DOJ-OGR-00009426.jpg
446 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
446 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman. An attorney questions Schoeman on whether his analysis regarding Juror No. 1 would have been improved by knowing the juror was a suspended attorney. Schoeman defends his conclusion based on the information he had, but concedes that matching names and middle initials make it statistically likely two records refer to the same person.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schoeman | Witness |
A witness undergoing cross-examination regarding an analysis he performed.
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
Mentioned in a question regarding whether this person was a suspended attorney.
|
| Catherine Conrad |
A name used in a hypothetical question about identifying individuals with the same name and middle initial.
|
|
| MR. OKULA | Attorney |
An attorney who addresses the judge at the end of the questioning.
|
| Judge | Judge |
Addressed by Mr. Okula, presiding over the proceeding.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Relationships (2)
The document shows an unnamed questioner conducting a cross-examination of the witness, Schoeman, in a legal proceeding.
Key Quotes (3)
"Would you have liked to receive that information in order to make a better assessment of your own about whether Juror No. 1 was the suspended attorney?"Source
— Unnamed Questioner
(Questioning the witness about the adequacy of the information he used for his analysis.)
DOJ-OGR-00009426.jpg
Quote #1
"I'm telling you that I reached a conclusion based on that information."Source
— Schoeman
(Responding to repeated questions about whether more information would have improved his analysis.)
DOJ-OGR-00009426.jpg
Quote #2
"Would you agree with me that if you have two people, one named Catherine Conrad, another named Catherine Conrad, and you were given information about their middle initials, that they share the same middle initial, that it made it statistically more likely that was the same person?"Source
— Unnamed Questioner
(Using a hypothetical scenario to establish a point about identifying individuals.)
DOJ-OGR-00009426.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,541 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00380-PAE Document 616-3 Filed 02/24/12 Page 73 of 117
A-5822
A-5822
C2grdau4
365
Schoeman - cross
1 Q. Would you have liked to receive that information in order
2 to make a better assessment of your own about whether Juror No.
3 1 was the suspended attorney? After all, more information is
4 better, isn't it?
5 A. It did not occur to me at the time to ask for more
6 information.
7 Q. I didn't ask you whether it occurred to you at the time.
8 Would you have wanted more information? Would that have helped
9 your analysis?
10 A. I don't know whether it would have helped my analysis. I
11 concluded from the fact that she was telling me that the voir
12 dire answer had said that this person had not gone to law
13 school, that this was not an issue.
14 Q. Do you really mean what you just said, that you don't think
15 more information would have helped your analysis, Mr. Schoeman?
16 A. I'm telling you I don't know whether more information would
17 have helped my analysis. I'm telling you that I reached a
18 conclusion based on that information.
19 Q. Would you agree with me that if you have two people, one
20 named Catherine Conrad, another named Catherine Conrad, and you
21 were given information about their middle initials, that they
22 share the same middle initial, that it made it statistically
23 more likely that was the same person?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. OKULA: Judge, I have nothing further. Thank you.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
365
Schoeman - cross
1 Q. Would you have liked to receive that information in order
2 to make a better assessment of your own about whether Juror No.
3 1 was the suspended attorney? After all, more information is
4 better, isn't it?
5 A. It did not occur to me at the time to ask for more
6 information.
7 Q. I didn't ask you whether it occurred to you at the time.
8 Would you have wanted more information? Would that have helped
9 your analysis?
10 A. I don't know whether it would have helped my analysis. I
11 concluded from the fact that she was telling me that the voir
12 dire answer had said that this person had not gone to law
13 school, that this was not an issue.
14 Q. Do you really mean what you just said, that you don't think
15 more information would have helped your analysis, Mr. Schoeman?
16 A. I'm telling you I don't know whether more information would
17 have helped my analysis. I'm telling you that I reached a
18 conclusion based on that information.
19 Q. Would you agree with me that if you have two people, one
20 named Catherine Conrad, another named Catherine Conrad, and you
21 were given information about their middle initials, that they
22 share the same middle initial, that it made it statistically
23 more likely that was the same person?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. OKULA: Judge, I have nothing further. Thank you.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009426
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document