mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012996.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "245",
    "document_number": "751",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 245 of 261 1406 LC6Cmax7 Meder - direct a recent witness, likewise 332 is a witness, and those witnesses were not asked to identify these photographs to say when they were taken, the circumstances under which they were taken. Likewise, your Honor, those two individual witness photographs are, I believe, what's known as PSD files. In other words, they are from a photo shop program when you go and look at the metadata behind those particular photos. So, it is particularly questionable whether or not they are what they purport to be or there have been any alterations to the photographs. So, without the witness who can establish that these photographs are what they purport to be at some particular time or under certain circumstances or dates, I don't think that just simply having possession of photographs on a CD in a home gets you through those many different problems, including hearsay problems, your Honor. That's without the issue that pertains to metadata, though I think -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. What statements are being offered for the truth? MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, there are, embedded in these, and I think it's 332B is a screenshot of purported metadata that has a title that was affixed to this photograph by a person and it is labeled not by a computer-generated photograph. For example, if your Honor were to take a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012996",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 245 of 261 1406 LC6Cmax7 Meder - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a recent witness, likewise 332 is a witness, and those witnesses were not asked to identify these photographs to say when they were taken, the circumstances under which they were taken. Likewise, your Honor, those two individual witness photographs are, I believe, what's known as PSD files. In other words, they are from a photo shop program when you go and look at the metadata behind those particular photos. So, it is particularly questionable whether or not they are what they purport to be or there have been any alterations to the photographs. So, without the witness who can establish that these photographs are what they purport to be at some particular time or under certain circumstances or dates, I don't think that just simply having possession of photographs on a CD in a home gets you through those many different problems, including hearsay problems, your Honor. That's without the issue that pertains to metadata, though I think -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. What statements are being offered for the truth? MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, there are, embedded in these, and I think it's 332B is a screenshot of purported metadata that has a title that was affixed to this photograph by a person and it is labeled not by a computer-generated photograph. For example, if your Honor were to take a",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012996",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MENNINGER"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "751",
      "332",
      "332B",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012996"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}