mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014478.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "78",
    "document_number": "767",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 257 2911 LCKVMAX4\n1 And then we go from there.\n2 I also object to the use of what I thought the Court prohibited, which was the grooming-by-proxy argument, which was re-raised in closing argument, suggesting that somehow Ms. Maxwell was grooming these women for Mr. Epstein, which I thought had been precluded.\n3 THE COURT: That's easy to overrule.\n4 My precise conclusion was the expert couldn't testify to it in part because -- well, not in part. The expert couldn't testify to it; but, of course, counsel could make arguments along that regard from the facts in the evidence.\n5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood, your Honor.\n6 Those are my remarks and requests about the closing.\n7 THE COURT: Exhibit 52.\n8 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n9 The government's arguments with respect to Government Exhibit 52 were entirely consistent with the Court's ruling.\n10 In particular, the arguments were about knowledge and intent, how it would be obvious, looking at a document, that none of this was legitimate, that they weren't real masseuses, things like mom and dad, we have that effect. And when a document is offered not for its truth, that is certainly a proper inference.\n11 When we compare the numbers in Government Exhibit 52 against the message pads, the language was the number here is\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014478",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 257 2911 LCKVMAX4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 And then we go from there.\n2 I also object to the use of what I thought the Court prohibited, which was the grooming-by-proxy argument, which was re-raised in closing argument, suggesting that somehow Ms. Maxwell was grooming these women for Mr. Epstein, which I thought had been precluded.\n3 THE COURT: That's easy to overrule.\n4 My precise conclusion was the expert couldn't testify to it in part because -- well, not in part. The expert couldn't testify to it; but, of course, counsel could make arguments along that regard from the facts in the evidence.\n5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood, your Honor.\n6 Those are my remarks and requests about the closing.\n7 THE COURT: Exhibit 52.\n8 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n9 The government's arguments with respect to Government Exhibit 52 were entirely consistent with the Court's ruling.\n10 In particular, the arguments were about knowledge and intent, how it would be obvious, looking at a document, that none of this was legitimate, that they weren't real masseuses, things like mom and dad, we have that effect. And when a document is offered not for its truth, that is certainly a proper inference.\n11 When we compare the numbers in Government Exhibit 52 against the message pads, the language was the number here is",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014478",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Pagliuca",
      "Moe"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "767",
      "52",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014478"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}