Back to Results

DOJ-OGR-00011433.jpg

Source: IMAGES  •  Size: 692.8 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 94.4%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page10of 25 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 22, 2021 Page 10 interview on July 17, 2020. See 3500 material at 3505-067. Of course, this is the first time that Ms. Maxwell’s name surfaces. The economic incentives here are obvious—having settled her claims in 2009, Accuser-4 needed new, more sensational information to get more money. The EVCP materials thus directly contradict the “motive theory” that will be advanced by the prosecution at trial—that Ms. Maxwell was the procurer of underaged women for Epstein. See Mendez v. Artuz, 303 F.3d 411, 414 (2d Cir. 2002) (information relevant and “exculpatory . . . when it directly contradicts the motive theory testified to by prosecution witnesses”). As this Court has already ruled, Witness-3 cannot be called a “victim” of the charged conduct because she was not a minor. Even so, this Court ruled that “some of the anticipated testimony [from Witness-3] can serve as direct evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the alleged conduct as to [her] was not illegal for the purpose of the charges in this case.” Ms. Maxwell and the jury have a right to know what Witness-3 said the EVCP about the alleged abuse she suffered, including how old she claimed to be when she was abused. If Witness-3 misrepresented her age to the EVCP, just as the government was misled by Witness-3 into portraying her as a minor to the grand jury and this Court, that fact bears directly on her credibility. Again, it is no coincidence that, after receiving money from the fund, Witness-3 is now telling the government that if asked at trial about “specific dates when things occurred, the answer might be she doesn’t know.” See 3500 material at 3513-059. Only when we see how Witness-3 described how old she was to the fund will we know the truth. In last-ditch effort to preclude enforcement, the government says that Ms. Maxwell “already has the information relevant this argument.” Gov. Mot at 4. But even if that’s true, that DOJ-OGR-00011433

Document Preview

DOJ-OGR-00011433.jpg

Click to view full size

Document Details

Filename DOJ-OGR-00011433.jpg
File Size 692.8 KB
OCR Confidence 94.4%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,041 characters
Indexed 2026-02-03 18:08:00.536802