DOJ-OGR-00010406.jpg

718 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court filing / legal opinion (page 40 of 45)
File Size: 718 KB
Summary

This document is page 40 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) from April 29, 2022, likely rejecting a motion by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the defense's failure to prove that missing evidence (financial records, phone records, and pre-9/11 flight manifests) prejudiced the case. The court notes that the defense's claim that these missing records would show an absence of incriminating connections (payments, calls to victims) is purely speculative.

People (4)

Name Role Context
The Defendant Defendant
Subject of the court ruling (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on case number 1:20-cr-00330), arguing that missing evidence pr...
Jeffrey Epstein Associate/Employer
Mentioned regarding his habits, residences, and potential payments to the Defendant.
Lynn Fontanilla Witness / Housekeeper
Described as a live-in housekeeper for Epstein in New York who could have testified about habits.
The Countess Alleged Author
Person alleged by the defense to have created the 'household manual' instead of the Defendant.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
The Court
The entity issuing the opinion and addressing the evidence.
The Government
Elicited testimony at trial regarding flight manifests.

Timeline (2 events)

2001-09-11
September 11 attacks
Global
N/A
Trial Testimony (Trial Tr. at 2518–22)
Court
The Government Witnesses

Locations (1)

Location Context
Location where Lynn Fontanilla worked as a live-in housekeeper for Epstein.

Relationships (2)

Jeffrey Epstein Employer/Employee Lynn Fontanilla
Lynn Fontanilla described as 'a live-in housekeeper for Epstein in New York'
The Defendant Alternative Suspects The Countess
Defense argument that the manual was created by 'the Countess,' not the Defendant

Key Quotes (4)

"household manual was created by 'the Countess,' not the Defendant"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00010406.jpg
Quote #1
"None of these identified pieces of alleged evidence satisfies the Defendant’s burden of proving actual and substantial prejudice."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00010406.jpg
Quote #2
"flight manifests from before September 11, 2001, were far less detailed than modern manifests."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00010406.jpg
Quote #3
"The Defendant’s motion presumes that each piece of missing evidence would have favored her... But this presumption is purely speculative."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00010406.jpg
Quote #4

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document