DOJ-OGR-00011534.jpg
646 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
646 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on July 22, 2022, details a judge's ruling on objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge overrules objections regarding characterizations of the offense and Maxwell's responsibility for sexualized massages, citing trial evidence that contradicts her claims. The ruling concludes that evidence established Ms. Maxwell's recruitment of a person named Virginia, which initiated a broader recruitment scheme.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Virginia |
Mentioned as someone whose assertions made under oath were disproven by trial evidence. The defendant's recruitment o...
|
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in relation to his properties, possession of sex toys, sexual activity, and receiving massages. Virginia de...
|
|
| Annie Farmer |
Mentioned as someone Virginia never gave a massage to.
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the case who objects to assertions in paragraphs 79 and 81. The document states that evidence establ...
|
| Carolyn |
Mentioned as a person who may have brought women to Epstein's residence to perform massages.
|
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 document.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A judge overrules objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to paragraphs 79 and 81 of a document, citing the trial record and evidence.
Ms. Maxwell
defense
The defendant, Ms. Maxwell, recruited Virginia, which set a recruitment scheme in motion.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Virginia was unaware if she had interacted with anyone under the age of 18.
|
|
|
Location where Carolyn may have brought women to perform massages.
|
Relationships (3)
The document states that 'evidence at trial established that the defendant's recruitment of Virginia set the recruitment scheme in motion'.
The document mentions that Carolyn 'may have brought to Epstein's residence' several women to perform massages.
Ms. Maxwell is the defendant in a case concerning activities related to Epstein, including sexualized massages performed at his residence.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,660 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 15 of 101
M6SQmaxl
1 Virginia, was unaware if she had interacted with anyone under
2 the age of 18 at Epstein's properties. She never gave Annie
3 Farmer a massage. She was unaware whether Epstein possessed
4 sex toys. She was unaware that he was engaging in sexual
5 activity with anyone other than her in the 1990s and 2000s.
6 She never gave Epstein a massage. The credible testimony and
7 evidence admitted at trial disproves these assertions which
8 were made under oath.
9 Paragraph 79, the defendant objects to the
10 characterization of the offense conduct as contrary to the
11 trial record. Here, defense hasn't provided any reason
12 specifying this, and I don't see one. So based on the written
13 objection, it's overruled.
14 Paragraph 81, the defendant objects to the assertion
15 that Ms. Maxwell had direct responsibility for any sexualized
16 massages that several women or any other people that Carolyn
17 may have brought to Epstein's residence may have performed, and
18 she contends there's no record that she interfaced with these
19 individuals. I am prepared to overrule that objection.
20 The paragraph makes clear that these individuals did
21 not interact directly with Ms. Maxwell. Nevertheless, for the
22 reasons explained a little while ago in overruling the
23 objections to paragraphs 27 and 28, I do conclude that the
24 evidence at trial established that the defendant's recruitment
25 of Virginia set the recruitment scheme in motion that resulted
2 the age of 18 at Epstein's properties. She never gave Annie
3 Farmer a massage. She was unaware whether Epstein possessed
4 sex toys. She was unaware that he was engaging in sexual
5 activity with anyone other than her in the 1990s and 2000s.
6 She never gave Epstein a massage. The credible testimony and
7 evidence admitted at trial disproves these assertions which
8 were made under oath.
9 Paragraph 79, the defendant objects to the
10 characterization of the offense conduct as contrary to the
11 trial record. Here, defense hasn't provided any reason
12 specifying this, and I don't see one. So based on the written
13 objection, it's overruled.
14 Paragraph 81, the defendant objects to the assertion
15 that Ms. Maxwell had direct responsibility for any sexualized
16 massages that several women or any other people that Carolyn
17 may have brought to Epstein's residence may have performed, and
18 she contends there's no record that she interfaced with these
19 individuals. I am prepared to overrule that objection.
20 The paragraph makes clear that these individuals did
21 not interact directly with Ms. Maxwell. Nevertheless, for the
22 reasons explained a little while ago in overruling the
23 objections to paragraphs 27 and 28, I do conclude that the
24 evidence at trial established that the defendant's recruitment
25 of Virginia set the recruitment scheme in motion that resulted
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011534
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document