mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008229.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "525",
    "date": "12/05/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 525 Filed 12/05/21 Page 5 of 9\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 5, 2021\nPage 5\nThe photographs at issue were taken in 2019, twenty-five years after Jane was purportedly at the house and fifteen years after any alleged conspiracy ended.\nAlthough the government can show that the photos accurately reflect Mr. Epstein's apartment as it existed in 2019, no witness has testified that the photos accurately depict the home as it existed in 1994 or 1995 or 1996, or even that the photos depict items similar to what Jane claims to have seen a quarter of a century ago. The government, therefore, has not authenticated the photos, and the evidence is irrelevant and unfairly misleading and prejudicial.\nThe government devotes six pages of its letter to the 2019 photos of the massage room. Gov. Letter at 3-8. In addition to the temporal flaws described above, the government's argument suffers from another problem: It conflates Jane's testimony about other parts of the house with her testimony about the massage room. While Jane described the curtains, walls, wallpaper, artwork, and decorations in other parts of the house, she specifically disclaimed looking at the walls in the massage room, saying: \"My eyes didn't even look at the walls, mostly the floor, if not what was going on.\" Conveniently, the government omits this testimonial disclaimer from its letter. Given this testimony, however, even if Jane's testimony about what other parts of the house looked like in 1994 or 1995 or 1996 provided a basis for admitting photos of those other parts of the house taken in 2019 (which it doesn't), that testimony still wouldn't justify admission of photos of the massage room.\nThe fundamental flaw in the government's logic is its failure to appreciate that \"[a]uthentication . . . establishes the parameters of relevance.\" Stearns, 550 F.2d at 1170. The government claims the 2019 photos are independently corroborative of Jane's testimony because they show that her description of Mr. Epstein's house as it existed in 1994 and 1995 and 1996",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 525 Filed 12/05/21 Page 5 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 5, 2021\nPage 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The photographs at issue were taken in 2019, twenty-five years after Jane was purportedly at the house and fifteen years after any alleged conspiracy ended.\nAlthough the government can show that the photos accurately reflect Mr. Epstein's apartment as it existed in 2019, no witness has testified that the photos accurately depict the home as it existed in 1994 or 1995 or 1996, or even that the photos depict items similar to what Jane claims to have seen a quarter of a century ago. The government, therefore, has not authenticated the photos, and the evidence is irrelevant and unfairly misleading and prejudicial.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government devotes six pages of its letter to the 2019 photos of the massage room. Gov. Letter at 3-8. In addition to the temporal flaws described above, the government's argument suffers from another problem: It conflates Jane's testimony about other parts of the house with her testimony about the massage room. While Jane described the curtains, walls, wallpaper, artwork, and decorations in other parts of the house, she specifically disclaimed looking at the walls in the massage room, saying: \"My eyes didn't even look at the walls, mostly the floor, if not what was going on.\" Conveniently, the government omits this testimonial disclaimer from its letter. Given this testimony, however, even if Jane's testimony about what other parts of the house looked like in 1994 or 1995 or 1996 provided a basis for admitting photos of those other parts of the house taken in 2019 (which it doesn't), that testimony still wouldn't justify admission of photos of the massage room.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The fundamental flaw in the government's logic is its failure to appreciate that \"[a]uthentication . . . establishes the parameters of relevance.\" Stearns, 550 F.2d at 1170. The government claims the 2019 photos are independently corroborative of Jane's testimony because they show that her description of Mr. Epstein's house as it existed in 1994 and 1995 and 1996",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008229",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Jane",
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "December 5, 2021",
      "2019",
      "1994",
      "1995",
      "1996"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 525",
      "Gov. Letter at 3-8",
      "550 F.2d at 1170",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008229"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the admissibility of photographs taken in 2019 as evidence in the case. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}