DOJ-OGR-00014757.jpg
609 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript (sentencing/hearing)
File Size:
609 KB
Summary
This document is page 10 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The Court makes findings on disputed issues, concluding that Virginia was paid to recruit girls just as Carolyn was. The Judge also overrules defense objections regarding the inclusion of an individual named 'Kate' and the characterization of the defendant 'grooming' a victim named 'Jane.'
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn | Witness/Victim |
Testified she was paid twice as much when bringing friends to massages.
|
| Virginia | Victim/Recruiter |
Court finds she was paid more to recruit additional girls.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number); noted for control of household and paying girls directly.
|
| Kate | Individual mentioned in court docs |
Subject of an objection regarding her inclusion in the report; noted not to be a victim of the charged crimes.
|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Interrupts to correct the Judge on a paragraph number.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, ruling on objections.
|
| Jane | Victim |
Subject of grooming allegations discussed in paragraphs 30-38.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Footer information
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-22
Court hearing regarding objections to a report (likely Presentence Investigation Report).
Southern District (New York)
Relationships (3)
defendant on occasion paid her directly
encouragement to recruit additional girls
characterization of the defendant having groomed Jane
Key Quotes (4)
"Carolyn credibly testified that she was paid twice as much when she brought friends to the massages."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014757.jpg
Quote #1
"Virginia was also paid more as encouragement to recruit additional girls."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014757.jpg
Quote #2
"Kate is not a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014757.jpg
Quote #3
"the objection is conflating grooming with enticement to travel for purposes of sexual contact."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014757.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,529 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 10 of 101 10
M6SQmax1
M6SQmax1
1 Carolyn credibly testified that she was paid twice as
2 much when she brought friends to the massages. Based on the
3 defendant's control of household and Carolyn's testimony that
4 the defendant on occasion paid her directly, I find it more
5 probable than not by a preponderance of the evidence that
6 Virginia was also paid more as encouragement to recruit
7 additional girls.
8 Paragraph 9, there's an objection to the inclusion of
9 Kate in this paragraph. It argues that her name should be
10 deleted because Kate is not a victim of the crimes charged in
11 the indictment.
12 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. I
13 think you said paragraph 9.
14 THE COURT: I did. I'm sorry. I'm skipping the first
15 number for some reason. 29. Thank you, Mr. Everdell.
16 I overrule this objection because the paragraph
17 doesn't assert that Kate was a statutory victim as we've
18 discussed throughout trial and the government didn't contend
19 that Kate was a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment,
20 and that paragraph doesn't assert that she was.
21 Paragraphs 30 to 38, there's objection throughout
22 these to the characterization of the defendant having groomed
23 Jane. I overrule these objections. I think the government is
24 right here that the objection is conflating grooming with
25 enticement to travel for purposes of sexual contact. Jane's
2 much when she brought friends to the massages. Based on the
3 defendant's control of household and Carolyn's testimony that
4 the defendant on occasion paid her directly, I find it more
5 probable than not by a preponderance of the evidence that
6 Virginia was also paid more as encouragement to recruit
7 additional girls.
8 Paragraph 9, there's an objection to the inclusion of
9 Kate in this paragraph. It argues that her name should be
10 deleted because Kate is not a victim of the crimes charged in
11 the indictment.
12 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. I
13 think you said paragraph 9.
14 THE COURT: I did. I'm sorry. I'm skipping the first
15 number for some reason. 29. Thank you, Mr. Everdell.
16 I overrule this objection because the paragraph
17 doesn't assert that Kate was a statutory victim as we've
18 discussed throughout trial and the government didn't contend
19 that Kate was a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment,
20 and that paragraph doesn't assert that she was.
21 Paragraphs 30 to 38, there's objection throughout
22 these to the characterization of the defendant having groomed
23 Jane. I overrule these objections. I think the government is
24 right here that the objection is conflating grooming with
25 enticement to travel for purposes of sexual contact. Jane's
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. •
•
•
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014757
•
•
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014757
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document