DOJ-OGR-00003088.jpg

711 KB

Extraction Summary

3
People
2
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court filing (government response/brief)
File Size: 711 KB
Summary

This document is a page from a government legal filing (Document 204) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes excerpts from Maxwell's deposition where she denies interacting with anyone under 18 at Epstein's properties, other than Virginia [Giuffre]. The filing argues against the defense's motion to dismiss perjury charges based on ambiguity, asserting that terms like 'Jeffrey,' 'properties,' and 'interact' were clear in context.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant/Speaker
Referred to as 'The defendant', 'Ms. Maxwell', and 'I' in the transcribed testimony. Accused of perjury.
Jeffrey Epstein Associate/Property Owner
Referred to as 'Jeffrey'. The document discusses his properties and Maxwell's role in hiring for him.
Virginia [Giuffre] Victim/Witness
Referred to as 'Virginia'. Described as a masseuse aged 17 at the time.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
Oxford English Dictionary Online
Cited for the definition of 'interact'.
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.

Timeline (2 events)

2021-02-25
Date the Oxford English Dictionary Online was last visited for the brief
Online
2021-04-16
Filing of Document 204 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Court (Southern District of New York implied)
Defense Counsel Prosecution

Locations (4)

Location Context
Location of one of Jeffrey Epstein's houses.
Location of one of Jeffrey Epstein's houses.
Location of one of Jeffrey Epstein's houses.
Location of one of Jeffrey Epstein's houses.

Relationships (2)

Ghislaine Maxwell Professional/Knowledge Virginia [Giuffre]
Maxwell admits knowing Virginia was a 'masseuse aged 17'.
Maxwell interviewed people for jobs for 'professional capacity for Jeffrey'.

Key Quotes (4)

"I am not aware of anyone aside from now Virginia who clearly was a masseuse aged 17"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00003088.jpg
Quote #1
"I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously Virginia who was 17 at this point?"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00003088.jpg
Quote #2
"A reasonable jury, after hearing the evidence, could readily conclude that the natural meaning of those words in context is abundantly clear."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00003088.jpg
Quote #3
"“Jeffrey” is Jeffrey Epstein; “Jeffrey’s properties” are Jeffrey Epstein’s properties"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00003088.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,110 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 154 of 239
A. I interviewed people for jobs for professional things and I am not aware of anyone aside from now Virginia who clearly was a masseuse aged 17 but that’s, at least that’s how far we know that I can think of that fulfilled any professional capacity for Jeffrey.
Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey’s properties?
A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously Virginia who was 17 at this point?
(Ex. 10 at 382:4-384:20).
The defendant argues that this question was “grossly ambiguous: who was ‘Jeffrey’; what were ‘Jeffrey’s properties;’ to what time frame did the question apply; what was the basis for Ms. Maxwell to determine who may or may not have been ‘under the age of 18’; and what did ‘interact with’ mean?” (Def. Mot. 4 at 11). These arguments only underscore the principle that perjury prosecutions are an inquiry into “the natural meaning in the context in which words were used,” Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d at 1221, and not an opportunity for defense counsel to “plumb[] a question for post hoc ambiguity,” Strohm, 671 F.3d at 1178. A reasonable jury, after hearing the evidence, could readily conclude that the natural meaning of those words in context is abundantly clear. For instance, at the end of trial, a jury could conclude that “Jeffrey” is Jeffrey Epstein; “Jeffrey’s properties” are Jeffrey Epstein’s properties, including his houses in Palm Beach, New York, New Mexico, and the United States Virgin Islands (see, e.g., Ex. 10 at 248:17-20 (naming those properties)); and “interact” is an expansive word aimed at capturing any encounter, that was used after the defendant resisted words like “met,” “found,” and “hired” in the prior questions, see Interact, Oxford English Dictionary Online, https://oed.com/view/Entry/97518 (last visited February 25, 2021) (“To act reciprocally, to act on each other.”). Such inferences will be particularly easy for a jury to reach after hearing multiple victims testify about their own
127
DOJ-OGR-00003088

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document