This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on Feb 24, 2022. Witness 'Brune' is being questioned about when they became aware of research conducted by their colleague Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Catherine Conrad (Juror 50). The testimony focuses on whether Brune was included in email traffic regarding this research prior to jury deliberations. Attorneys Schectman and Davis argue over the timestamp (West Coast vs East Coast) of a specific note.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune | Witness |
Under direct examination; testifying about knowledge of research into Catherine Conrad.
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma | Attorney/Colleague |
Sent an email regarding research on Catherine Conrad; works at the same firm as the witness.
|
| Catherine Conrad | Subject of Research |
Person being investigated by Ms. Trzaskoma and the firm (Context: Known as 'Juror 50' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial).
|
| Mr. Schectman | Attorney |
Interjects to clarify a time zone issue regarding a note.
|
| Ms. Davis | Attorney |
Refuses to stipulate to Mr. Schectman's clarification about the time.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Instructs the questioning attorney to ask a new question.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Transcription service listed in footer.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned by Mr. Schectman in reference to the time zone of a note.
|
"I certainly was not included on any e-mail traffic."Source
"I'm not willing to stipulate to that, your Honor, and I'll move on, but I'm not willing to stipulate to that."Source
"that note prompted Ms. Trzaskoma and others in your firm to do additional research on Catherine Conrad"Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,312 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document