mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021560.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "130 of 217",
    "document_number": "78",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page130 of 217\nSA-384\n15\nM6SQmax1\n1    Virginia, was unaware if she had interacted with anyone under\n2    the age of 18 at Epstein's properties. She never gave Annie\n3    Farmer a massage. She was unaware whether Epstein possessed\n4    sex toys. She was unaware that he was engaging in sexual\n5    activity with anyone other than her in the 1990s and 2000s.\n6    She never gave Epstein a massage. The credible testimony and\n7    evidence admitted at trial disproves these assertions which\n8    were made under oath.\n9        Paragraph 79, the defendant objects to the\n10   characterization of the offense conduct as contrary to the\n11   trial record. Here, defense hasn't provided any reason\n12   specifying this, and I don't see one. So based on the written\n13   objection, it's overruled.\n14       Paragraph 81, the defendant objects to the assertion\n15   that Ms. Maxwell had direct responsibility for any sexualized\n16   massages that several women or any other people that Carolyn\n17   may have brought to Epstein's residence may have performed, and\n18   she contends there's no record that she interfaced with these\n19   individuals. I am prepared to overrule that objection.\n20       The paragraph makes clear that these individuals did\n21   not interact directly with Ms. Maxwell. Nevertheless, for the\n22   reasons explained a little while ago in overruling the\n23   objections to paragraphs 27 and 28, I do conclude that the\n24   evidence at trial established that the defendant's recruitment\n25   of Virginia set the recruitment scheme in motion that resulted\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C... (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021560",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page130 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-384",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15\nM6SQmax1\n1    Virginia, was unaware if she had interacted with anyone under\n2    the age of 18 at Epstein's properties. She never gave Annie\n3    Farmer a massage. She was unaware whether Epstein possessed\n4    sex toys. She was unaware that he was engaging in sexual\n5    activity with anyone other than her in the 1990s and 2000s.\n6    She never gave Epstein a massage. The credible testimony and\n7    evidence admitted at trial disproves these assertions which\n8    were made under oath.\n9        Paragraph 79, the defendant objects to the\n10   characterization of the offense conduct as contrary to the\n11   trial record. Here, defense hasn't provided any reason\n12   specifying this, and I don't see one. So based on the written\n13   objection, it's overruled.\n14       Paragraph 81, the defendant objects to the assertion\n15   that Ms. Maxwell had direct responsibility for any sexualized\n16   massages that several women or any other people that Carolyn\n17   may have brought to Epstein's residence may have performed, and\n18   she contends there's no record that she interfaced with these\n19   individuals. I am prepared to overrule that objection.\n20       The paragraph makes clear that these individuals did\n21   not interact directly with Ms. Maxwell. Nevertheless, for the\n22   reasons explained a little while ago in overruling the\n23   objections to paragraphs 27 and 28, I do conclude that the\n24   evidence at trial established that the defendant's recruitment\n25   of Virginia set the recruitment scheme in motion that resulted",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C... (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021560",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Virginia",
      "Annie Farmer",
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Carolyn"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Epstein's properties",
      "Epstein's residence"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "1990s",
      "2000s"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "78",
      "3536039",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021560"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is typed, and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes a header with case information and a footer with the name and contact information of the court reporters."
}