mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010345.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22",
    "document_number": "653",
    "date": "04/01/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 22 of 40 interviews he “wasn’t using [his] full name,” which Juror 50 apparently understood reduced the chance that people that knew him would draw the connection. Id. at 42. And, further, he explained that several friends that contacted him after the trial were unaware of the trial occurring, so he assumed his post-trial media interviews would not attract substantial attention. Second, Juror 50 simultaneously acknowledged that because of his interviews, the fact that he was abused “would be a known fact in the world.” Id. at 24. He explained that he had made a conscious decision in favor of disclosure because, “[a]fter sitting on this trial for several weeks and seeing the victims be brave enough to give their stories, [he] felt” that he could too. Id.; see also id. at 42 (“I’m also not ashamed about it. It’s something that is relatively common that happened to multiple people throughout the world.”). In short, Juror 50’s willingness to disclose his sexual abuse changed to some extent between November 4, 2021, and January 2022. He made a conscious decision to share the fact of his sexual abuse with a wider circle of people than he had prior to the time that he completed the questionnaire. At the same time, he presumed—in hindsight, mistakenly—that his interviews, given without his last name and predominantly to international media outlets, would not be seen by his friends or family in his life who, he believed, had not followed the trial up to that point. That explanation of partial public disclosure is further consistent with the fact that in his interviews he related only the fact that he had been abused, not any details of what had occurred. Juror 50’s wishful thinking—or as the Government suggests, naivety—with respect to his post-trial interviews does not suggest that when he completed his questionnaire, he intended to deceive. See Government Post-Hearing Br. at 10 n.4, Dkt. No. 648. The Court also asked Juror 50 about his social media interaction with Annie Farmer. On Twitter, Farmer shared an article that contained an interview with Juror 50 and she said that 22 DOJ-OGR-00010345",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 22 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "interviews he “wasn’t using [his] full name,” which Juror 50 apparently understood reduced the chance that people that knew him would draw the connection. Id. at 42. And, further, he explained that several friends that contacted him after the trial were unaware of the trial occurring, so he assumed his post-trial media interviews would not attract substantial attention. Second, Juror 50 simultaneously acknowledged that because of his interviews, the fact that he was abused “would be a known fact in the world.” Id. at 24. He explained that he had made a conscious decision in favor of disclosure because, “[a]fter sitting on this trial for several weeks and seeing the victims be brave enough to give their stories, [he] felt” that he could too. Id.; see also id. at 42 (“I’m also not ashamed about it. It’s something that is relatively common that happened to multiple people throughout the world.”). In short, Juror 50’s willingness to disclose his sexual abuse changed to some extent between November 4, 2021, and January 2022. He made a conscious decision to share the fact of his sexual abuse with a wider circle of people than he had prior to the time that he completed the questionnaire. At the same time, he presumed—in hindsight, mistakenly—that his interviews, given without his last name and predominantly to international media outlets, would not be seen by his friends or family in his life who, he believed, had not followed the trial up to that point. That explanation of partial public disclosure is further consistent with the fact that in his interviews he related only the fact that he had been abused, not any details of what had occurred. Juror 50’s wishful thinking—or as the Government suggests, naivety—with respect to his post-trial interviews does not suggest that when he completed his questionnaire, he intended to deceive. See Government Post-Hearing Br. at 10 n.4, Dkt. No. 648. The Court also asked Juror 50 about his social media interaction with Annie Farmer. On Twitter, Farmer shared an article that contained an interview with Juror 50 and she said that",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010345",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50",
      "Annie Farmer"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 4, 2021",
      "January 2022",
      "04/01/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "653",
      "648",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010345"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving Juror 50 and Annie Farmer. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}