github-mirrors
/
mirror-epstein-docs


			
				
					
						
						
							123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172
							{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "81",
    "document_number": "58",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page81 of 221\nA-281\n36\nW38TMX1\nthat talking to a reporter would necessarily make you known to\nthe world about - your sexual abuse known to the world. If it's\nsomething that truly entered from The Independent\nthat wasn't something that you spoke to Lucia, the reporter from The Independent\nfact that you spoke to, about the consequences that you might get into jury\ndeliberations - about what you said to her sexual\nabuse and other things, there would be are those two thoughts\nto what you were doing. In your head, which and the journalist is\nthink you would be known for this, and the government has no objection\ntelling you very forth?\nMS. MOE:\nYour Honor, the understanding about his\nto limited follow-up questions about the\nwhether it would become public. I do have concerns about the\nproposed question because it's confusing and a little cryptic.\nI don't know what the word \"consequence\" might mean in\nresponse to the question or that \"sort\" in particular driving\nat. I think the Court noted, in already publicly\nresponse to the question or that \"sort\" in particular driving\nat. I think the Court noted, in already publicly\nI think the Court noted, in already publicly\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n35\nW38TMX1\nfrom The Independent, about the consequences of him coming\nforward, which is: This is a momentous decision you're making.\nSo I don't see how he squares his comments about I\nnever thought by talking to the press that I would come forward\nand be known this way, when in fact I think there was a lengthy\ndiscussion he had with a journalist about this very fact.\nTHE COURT:\nHe said that he recognized by talking to\nthe press about it that it would be known publicly.\nMR. EVERELL:\nI may have said that, but I\nthink at the same time he's saying I didn't think this would be\nknown by my parents and my friends - and I know how you\nsquare those responses. To me - and I know you don't want to hear at this point,\nsubject of argument that you're simply not credible on this point because\nhis responses are simply not credible on this point because\nbut his responses are simply not credible on this point because\nhe's talking out of both sides of his mouth;\nIt makes\nno sense to me. I'm curious to hear more about what I perceive\nas blatant conflict in answers about going forward with a\njournalist about the consequences of going forward with a\njournalist about the consequences of going forward.\nYou told me to ask about what he discussed\nwith the journalist, who I believe is The Independent\njournalist, who I believe is The Independent\nMR. EVERELL:\nLucilia, who I believe is The Independent\njournalist. So I would - I'm sorry it's not coming out very\nfocused, but you had discussed before in\nresponses to my questions about the fact that you didn't think\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nDOJ-OGR-00020907",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page81 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-281",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "36\nW38TMX1\nthat talking to a reporter would necessarily make you known to\nthe world about - your sexual abuse known to the world. If it's\nsomething that truly entered from The Independent\nthat wasn't something that you spoke to Lucia, the reporter from The Independent\nfact that you spoke to, about the consequences that you might get into jury\ndeliberations - about what you said to her sexual\nabuse and other things, there would be are those two thoughts\nto what you were doing. In your head, which and the journalist is\nthink you would be known for this, and the government has no objection\ntelling you very forth?\nMS. MOE:\nYour Honor, the understanding about his\nto limited follow-up questions about the\nwhether it would become public. I do have concerns about the\nproposed question because it's confusing and a little cryptic.\nI don't know what the word \"consequence\" might mean in\nresponse to the question or that \"sort\" in particular driving\nat. I think the Court noted, in already publicly\nresponse to the question or that \"sort\" in particular driving\nat. I think the Court noted, in already publicly\nI think the Court noted, in already publicly\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "35\nW38TMX1\nfrom The Independent, about the consequences of him coming\nforward, which is: This is a momentous decision you're making.\nSo I don't see how he squares his comments about I\nnever thought by talking to the press that I would come forward\nand be known this way, when in fact I think there was a lengthy\ndiscussion he had with a journalist about this very fact.\nTHE COURT:\nHe said that he recognized by talking to\nthe press about it that it would be known publicly.\nMR. EVERELL:\nI may have said that, but I\nthink at the same time he's saying I didn't think this would be\nknown by my parents and my friends - and I know how you\nsquare those responses. To me - and I know you don't want to hear at this point,\nsubject of argument that you're simply not credible on this point because\nhis responses are simply not credible on this point because\nbut his responses are simply not credible on this point because\nhe's talking out of both sides of his mouth;\nIt makes\nno sense to me. I'm curious to hear more about what I perceive\nas blatant conflict in answers about going forward with a\njournalist about the consequences of going forward with a\njournalist about the consequences of going forward.\nYou told me to ask about what he discussed\nwith the journalist, who I believe is The Independent\njournalist, who I believe is The Independent\nMR. EVERELL:\nLucilia, who I believe is The Independent\njournalist. So I would - I'm sorry it's not coming out very\nfocused, but you had discussed before in\nresponses to my questions about the fact that you didn't think\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020907",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Lucia",
      "MR. EVERELL",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "The Independent",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "Page81 of 221",
      "A-281",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020907"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with some redactions. The text is mostly clear, but there are some minor formatting issues."
}