DOJ-OGR-00009408.jpg
435 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
435 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2022, where a witness named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a legal brief. The questioning centers on whether Edelstein was aware that her colleague, Theresa Trzaskoma, had already investigated an individual named Catherine Conrad before the final version of the brief was written. The testimony references specific passages from the brief concerning Conrad's credibility and the justification for the investigation.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Edelstein | Witness |
The individual being questioned in the testimony, referred to as Ms. Edelstein.
|
| Theresa Trzaskoma | Investigator/Legal Team Member |
Mentioned as the person who discovered a suspension report and conducted an investigation into Catherine Conrad.
|
| Catherine Conrad | Subject of Investigation |
The person whose name was on an Appellate Division suspension report and who was the subject of an investigation.
|
| Conrad | Subject of Investigation |
Last name used for Catherine Conrad, mentioned in the context of potentially lying to the Court and her demeanor duri...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Appellate Division | Judiciary |
Mentioned as the source of a suspension report and an order related to Catherine Conrad.
|
| Court | Judiciary |
Mentioned as having asked questions to Conrad.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the testimony, listed in the footer.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Theresa Trzaskoma conducted an investigation into Catherine Conrad, prompted by a letter and Conrad's demeanor at trial.
Relationships (2)
Edelstein states, "I was aware that Theresa, when we were writing the brief I was aware that Theresa had known that there was an Appellate Division order," indicating they worked together on a legal brief.
The testimony reveals that Theresa Trzaskoma discovered a suspension report on Catherine Conrad and conducted an investigation into her.
Key Quotes (2)
"Defendants had no basis to inquire whether Conrad was lying in response to each of the Court's, questions,"Source
— Unnamed Questioner (quoting a document)
(Quoted from the last sentence of footnote 13 on page 32 of a document being reviewed during the testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00009408.jpg
Quote #1
"The tone and content of the letter, which were in sharp contrast to the image Conrad had projected through the trial, always head down, taking notes, caused defendants concern and prompted them to investigate."Source
— Edelstein (reading from a document)
(Read aloud from the first full paragraph on page 9 of a document during her testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00009408.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,459 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAB Document 616-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 119 of 130
A-5804
A-5804
347
C2GFDAU3
Edelstein
1 A. Simply because there are two different addresses.
2 Q. Now, could I ask you to look at page 32, footnote 13. And
3 specifically the last sentence of that footnote. Do you see
4 where it says, "Defendants had no basis to inquire whether
5 Conrad was lying in response to each of the Court's,
6 questions," do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you think that was an accurate statement, Ms. Edelstein?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Were you aware that Theresa Trzaskoma had been, had
11 discovered the Appellate Division suspension report at that
12 time with the name Catherine Conrad?
13 A. I was aware that Theresa, when we were writing the brief I
14 was aware that Theresa had known that there was an Appellate
15 Division order.
16 Q. And would you turn to page 9 and look at the first full
17 paragraph there. Would you read that first sentence aloud for
18 us?
19 A. "The tone and content of the letter, which were in sharp
20 contrast to the image Conrad had projected through the trial,
21 always head down, taking notes, caused defendants concern and
22 prompted them to investigate."
23 Q. Well, you were aware when that sentence went into the final
24 version of the brief, that Theresa Trzaskoma had already done a
25 bit of investigation, correct?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
C2GFDAU3
Edelstein
1 A. Simply because there are two different addresses.
2 Q. Now, could I ask you to look at page 32, footnote 13. And
3 specifically the last sentence of that footnote. Do you see
4 where it says, "Defendants had no basis to inquire whether
5 Conrad was lying in response to each of the Court's,
6 questions," do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you think that was an accurate statement, Ms. Edelstein?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Were you aware that Theresa Trzaskoma had been, had
11 discovered the Appellate Division suspension report at that
12 time with the name Catherine Conrad?
13 A. I was aware that Theresa, when we were writing the brief I
14 was aware that Theresa had known that there was an Appellate
15 Division order.
16 Q. And would you turn to page 9 and look at the first full
17 paragraph there. Would you read that first sentence aloud for
18 us?
19 A. "The tone and content of the letter, which were in sharp
20 contrast to the image Conrad had projected through the trial,
21 always head down, taking notes, caused defendants concern and
22 prompted them to investigate."
23 Q. Well, you were aware when that sentence went into the final
24 version of the brief, that Theresa Trzaskoma had already done a
25 bit of investigation, correct?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009408
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document