This document is page 76 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between Ms. Moe (Prosecution) and Mr. Pagliuca (Defense) regarding the evidentiary weight and authenticity of message books/logs. Ms. Moe argues the logs are sequential and chronological, while Mr. Pagliuca contends they are disorganized, missing dates, and that multiple books were used haphazardly by staff.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Hesse | Witness / Subject |
Referenced in relation to a practice or methodology regarding exhibits; explicitly referred to as 'Mrs. Hesse' as well.
|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney (Prosecution) |
Arguing for the admissibility/authenticity of message logs based on sequential order.
|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Attorney (Defense) |
Arguing against the reliability of the message logs, claiming dates are out of order or missing.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by both attorneys during the argument.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Implied by the footer 'DOJ-OGR-00018938'.
|
"MS. MOE: ...the rule only requires that the record is made at or near the time of the offense recorded..."Source
"MR. PAGLIUCA: ...there are some that have dates on them and then there are some that have dates out of order on them, and then there are a bunch that don't have dates on them."Source
"MR. PAGLIUCA: It is common knowledge, I think, for people who were using these books when they were used, you can take any six different books and start writing in them at any point in time to take a message."Source
"MS. MOE: Your Honor, the point here is that employees were instructed to take messages from phone calls as they came in."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,668 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document