This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding on February 28, 2023, where an individual identified as M38TMAX1 is questioned about their answers on a questionnaire. The questioning focuses on why they answered 'no' to a question about sexual abuse involving a family member, despite a past incident. The individual explains they did not consider the perpetrator to be family and that they were very distracted by a chaotic environment at the courthouse when completing the form.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| M38TMAX1 | Interviewee/Witness |
Identifier for the person being questioned in the transcript.
|
| Answerer's mother | Mother |
Mentioned as the person the interviewee informed about a past incident of sexual abuse.
|
| Answerer's friend | Friend |
Mentioned in the context of what the answer to question 49 would have been; their stepbrother was accused of sexual a...
|
| Friend's stepbrother | Stepbrother |
Mentioned as having been accused of sexual abuse.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of both pages as the reporting agency.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location where the interviewee had to be early and fill out the questionnaire.
|
"Because I don't consider them part of my family. I never considered them part of my family even when they lived with us for a few years."Source
"I didn't even consider it at all."Source
"At this point I was super distracted because I was sat right in front of the table, literally within four feet of that table where everybody was dropping off their questionnaires."Source
"It would have been -- it would have been yes, that a stepbrother was accused -- a stepbrother and his friend was accused of sexual abuse."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (2,838 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document