mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021147.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "100",
    "document_number": "59",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page100 of 113\n\n\"there wasn't direct evidence about, you know, the defendant directly instructing Kellen to make a certain phone call, and we acknowledge that.\" A406. The court pointed to the testimony of Larry Visoski as support for the fact that Kellen was Maxwell's assistant. A417. But Visocki's testimony does not support this inference either. While Visoski initially testified that he \"thought\" Kellen was Maxwell's assistant, he later clarified that \"he didn't know what her exact job\" was; did not know whether Kellen was Epstein's assistant or Maxwell's assistant; and that his best recollection was that Kellen was \"an employee who worked with Epstein.\" Tr. 204. Further, Cimberly Espinosa testified that Kellen was Epstein's assistant, and that she - not Kellen- was Maxwell's assistant. Tr. 2332-33, 2376-77. Espinosa further testified that, during the time Kellen interacted with Carolyn, Epstein and Maxwell had ended their romantic relationship and \"went their separate ways.\" Tr. 2370-71. Indeed, even Carolyn testified that there was a clear break in the time when Maxwell called her to schedule massages and when Kellen began calling her. Tr. 1527.\n\nGiven the dearth of evidence, the government failed to meet its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Maxwell supervised Kellen in any capacity, much less was there any inference available to suggest that there was supervision of a criminal nature. Thus, the court erred in applying the enhancement.\n\n85\nDOJ-OGR-00021147",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page100 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"there wasn't direct evidence about, you know, the defendant directly instructing Kellen to make a certain phone call, and we acknowledge that.\" A406. The court pointed to the testimony of Larry Visoski as support for the fact that Kellen was Maxwell's assistant. A417. But Visocki's testimony does not support this inference either. While Visoski initially testified that he \"thought\" Kellen was Maxwell's assistant, he later clarified that \"he didn't know what her exact job\" was; did not know whether Kellen was Epstein's assistant or Maxwell's assistant; and that his best recollection was that Kellen was \"an employee who worked with Epstein.\" Tr. 204. Further, Cimberly Espinosa testified that Kellen was Epstein's assistant, and that she - not Kellen- was Maxwell's assistant. Tr. 2332-33, 2376-77. Espinosa further testified that, during the time Kellen interacted with Carolyn, Epstein and Maxwell had ended their romantic relationship and \"went their separate ways.\" Tr. 2370-71. Indeed, even Carolyn testified that there was a clear break in the time when Maxwell called her to schedule massages and when Kellen began calling her. Tr. 1527.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Given the dearth of evidence, the government failed to meet its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Maxwell supervised Kellen in any capacity, much less was there any inference available to suggest that there was supervision of a criminal nature. Thus, the court erred in applying the enhancement.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "85",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021147",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Kellen",
      "Larry Visoski",
      "Cimberly Espinosa",
      "Carolyn",
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 59",
      "3475902",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021147"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document discussing a case involving Maxwell and Epstein. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}