mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010406.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "40",
    "document_number": "657",
    "date": "04/29/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 40 of 45\n2000s that could have testified the household manual was created by \"the Countess,\" not the Defendant; and Lynn Fontanilla, a live-in housekeeper for Epstein in New York that could have testified about the Defendant's and Epstein's habits.\nNone of these identified pieces of alleged evidence satisfies the Defendant's burden of proving actual and substantial prejudice. The Court addresses first the documentary evidence. First, the Defendant does not attest, or even suggest, what the absent documents are likely to show. Though the Defendant would herself be best positioned to explain her own financial transactions (or the lack thereof), her brief does not suggest what the absent financial records would have shown. Similarly, the Defendant does not identify what would have been shown in the absent phone records. The same is true of the flight records that the Defendant argues were missing. At trial, the Government elicited testimony that flight manifests from before September 11, 2001, were far less detailed than modern manifests. E.g., Trial Tr. at 2518–22. The Defendant can therefore only speculate that more accurate records ever existed. The location and appearance of Epstein's residences were also the source of significant testimony at trial. The Defendant does not explain what additional information would have been contained in official property records.\nSecond, even if more detail of the contents of these documents were presented, the Defendant fails to show why the evidence, if admitted at trial, would have benefitted her case. The Defendant's motion presumes that each piece of missing evidence would have favored her: an absence of payments by Epstein to the Defendant, an absence of phone calls from the Defendant to victims, an absence of the victims on detailed flight manifests. But this presumption is purely speculative. Each piece of evidence may very well have further substantiated the Government's case. Because the Defendant carries the burden of proof, she is\n40\nDOJ-OGR-00010406",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 40 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2000s that could have testified the household manual was created by \"the Countess,\" not the Defendant; and Lynn Fontanilla, a live-in housekeeper for Epstein in New York that could have testified about the Defendant's and Epstein's habits.\nNone of these identified pieces of alleged evidence satisfies the Defendant's burden of proving actual and substantial prejudice. The Court addresses first the documentary evidence. First, the Defendant does not attest, or even suggest, what the absent documents are likely to show. Though the Defendant would herself be best positioned to explain her own financial transactions (or the lack thereof), her brief does not suggest what the absent financial records would have shown. Similarly, the Defendant does not identify what would have been shown in the absent phone records. The same is true of the flight records that the Defendant argues were missing. At trial, the Government elicited testimony that flight manifests from before September 11, 2001, were far less detailed than modern manifests. E.g., Trial Tr. at 2518–22. The Defendant can therefore only speculate that more accurate records ever existed. The location and appearance of Epstein's residences were also the source of significant testimony at trial. The Defendant does not explain what additional information would have been contained in official property records.\nSecond, even if more detail of the contents of these documents were presented, the Defendant fails to show why the evidence, if admitted at trial, would have benefitted her case. The Defendant's motion presumes that each piece of missing evidence would have favored her: an absence of payments by Epstein to the Defendant, an absence of phone calls from the Defendant to victims, an absence of the victims on detailed flight manifests. But this presumption is purely speculative. Each piece of evidence may very well have further substantiated the Government's case. Because the Defendant carries the burden of proof, she is",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "40",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010406",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Lynn Fontanilla",
      "Epstein",
      "Defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/29/22",
      "September 11, 2001"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 657",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010406"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Epstein and the Defendant. The text discusses the Defendant's burden of proof and the lack of evidence supporting their claims. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}