📧 Communication
Court dialogueCommunication Details
The Court challenges the classification of the testimony, stating it's only direct evidence if Amanda is a victim of the conspiracy (which would violate an order) and only corroborative if the age matches up. The Court questions the purpose of the witness's age and ultimately sustains an objection.
📄 Source Document
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument between Ms. Moe and the Court over the admissibility of testimony from a witness named Amanda. Ms. Moe presents the testimony as corroborative evidence, but the Court questions its validity, noting it could violate a prior order and that its relevance hinges on the witness's age. The Court ultimately sustains an objection, referencing testimony from the previous day that the witness believed she was 17.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein communication