DOJ-OGR-00010089.jpg
430 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
430 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript from a legal deposition where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about the timeline of their knowledge concerning certain facts. Edelstein clarifies that their understanding of the situation evolved, distinguishing between what was known on May 12th and what was known later when writing a legal brief. The testimony reveals that a letter received by Edelstein prompted an investigation into the matter.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Edelstein | Witness/Deponent |
The individual being questioned in the transcript, providing answers (A).
|
| Theresa Trzaskoma |
Mentioned as someone who had previously learned certain facts through an investigation.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (1)
Edelstein is being questioned about his knowledge of facts that Theresa Trzaskoma had previously learned through an investigation, indicating a connection related to the case or matter at hand.
Key Quotes (2)
"What I was trying to distinguish was what I knew on May 12th, versus what I knew by the time we were writing the brief."Source
— Edelstein
(Explaining the difference in his state of knowledge at two different points in time regarding the facts in question.)
DOJ-OGR-00010089.jpg
Quote #1
"...when I received the letter it caused us concern and prompted us to investigate."Source
— Edelstein
(Describing the catalyst for an investigation into the matter being discussed.)
DOJ-OGR-00010089.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,442 characters)
Case: 20-03389, ABN Document: 646-2 Filed 03/20/22 Page 212 of 330
A-5806
A-5806
C2GFDAU3
349
Edelstein
1 A. She didn't mention what the basis was.
2 Q. But she told you that she had learned of it, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And is it fair that you inferred that she through her
5 Google search or some sort of investigation had learned that
6 fact?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So that's what led you just a moment ago to say you knew
9 that Theresa Trzaskoma had previously learned certain facts
10 pursuant to an investigation, right?
11 A. Well, no. What I was trying to distinguish was what I knew
12 on May 12th, versus what I knew by the time we were writing the
13 brief.
14 Q. Okay, and in this brief, the sentence that you just read
15 conveys the notion, does it not, that you learned of the facts
16 concerning the suspension and the other things only after you
17 received a note, correct?
18 A. Again, that's a difficult question to answer yes or no. I
19 can see now how it might be construed that way, but when it was
20 written, and I still believe it was accurate, that it's
21 describing what we did when we -- and I think it's what I
22 testified to earlier, that when I received the letter it caused
23 us concern and prompted us to investigate. We were describing
24 that.
25 I can see now with hindsight -- I see many things now
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
349
Edelstein
1 A. She didn't mention what the basis was.
2 Q. But she told you that she had learned of it, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And is it fair that you inferred that she through her
5 Google search or some sort of investigation had learned that
6 fact?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So that's what led you just a moment ago to say you knew
9 that Theresa Trzaskoma had previously learned certain facts
10 pursuant to an investigation, right?
11 A. Well, no. What I was trying to distinguish was what I knew
12 on May 12th, versus what I knew by the time we were writing the
13 brief.
14 Q. Okay, and in this brief, the sentence that you just read
15 conveys the notion, does it not, that you learned of the facts
16 concerning the suspension and the other things only after you
17 received a note, correct?
18 A. Again, that's a difficult question to answer yes or no. I
19 can see now how it might be construed that way, but when it was
20 written, and I still believe it was accurate, that it's
21 describing what we did when we -- and I think it's what I
22 testified to earlier, that when I received the letter it caused
23 us concern and prompted us to investigate. We were describing
24 that.
25 I can see now with hindsight -- I see many things now
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010089
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document