mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013873.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "761",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 14 of 246 2309 LCGVMAX1\n1 THE COURT: I was sort of leaning that way when I thought the attorney was going to come testify who could be crossed on this precise question. But you want it to just come in -- you want a fact not in issue, which is the ownership question, you want an inference from ownership -- ownership is confusing; but the inference from the timing of ownership as to when she lived there, which is contradicted by deposition testimony that would come in from Ms. Maxwell.\n2 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think we have records which we'd have to find and anticipate this being the issue. But Ms. Maxwell had another place in London at a street called Stanhope Mews, I think it was 69 Stanhope Mews. And we may be able to find the title records that she sold it, because she had that prior to the Kinnerton Street residence. And I think if you have -- we'd have to look for those. I think we probably can find them. But they would show that she had another place until she bought this new place.\n3 So I think that is a fair inference to say that if somebody owned another place and didn't buy another place until later, that they are not living at that new place if they owned the other place. That's just common sense.\n4 THE COURT: And why can't the attorney who you had proffered as the witness for this testify?\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if we need the attorney, we can try to get him here, but we just couldn't get him here\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013873",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 14 of 246 2309 LCGVMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 THE COURT: I was sort of leaning that way when I thought the attorney was going to come testify who could be crossed on this precise question. But you want it to just come in -- you want a fact not in issue, which is the ownership question, you want an inference from ownership -- ownership is confusing; but the inference from the timing of ownership as to when she lived there, which is contradicted by deposition testimony that would come in from Ms. Maxwell.\n2 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think we have records which we'd have to find and anticipate this being the issue. But Ms. Maxwell had another place in London at a street called Stanhope Mews, I think it was 69 Stanhope Mews. And we may be able to find the title records that she sold it, because she had that prior to the Kinnerton Street residence. And I think if you have -- we'd have to look for those. I think we probably can find them. But they would show that she had another place until she bought this new place.\n3 So I think that is a fair inference to say that if somebody owned another place and didn't buy another place until later, that they are not living at that new place if they owned the other place. That's just common sense.\n4 THE COURT: And why can't the attorney who you had proffered as the witness for this testify?\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if we need the attorney, we can try to get him here, but we just couldn't get him here",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013873",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Mr. Everdell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "London",
      "Kinnerton Street",
      "Stanhope Mews"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "761",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013873"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}