mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021552.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "122",
    "document_number": "78",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page122 of 217\nSA-376\n\nM6SQmax1\n7\n1 material to sentencing or not, I am prepared to address it.\n2 So I believe the first -- what I see as your first\n3 continued objection is to paragraph 22.\n4 MR. EVERDELL: I'm just getting my submissions.\n5 Yes, that's correct, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: I overrule the objection. I do credit\n7 Juan Alessi's testimony that the defendant identified and\n8 targeted Virginia after seeing her in the Mar-a-Lago parking\n9 lot. The defendant also worked with Epstein to identify and\n10 target Jane.\n11 Paragraph three I see three objections to this\n12 paragraph. Is that a continuing objection, Mr. Everdell?\n13 MR. EVERDELL: Paragraph three, your Honor?\n14 THE COURT: 23. I apologize.\n15 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n16 THE COURT: I overrule the objection. The first\n17 objection is regarding the conclusion that Ms. Maxwell was the\n18 author of the essay in the paragraph. I overrule the objection\n19 because a reasonable inference supported by the trial evidence\n20 is that the defendant authored the essay. Metadata indicated\n21 that the computer was registered to \"GMax\" and the document was\n22 saved under the user name \"Ghislaine.\"\n23 The second objection is to the assertion that Epstein\n24 transferred Ms. Maxwell approximately $23 million during the\n25 conspiracy. I overrule that objection. Bank statements\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C...(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021552",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page122 of 217\nSA-376",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\n7\n1 material to sentencing or not, I am prepared to address it.\n2 So I believe the first -- what I see as your first\n3 continued objection is to paragraph 22.\n4 MR. EVERDELL: I'm just getting my submissions.\n5 Yes, that's correct, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: I overrule the objection. I do credit\n7 Juan Alessi's testimony that the defendant identified and\n8 targeted Virginia after seeing her in the Mar-a-Lago parking\n9 lot. The defendant also worked with Epstein to identify and\n10 target Jane.\n11 Paragraph three I see three objections to this\n12 paragraph. Is that a continuing objection, Mr. Everdell?\n13 MR. EVERDELL: Paragraph three, your Honor?\n14 THE COURT: 23. I apologize.\n15 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n16 THE COURT: I overrule the objection. The first\n17 objection is regarding the conclusion that Ms. Maxwell was the\n18 author of the essay in the paragraph. I overrule the objection\n19 because a reasonable inference supported by the trial evidence\n20 is that the defendant authored the essay. Metadata indicated\n21 that the computer was registered to \"GMax\" and the document was\n22 saved under the user name \"Ghislaine.\"\n23 The second objection is to the assertion that Epstein\n24 transferred Ms. Maxwell approximately $23 million during the\n25 conspiracy. I overrule that objection. Bank statements",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C...(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021552",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juan Alessi",
      "Virginia",
      "Jane",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Ghislaine",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Mar-a-Lago"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "SA-376",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021552"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}