JE was saying. Do not remember it being sexualized or going beyond massaging JE foot. This entry is part of the entry three rows above. The Government objects for the same reasons. Government allowed to put on evidence that the massages were \"sexualized\" in re-direct, although witness had earlier told the government they were not.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2197:23 - 2198: 3514-001 Omission - never told anything about GM being \"disinterested\" Objection. This is not a contradictory omission. To the extent it is, the witness was not confronted with 3514-001 on this point. FRE 613(a) does not require showing the statement.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2209:19 - 2213:5 3514-001 Omission - no mention of wanting JE or GM prosecuted Objection. The Court already sustained the objection to the question about whether Annie told the agent that she wanted Epstein prosecuted. And Nesbitt Kuyrkendall declaration said that all witnesses she interviewed in 2006-2008 did not want Epstein Epstein",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10 DOJ-OGR-00011298",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "JE",
      "GM",
      "Annie",
      "Epstein",
      "Nesbitt Kuyrkendall"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/12/22",
      "2006",
      "2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "711",
      "3514-012",
      "3514-001",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011298"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or a legal document related to a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content is related to witness testimony and objections raised during a trial or hearing."
}