DOJ-OGR-00018276.jpg
553 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
553 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of photographs. The core issue is the lack of a proper foundation for the evidence, as the expected witness, Jane, did not testify, and there is a significant time gap of approximately 25 years between the events she allegedly witnessed (c. 1994-1995) and a 2019 search.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Potential witness |
Mentioned as a potential witness who was expected to testify about photographs but did not.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, presiding over the legal proceeding and making rulings.
|
| Mr. Everdell | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, likely an attorney, who is arguing a point about the timing of events related to photogr...
|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, likely an attorney, who requests an opportunity to brief an issue regarding photographs.
|
| Parkinson | Party in the case |
Mentioned in the header of the transcript, likely the defendant or a key individual in the case.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-08-10
A court hearing where the admissibility of photographs was discussed.
Courtroom
Relationships (3)
Both are attorneys participating in the same court proceeding, representing opposing sides of an argument before the judge.
Mr. Everdell is an attorney arguing a point before the judge (THE COURT).
Key Quotes (3)
"We assumed that there would be a witness who would do this, and that Jane was the potential witness. There may be others, I don't know, but Jane didn't testify about these photographs, and so that's when we raised it..."Source
— Unknown (likely Mr. Everdell or Ms. Moe's side)
(Explaining why the issue of foundation for the photographs is being raised now.)
DOJ-OGR-00018276.jpg
Quote #1
"It doesn't have to be a victim. It could be anyone identifying -- again, you're asking to corroborate what the witness testified she saw with photographs taken -- is it 30 years? Help me with the math."Source
— THE COURT
(Clarifying the legal standard for identifying photographs and questioning the time gap.)
DOJ-OGR-00018276.jpg
Quote #2
"So the search is 2019, and Jane, I think, claims she was there 1994 or 1995. So that is already almost 20 years --"Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Calculating the time difference between the event Jane witnessed and the search related to the photographs.)
DOJ-OGR-00018276.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,374 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 749 Filed 08/10/22 Page 175 of 236
LC3KMAX6
Parkinson - Direct
1079
LC3KMAX6
Parkinson - Direct
1079
1 proper foundation for these.
2 We assumed that there would be a witness who would do
3 this, and that Jane was the potential witness. There may be
4 others, I don't know, but Jane didn't testify about these
5 photographs, and so that's when we raised it, when it looked
6 like it was a live issue, and it was only ripe when that
7 happened.
8 THE COURT: I have to agree with that. You're seeking
9 to move them now, and they're raising it now. I don't disagree
10 with what Mr. Everdell said.
11 MS. MOE: Your Honor, we'd just like an opportunity to
12 brief the issue. I think had we know it was defense counsel's
13 position that in the absence of a victim identifying these
14 photographs --
15 THE COURT: It doesn't have to be a victim. It could
16 be anyone identifying -- again, you're asking to corroborate
17 what the witness testified she saw with photographs taken -- is
18 it 30 years? Help me with the math.
19 MR. EVERDELL: So the search is 2019, and Jane, I
20 think, claims she was there 1994 or 1995. So that is already
21 almost 20 years --
22 THE COURT: Twenty years.
23 MR. EVERDELL: Sorry, 25.
24 THE COURT: Twenty-five years.
25 -- of movable items, right, of various pieces of art,
2 We assumed that there would be a witness who would do
3 this, and that Jane was the potential witness. There may be
4 others, I don't know, but Jane didn't testify about these
5 photographs, and so that's when we raised it, when it looked
6 like it was a live issue, and it was only ripe when that
7 happened.
8 THE COURT: I have to agree with that. You're seeking
9 to move them now, and they're raising it now. I don't disagree
10 with what Mr. Everdell said.
11 MS. MOE: Your Honor, we'd just like an opportunity to
12 brief the issue. I think had we know it was defense counsel's
13 position that in the absence of a victim identifying these
14 photographs --
15 THE COURT: It doesn't have to be a victim. It could
16 be anyone identifying -- again, you're asking to corroborate
17 what the witness testified she saw with photographs taken -- is
18 it 30 years? Help me with the math.
19 MR. EVERDELL: So the search is 2019, and Jane, I
20 think, claims she was there 1994 or 1995. So that is already
21 almost 20 years --
22 THE COURT: Twenty years.
23 MR. EVERDELL: Sorry, 25.
24 THE COURT: Twenty-five years.
25 -- of movable items, right, of various pieces of art,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018276
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document