DOJ-OGR-00016769.jpg
633 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
633 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney argues that the government's investigation was not thorough. The attorney uses the example of a witness, Jane, who testified about her involvement in 'sexualized massages' and named other participants, including a 'Michelle'. The attorney claims that despite this information, the government failed to follow up and interview Michelle and others, arguing this lack of diligence is significant to the case.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned as a witness who gave testimony to the government about being involved in sexualized massages and named oth...
|
| Michelle | Witness / Person of Interest |
A person whose name was mentioned by Jane. The speaker claims the government failed to interview her despite her iden...
|
| Watson |
Referenced in the context of the 'Watson case' during a legal argument.
|
|
| your Honor | Judge |
The judge being addressed by the speaker in court.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | Government agency |
The entity that received testimony from Jane and conducted the investigation being criticized for its lack of thoroug...
|
| Court | Judicial body |
The legal body to which submissions were made and where the current proceedings are taking place.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the document.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-08-10
An unnamed speaker (likely an attorney) argues before a judge that the government's lack of thoroughness in its investigation is probative of guilt.
Court
Unnamed Speaker
your Honor
Jane gave testimony to the government about her involvement in sexualized massages and named other participants.
The government's investigation is criticized for not following up on leads, specifically for not interviewing witnesses like Michelle who were named in testimony.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the workplace of another witness who communicated with the government about Michelle.
|
Relationships (2)
Jane provided testimony to the government.
Key Quotes (3)
"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."Source
— Unnamed Speaker
(Summarizing Jane's testimony as the basis for an argument about the government's investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00016769.jpg
Quote #1
"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."Source
— Unnamed Speaker
(Claiming the government failed to conduct a thorough investigation based on provided records.)
DOJ-OGR-00016769.jpg
Quote #2
"They never spoke to that Michelle. Same thing with some of the other people that were mentioned; never spoke to them."Source
— Unnamed Speaker
(Providing a specific example of the government's alleged failure to investigate.)
DOJ-OGR-00016769.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,891 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 40 of 197
LCHVMAX2
LCHVMAX2
1 I do intend to go through with this witness whether
2 they followed up on certain things that they heard in the
3 interviews, like, for example -- I'll give an example.
4 We heard from Jane testimony -- she confirmed on the
5 stand that she told the government that she was involved in
6 sexualized massages with multiple people, and she named the
7 first names of several of those people. I believe we know from
8 what she was saying to the government who those people are,
9 it's the subject of some of these submissions we made to the
10 Court about other witnesses that we want to call.
11 My understanding is from looking at the records that
12 were provided to us, they didn't follow up and talk to some of
13 these witnesses, right. So, for example, one of the names
14 mentioned was Michelle. We think we know who that Michelle is.
15 That Michelle was evident to the government because there was a
16 Michelle -- at least one Michelle. One Michelle was
17 communicated to the government by another witness that worked
18 in the office. They never spoke to that Michelle. Same thing
19 with some of the other people that were mentioned; never spoke
20 to them.
21 And I think that under your Honor's ruling, even
22 though that, I guess, is an investigative step, and I'm looking
23 at your Honor's ruling now, you were talking about the Watson
24 case, and you said that some arguments about the thoroughness
25 of the investigation are probative of guilt in some
2 they followed up on certain things that they heard in the
3 interviews, like, for example -- I'll give an example.
4 We heard from Jane testimony -- she confirmed on the
5 stand that she told the government that she was involved in
6 sexualized massages with multiple people, and she named the
7 first names of several of those people. I believe we know from
8 what she was saying to the government who those people are,
9 it's the subject of some of these submissions we made to the
10 Court about other witnesses that we want to call.
11 My understanding is from looking at the records that
12 were provided to us, they didn't follow up and talk to some of
13 these witnesses, right. So, for example, one of the names
14 mentioned was Michelle. We think we know who that Michelle is.
15 That Michelle was evident to the government because there was a
16 Michelle -- at least one Michelle. One Michelle was
17 communicated to the government by another witness that worked
18 in the office. They never spoke to that Michelle. Same thing
19 with some of the other people that were mentioned; never spoke
20 to them.
21 And I think that under your Honor's ruling, even
22 though that, I guess, is an investigative step, and I'm looking
23 at your Honor's ruling now, you were talking about the Watson
24 case, and you said that some arguments about the thoroughness
25 of the investigation are probative of guilt in some
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016769
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document