DOJ-OGR-00012524.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO a oO 4 ay Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 749 LBUCmaxl Filed 08/10/22 Page 10 of 236 914 overrule the objection with a limiting instruction. MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, ruling. f can make one other point, Juan Alessi has sort of testi 2002 according to his own test these photographs were taken in 2005, I understand the Court's which is the fact that fied about this, but he left in timony. This walk-through and which are three years later. So the government is -- he didn't say that that photo was there. So I mean the government is making the argument that ct the photograph was there 105) N Ww = Hs Oo a OY a ~] a oO a Ke) 20 21 22 23 24 25 including Ms. Maxwell, but we this case. these important people may have seen thes photographs or the contradicts the defense argument actually don' that the people in Epstein's orbit would have known about this, t have any testimony that the photo was on the wall at the time that's relevant to THE COURT: We have testimony of Jane regarding art and photographs. didn't go through with Jane specii this one, do you recall that one, this on the wall. She gave very, MR. EVERDELL: Not this photo, her recollection of certain residences, artworks, not particular photographs. your Honor. They very general descriptions of Fic photographs, do you recall was that on the wall, was not particular So I don't think it's fair, on the record we have, to say that this photograph being on the wall in 2005 — mind you, SOUTHERN DISTR CT REPORT ERS, (212) 805-0300 PG ew DOJ-OGR-00012524