mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013836.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "245",
    "document_number": "759",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 245 of 267 2273\nLCAVMAX8\n\ninferences in the government's favor, the jury could\nconclude -- they could find a conviction on Counts One and Two.\nThat bar is surmounted very easily by just the testimony of\nJane alone, and I have not even discussed other corroborating\ntestimony that would support that conclusion.\n\nTHE COURT: All right. Thank you.\n\nAny final points, Mr. Everdell?\n\nMR. EVERDELL: Just two, your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Microphone, please.\n\nMR. EVERDELL: I can do it from here.\n\nTHE COURT: That's fine.\n\nMR. EVERDELL: The point about Mr. Epstein's actions I\nwon't leave alone; but, of course, only applies to the\nconspiracy count. Obviously Count Two is the substantive\ncount.\n\nTHE COURT: You'll address aiding and abetting?\n\nMR. EVERDELL: Well, yes, aiding and abetting. So I\ndon't see any testimony of Ghislaine Maxwell aiding and\nabetting Jeffrey Epstein, enticing her to travel to New York.\nThere's remarkably little testimony about that action, and that\nis what the subject of the substantive count is, right. You\nhave to show that Ms. Maxwell enticed Jane to travel to New\nYork with the intent knowing that when she got there, that\nstatute, that New York statute that's cited in the indictment,\nwould be violated.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00013836",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 245 of 267 2273",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "inferences in the government's favor, the jury could\nconclude -- they could find a conviction on Counts One and Two.\nThat bar is surmounted very easily by just the testimony of\nJane alone, and I have not even discussed other corroborating\ntestimony that would support that conclusion.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: All right. Thank you.\n\nAny final points, Mr. Everdell?\n\nMR. EVERDELL: Just two, your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Microphone, please.\n\nMR. EVERDELL: I can do it from here.\n\nTHE COURT: That's fine.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MR. EVERDELL: The point about Mr. Epstein's actions I\nwon't leave alone; but, of course, only applies to the\nconspiracy count. Obviously Count Two is the substantive\ncount.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: You'll address aiding and abetting?\n\nMR. EVERDELL: Well, yes, aiding and abetting. So I\ndon't see any testimony of Ghislaine Maxwell aiding and\nabetting Jeffrey Epstein, enticing her to travel to New York.\nThere's remarkably little testimony about that action, and that\nis what the subject of the substantive count is, right. You\nhave to show that Ms. Maxwell enticed Jane to travel to New\nYork with the intent knowing that when she got there, that\nstatute, that New York statute that's cited in the indictment,\nwould be violated.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013836",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "759",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013836"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}