DOJ-OGR-00016497.jpg
627 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
627 KB
Summary
This document is page 14 of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, related to the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The dialogue is between the Court and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning Ms. Maxwell's residency in London. Everdell argues that title records showing Maxwell owned a property at 69 Stanhope Mews prior to purchasing a residence on Kinnerton Street would prove she was not living at the new location earlier than claimed, while the Court questions why a proffered attorney witness is not present to testify to these facts.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, questioning the defense counsel about evidence and witnesses.
|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding property records and residency evidence.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the discussion regarding her residences in London (Stanhope Mews vs Kinnerton Street).
|
| Unnamed Attorney | Potential Witness |
An attorney proffered as a witness whom the defense was unable to get to court.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated by the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00016497.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court proceeding regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
Southern District of New York (implied by reporters)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
City where the properties in question are located.
|
|
|
Address in London Ms. Maxwell allegedly owned prior to Kinnerton Street.
|
|
|
Residence in London mentioned as a subsequent property.
|
Relationships (1)
Mr. Everdell is arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell's defense regarding her property records.
Key Quotes (4)
"Ms. Maxwell had another place in London at a street called Stanhope Mews, I think it was 69 Stanhope Mews."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016497.jpg
Quote #1
"And we may be able to find the title records that she sold it, because she had that prior to the Kinnerton Street residence."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016497.jpg
Quote #2
"if somebody owned another place and didn't buy another place until later, that they are not living at that new place if they owned the other place."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016497.jpg
Quote #3
"Your Honor, if we need the attorney, we can try to get him here, but we just couldn't get him here"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016497.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,623 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 14 of 246 2309
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
1 THE COURT: I was sort of leaning that way when I
2 thought the attorney was going to come testify who could be
3 crossed on this precise question. But you want it to just come
4 in -- you want a fact not in issue, which is the ownership
5 question, you want an inference from ownership -- ownership is
6 confusing; but the inference from the timing of ownership as to
7 when she lived there, which is contradicted by deposition
8 testimony that would come in from Ms. Maxwell.
9 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think we have records
10 which we'd have to find and anticipate this being the issue.
11 But Ms. Maxwell had another place in London at a street called
12 Stanhope Mews, I think it was 69 Stanhope Mews. And we may be
13 able to find the title records that she sold it, because she
14 had that prior to the Kinnerton Street residence. And I think
15 if you have -- we'd have to look for those. I think we
16 probably can find them. But they would show that she had
17 another place until she bought this new place.
18 So I think that is a fair inference to say that if
19 somebody owned another place and didn't buy another place until
20 later, that they are not living at that new place if they owned
21 the other place. That's just common sense.
22 THE COURT: And why can't the attorney who you had
23 proffered as the witness for this testify?
24 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if we need the attorney, we
25 can try to get him here, but we just couldn't get him here
2 thought the attorney was going to come testify who could be
3 crossed on this precise question. But you want it to just come
4 in -- you want a fact not in issue, which is the ownership
5 question, you want an inference from ownership -- ownership is
6 confusing; but the inference from the timing of ownership as to
7 when she lived there, which is contradicted by deposition
8 testimony that would come in from Ms. Maxwell.
9 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think we have records
10 which we'd have to find and anticipate this being the issue.
11 But Ms. Maxwell had another place in London at a street called
12 Stanhope Mews, I think it was 69 Stanhope Mews. And we may be
13 able to find the title records that she sold it, because she
14 had that prior to the Kinnerton Street residence. And I think
15 if you have -- we'd have to look for those. I think we
16 probably can find them. But they would show that she had
17 another place until she bought this new place.
18 So I think that is a fair inference to say that if
19 somebody owned another place and didn't buy another place until
20 later, that they are not living at that new place if they owned
21 the other place. That's just common sense.
22 THE COURT: And why can't the attorney who you had
23 proffered as the witness for this testify?
24 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if we need the attorney, we
25 can try to get him here, but we just couldn't get him here
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016497
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document