mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016989.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "63",
    "document_number": "765",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 63 of 95\nLCIAMAX2ps\n1  the question of knowledge as to age, what's your response? Why isn't it applicable with respect to what the defense has put in issue with regard to that?\n2\n3\n4      MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. The witnesses\n5  themselves -- sorry, your Honor. One moment.\n6      THE COURT: Yes.\n7\n8      MR. PAGLIUCA: If you don't mind, your Honor, it's easier for me --\n9\n10     THE COURT: Since it's Saturday, I will break my one-lawyer-per-issue rule.\n11\n12     MR. PAGLIUCA: I appreciate it. My recollection is the testimony from each of the four witnesses, I will call them, is that they said that they told Ms. Maxwell their age.\n13  Carolyn said that she told Ms. Maxwell her age. Jane said she told Ms. Maxwell her age. Similarly, Kate said she told\n14  Ms. Maxwell her age.\n15\n16     So there is no \"I'm not trying to find out what her age is\" evidence in this case. The evidence that was elicited -- I think this is, you know, largely through\n17  Mr. Alessi. Mr. Alessi said that he only saw two people at the house that he thought were under the age of 18, and that was\n18  Ms. Roberts and Jane. I'm trying to remember everybody's names.\n19\n20     So that's that testimony.\n21\n22     I don't think there's any other testimony in the\n23\n24  SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n      (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00016989",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 63 of 95",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCIAMAX2ps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the question of knowledge as to age, what's your response? Why isn't it applicable with respect to what the defense has put in issue with regard to that?\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. The witnesses themselves -- sorry, your Honor. One moment.\nTHE COURT: Yes.\nMR. PAGLIUCA: If you don't mind, your Honor, it's easier for me --\nTHE COURT: Since it's Saturday, I will break my one-lawyer-per-issue rule.\nMR. PAGLIUCA: I appreciate it. My recollection is the testimony from each of the four witnesses, I will call them, is that they said that they told Ms. Maxwell their age.\nCarolyn said that she told Ms. Maxwell her age. Jane said she told Ms. Maxwell her age. Similarly, Kate said she told Ms. Maxwell her age.\nSo there is no \"I'm not trying to find out what her age is\" evidence in this case. The evidence that was elicited -- I think this is, you know, largely through Mr. Alessi. Mr. Alessi said that he only saw two people at the house that he thought were under the age of 18, and that was Ms. Roberts and Jane. I'm trying to remember everybody's names.\nSo that's that testimony.\nI don't think there's any other testimony in the",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016989",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Carolyn",
      "Jane",
      "Kate",
      "Mr. Alessi",
      "Ms. Roberts"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016989"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}