mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016769.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "40",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 40 of 197\nLCHVMAX2\n1 I do intend to go through with this witness whether they followed up on certain things that they heard in the interviews, like, for example -- I'll give an example.\n2 We heard from Jane testimony -- she confirmed on the stand that she told the government that she was involved in sexualized massages with multiple people, and she named the first names of several of those people. I believe we know from what she was saying to the government who those people are, it's the subject of some of these submissions we made to the Court about other witnesses that we want to call.\n3 My understanding is from looking at the records that were provided to us, they didn't follow up and talk to some of these witnesses, right. So, for example, one of the names mentioned was Michelle. We think we know who that Michelle is. That Michelle was evident to the government because there was a Michelle -- at least one Michelle. One Michelle was communicated to the government by another witness that worked in the office. They never spoke to that Michelle. Same thing with some of the other people that were mentioned; never spoke to them.\n4 And I think that under your Honor's ruling, even though that, I guess, is an investigative step, and I'm looking at your Honor's ruling now, you were talking about the Watson case, and you said that some arguments about the thoroughness of the investigation are probative of guilt in some\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00016769",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 40 of 197",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCHVMAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 I do intend to go through with this witness whether they followed up on certain things that they heard in the interviews, like, for example -- I'll give an example.\n2 We heard from Jane testimony -- she confirmed on the stand that she told the government that she was involved in sexualized massages with multiple people, and she named the first names of several of those people. I believe we know from what she was saying to the government who those people are, it's the subject of some of these submissions we made to the Court about other witnesses that we want to call.\n3 My understanding is from looking at the records that were provided to us, they didn't follow up and talk to some of these witnesses, right. So, for example, one of the names mentioned was Michelle. We think we know who that Michelle is. That Michelle was evident to the government because there was a Michelle -- at least one Michelle. One Michelle was communicated to the government by another witness that worked in the office. They never spoke to that Michelle. Same thing with some of the other people that were mentioned; never spoke to them.\n4 And I think that under your Honor's ruling, even though that, I guess, is an investigative step, and I'm looking at your Honor's ruling now, you were talking about the Watson case, and you said that some arguments about the thoroughness of the investigation are probative of guilt in some",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016769",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Michelle",
      "Watson"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016769"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}