DOJ-OGR-00010250.jpg
631 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
631 KB
Summary
This document is page 35 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues before the Court that a male subject (likely a juror or witness) lacks credibility because his statements about not expecting to be known contradict his lengthy discussions with a journalist named Lucia from The Independent about the consequences of coming forward. The defense contends the subject is 'talking out of both sides of his mouth' regarding his anonymity.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Attorney |
Defense attorney arguing that a witness/subject's testimony is inconsistent and not credible.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, questioning the attorney about what specific inquiry to make.
|
| Unnamed Male Subject ('He') | Witness/Subject |
The individual being discussed. He gave an interview to The Independent and is being accused of contradictory stateme...
|
| Lucia | Journalist |
Identified as a journalist for The Independent who interviewed the subject.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Independent |
Newspaper outlet that interviewed the subject.
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-03-11
Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
Courtroom (Southern District)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Likely Southern District of New York (SDNY), implied by the court reporter firm name.
|
Relationships (1)
discussion he had with a journalist... Lucia, who I believe is The Independent journalist
Key Quotes (3)
"This is a momentous decision you're making."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010250.jpg
Quote #1
"he's talking out of both sides of his mouth: I didn't think I would be known, but yet I did know I would be known."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010250.jpg
Quote #2
"I think there was a lengthy discussion he had with a journalist about this very fact."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010250.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,753 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 645 Filed 03/11/22 Page 35 of 50 35
M38TMAX1
M38TMAX1
1 from The Independent, about the consequences of him coming
2 forward, which is: This is a momentous decision you're making.
3 So I don't see how he squares his comments about I
4 never thought by talking to the press that I would come forward
5 and be known this way, when in fact I think there was a lengthy
6 discussion he had with a journalist about this very fact.
7 THE COURT: He said that he recognized by talking to
8 the press about it that it would be known publicly.
9 MR. EVERDELL: I think he may have said that, but I
10 think at the same time he's saying I didn't think this would be
11 known by my parents and my friends. I don't know how you
12 square those responses. To me -- and I know this was the
13 subject of argument that you don't want to hear at this point,
14 but his responses are simply not credible on this point because
15 he's talking out of both sides of his mouth: I didn't think I
16 would be known, but yet I did know I would be known. It makes
17 no sense to me. I'm curious to hear more about what I perceive
18 as blatant conflict in answers about a discussion with a
19 journalist about the consequences of going forward.
20 THE COURT: You want me to ask about what he discussed
21 with which journalist?
22 MR. EVERDELL: Lucia, who I believe is The Independent
23 journalist. So I would -- I'm sorry it's not coming out very
24 focused, I apologize, but: You had discussed before in
25 responses to my questions about the fact that you didn't think
2 forward, which is: This is a momentous decision you're making.
3 So I don't see how he squares his comments about I
4 never thought by talking to the press that I would come forward
5 and be known this way, when in fact I think there was a lengthy
6 discussion he had with a journalist about this very fact.
7 THE COURT: He said that he recognized by talking to
8 the press about it that it would be known publicly.
9 MR. EVERDELL: I think he may have said that, but I
10 think at the same time he's saying I didn't think this would be
11 known by my parents and my friends. I don't know how you
12 square those responses. To me -- and I know this was the
13 subject of argument that you don't want to hear at this point,
14 but his responses are simply not credible on this point because
15 he's talking out of both sides of his mouth: I didn't think I
16 would be known, but yet I did know I would be known. It makes
17 no sense to me. I'm curious to hear more about what I perceive
18 as blatant conflict in answers about a discussion with a
19 journalist about the consequences of going forward.
20 THE COURT: You want me to ask about what he discussed
21 with which journalist?
22 MR. EVERDELL: Lucia, who I believe is The Independent
23 journalist. So I would -- I'm sorry it's not coming out very
24 focused, I apologize, but: You had discussed before in
25 responses to my questions about the fact that you didn't think
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010250
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document