mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011534.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "737",
    "date": "07/22/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 15 of 101\nM6SQmax1\nVirginia, was unaware if she had interacted with anyone under the age of 18 at Epstein's properties. She never gave Annie Farmer a massage. She was unaware whether Epstein possessed sex toys. She was unaware that he was engaging in sexual activity with anyone other than her in the 1990s and 2000s. She never gave Epstein a massage. The credible testimony and evidence admitted at trial disproves these assertions which were made under oath.\nParagraph 79, the defendant objects to the characterization of the offense conduct as contrary to the trial record. Here, defense hasn't provided any reason specifying this, and I don't see one. So based on the written objection, it's overruled.\nParagraph 81, the defendant objects to the assertion that Ms. Maxwell had direct responsibility for any sexualized massages that several women or any other people that Carolyn may have brought to Epstein's residence may have performed, and she contends there's no record that she interfaced with these individuals. I am prepared to overrule that objection.\nThe paragraph makes clear that these individuals did not interact directly with Ms. Maxwell. Nevertheless, for the reasons explained a little while ago in overruling the objections to paragraphs 27 and 28, I do conclude that the evidence at trial established that the defendant's recruitment of Virginia set the recruitment scheme in motion that resulted\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00011534",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 15 of 101",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\nVirginia, was unaware if she had interacted with anyone under the age of 18 at Epstein's properties. She never gave Annie Farmer a massage. She was unaware whether Epstein possessed sex toys. She was unaware that he was engaging in sexual activity with anyone other than her in the 1990s and 2000s. She never gave Epstein a massage. The credible testimony and evidence admitted at trial disproves these assertions which were made under oath.\nParagraph 79, the defendant objects to the characterization of the offense conduct as contrary to the trial record. Here, defense hasn't provided any reason specifying this, and I don't see one. So based on the written objection, it's overruled.\nParagraph 81, the defendant objects to the assertion that Ms. Maxwell had direct responsibility for any sexualized massages that several women or any other people that Carolyn may have brought to Epstein's residence may have performed, and she contends there's no record that she interfaced with these individuals. I am prepared to overrule that objection.\nThe paragraph makes clear that these individuals did not interact directly with Ms. Maxwell. Nevertheless, for the reasons explained a little while ago in overruling the objections to paragraphs 27 and 28, I do conclude that the evidence at trial established that the defendant's recruitment of Virginia set the recruitment scheme in motion that resulted",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00011534",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Virginia",
      "Annie Farmer",
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Carolyn"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/22/22",
      "1990s",
      "2000s"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "737",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011534"
    ]
  },
  "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."
}