| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
narrator
|
Interviewer subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed senior colleagues
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trial | A long trial is mentioned as the context for the events, possibly explaining the exhaustion of th... | Court | View |
| N/A | Decision | An unnamed woman and her two senior colleagues decided not to investigate or report information f... | N/A | View |
This document is a court transcript where a speaker criticizes the past actions of an unnamed woman and her two senior colleagues. The speaker argues they failed to properly investigate or report information to the court, possibly due to exhaustion or intimidation, which the judge later termed a 'tragic misjudgment'. This failure to act ultimately led to the substitution of a juror several days later.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Berke. Berke describes a conversation with Ms. Brune regarding a background check on a woman where a 'disbarred lawyer' with the same name was found, though they concluded it was a case of mistaken identity based on educational background. The direct examination by Mr. Shechtman concludes, and cross-examination by Mr. Okula begins with some light banter about a 'bucket list'.
This document appears to be page 23 of a manuscript or book draft, stamped as evidence by the House Oversight Committee. The text explores the psychological concept of intuition, drawing parallels between the 'grift sense' of criminals/sex workers and the mathematical intuition defined by Henri Poincare. It discusses how humans form perceptions and stereotypes based on limited information, concluding with a mention of Baba Muktananda.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity