DOJ-OGR-00018273.jpg
630 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal filing
File Size:
630 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring a legal argument between an attorney (Ms. Moe) and the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs. The attorney argues the photos corroborate a witness's 'blind description' of a residence's interior. The Judge expresses skepticism due to the significant passage of time (15-20 years) and the fact that the photos may depict 'movable items' rather than permanent structures.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney (likely Prosecution) |
Arguing for the admissibility of photographs as corroborating evidence.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the evidentiary dispute, questioning the timing and relevance of photographs.
|
| Parkinson | Witness (implied) |
Name appears in the header 'Parkinson - Direct', suggesting this is during the direct examination phase or related ar...
|
| Unnamed Witness ('She') | Witness/Victim |
Person who provided a 'blind description' of the residence interior without seeing photographs.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Footer of the document.
|
|
| DOJ |
Inferred from Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
August 10, 2022
Filing of Document 749 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Southern District of New York (implied by reporter)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location described by the witness and depicted in the disputed photographs.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"Part of the reason that these photographs are corroborating is that she hasn't been shown these photographs, she was able to describe the interior of the residence not having seen the photographs that had been taken."Source
DOJ-OGR-00018273.jpg
Quote #1
"In other words, she gave a blind description of it that was corroborated by photographs of the interior."Source
DOJ-OGR-00018273.jpg
Quote #2
"The problem is, it's 15 years since the end of the conspiracy, it's 20-some years since her testimony."Source
DOJ-OGR-00018273.jpg
Quote #3
"Older photographs of immovable objects and structure may be relevant... In the absence of that, we're talking about very movable items and a substantially long period of time."Source
DOJ-OGR-00018273.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,599 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 749 Filed 08/10/22 Page 172 of 236 1076
LC3KMAX6 Parkinson - Direct
LC3KMAX6 Parkinson - Direct
1 corroborates her testimony about the way the house appeared,
2 the way that made her feel when she was inside the house.
3 There are particular details throughout the residence that she
4 described that are corroborated by these photographs.
5 THE COURT: But you didn't show her the photographs
6 and ask if it looks the same or what looks the same and what
7 looks different.
8 MS. MOE: Of course, your Honor. Part of the reason
9 that these photographs are corroborating is that she hasn't
10 been shown these photographs, she was able to describe the
11 interior of the residence not having seen the photographs that
12 had been taken. In other words, she gave a blind description
13 of it that was corroborated by photographs of the interior.
14 THE COURT: You could have, and you should have, shown
15 them to her after she provided the testimony. The problem is,
16 it's 15 years since the end of the conspiracy, it's 20-some
17 years since her testimony. I've looked at case law on this.
18 Older photographs of immovable objects and structure may be
19 relevant, and to the extent you have a witness testifying
20 saying it is similar to what I saw or specifically saying it's
21 similar in this way or dissimilar in that way, it would be
22 permitted.
23 In the absence of that, we're talking about very
24 movable items and a substantially long period of time. If
25 there is a witness who could do that, that would be
2 the way that made her feel when she was inside the house.
3 There are particular details throughout the residence that she
4 described that are corroborated by these photographs.
5 THE COURT: But you didn't show her the photographs
6 and ask if it looks the same or what looks the same and what
7 looks different.
8 MS. MOE: Of course, your Honor. Part of the reason
9 that these photographs are corroborating is that she hasn't
10 been shown these photographs, she was able to describe the
11 interior of the residence not having seen the photographs that
12 had been taken. In other words, she gave a blind description
13 of it that was corroborated by photographs of the interior.
14 THE COURT: You could have, and you should have, shown
15 them to her after she provided the testimony. The problem is,
16 it's 15 years since the end of the conspiracy, it's 20-some
17 years since her testimony. I've looked at case law on this.
18 Older photographs of immovable objects and structure may be
19 relevant, and to the extent you have a witness testifying
20 saying it is similar to what I saw or specifically saying it's
21 similar in this way or dissimilar in that way, it would be
22 permitted.
23 In the absence of that, we're talking about very
24 movable items and a substantially long period of time. If
25 there is a witness who could do that, that would be
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018273
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document