HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013389.jpg
1.94 MB
Extraction Summary
8
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document page (likely a brief or motion)
File Size:
1.94 MB
Summary
This page from a legal document argues that a fact-finder should draw adverse inferences from Jeffrey Epstein's refusal to answer specific deposition questions. It lists several unanswered questions regarding sexual assault allegations, contact with minors (L.M., Jane Doe, E.W.), and claims of fabricated cases by Mr. Edwards, proposing that his silence implies admission of guilt.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | ||
| Mr. Edwards | ||
| L.M. | ||
| Jane Doe | ||
| E.W. | ||
| Brandeis, J. | ||
| Bilokumsky | ||
| Tod |
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. | ||
| United States Supreme Court |
Timeline (1 events)
September of 2008 (filing of L.M.'s Complaint)
Relationships (4)
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
Key Quotes (3)
"In the circumstances of this case, a reasonable finder of fact would have “evidence of the most persuasive character” from Epstein’s repeated refusal to answer questions propounded to him."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013389.jpg
Quote #1
"Reasonable inference: Epstein has procured multiple minors for prostitution."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013389.jpg
Quote #2
"Reasonable inference: Epstein was on a private airplane while sexual assaults were taking place."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013389.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,184 characters)
841, 842 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S.
149, 153-154 (1923) (Brandeis, J.).
149, 153-154 (1923) (Brandeis, J.).
In the circumstances of this case, a reasonable finder of fact would have “evidence of the
most persuasive character” from Epstein’s repeated refusal to answer questions propounded to
him. To provide but a few examples, here are questions that Epstein refused to answer and the
reasonable inference that a reasonable finder of fact would draw:
most persuasive character” from Epstein’s repeated refusal to answer questions propounded to
him. To provide but a few examples, here are questions that Epstein refused to answer and the
reasonable inference that a reasonable finder of fact would draw:
• Question not answered: “Specifically what are the allegations against you which
you contend Mr. Edwards ginned up?” Reasonable inference: No allegations
against Epstein were ginned up.
you contend Mr. Edwards ginned up?” Reasonable inference: No allegations
against Epstein were ginned up.
• Question not answered: “Well, which of Mr. Edwards’ cases do you contend
were fabricated?” Reasonable inference: No cases filed by Edwards against
Epstein were fabricated.
were fabricated?” Reasonable inference: No cases filed by Edwards against
Epstein were fabricated.
• Question not answered: “Did sexual assaults ever take place on a private airplane
on which you were a passenger?” Reasonable inference: Epstein was on a private
airplane while sexual assaults were taking place.
on which you were a passenger?” Reasonable inference: Epstein was on a private
airplane while sexual assaults were taking place.
• Question not answered: “How many minors have you procured for prostitution?”
Reasonable inference: Epstein has procured multiple minors for prostitution.
Reasonable inference: Epstein has procured multiple minors for prostitution.
• Question not answered: “Is there anything in L.M.’s Complaint that was filed
against you in September of 2008 which you contend to be false?” Reasonable
inference: Nothing in L.M.’s complaint filed in September of 2008 was false –
i.e., as alleged in L.M.’s complaint, Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her
while she was a minor and she was entitled to substantial compensatory and
punitive damages as a result.
against you in September of 2008 which you contend to be false?” Reasonable
inference: Nothing in L.M.’s complaint filed in September of 2008 was false –
i.e., as alleged in L.M.’s complaint, Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her
while she was a minor and she was entitled to substantial compensatory and
punitive damages as a result.
• Question not answered: “I would like to know whether you ever had any physical
contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe in that [federal] complaint?”
Reasonable inference: Epstein had physical contact with minor Jane Doe as
alleged in her federal complaint.
contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe in that [federal] complaint?”
Reasonable inference: Epstein had physical contact with minor Jane Doe as
alleged in her federal complaint.
• Question not answered: “Did you ever have any physical contact with E.W.?”
Reasonable inference: Epstein had physical contact with minor E.W. as alleged in
her complaint.
Reasonable inference: Epstein had physical contact with minor E.W. as alleged in
her complaint.
• Question not answered: “What is the actual value that you contend the claim of
20
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013389
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document