DOJ-OGR-00014478.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 _ Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 257 2911 LCKVMAX4 And then we go from there. prohibited, which was the grooming-by-proxy argume also object to the use of what I thought the Court nt, which was re-raised in closing argument, suggesting that somehow Ms. Maxwell was grooming these women for Mr. Epstein, thought had been precluded. THE COURT: That's easy to overrule. My precise conclusion was the expert coul to it in part becaus well, not in part. Thee couldn't testify to it; but, of course, counsel co arguments along that regard from the facts in the MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood, your Honor. Those are my remarks and requests about t THE COURT: Exhibit 52. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. The government's arguments with respect t Exhibit 52 were entirely consistent with the Court In particular, the arguments were about knowledge how it would be obvious, looking at a document, that none of this was legitimate, that they weren't real masseu like mom and dad, we have that effect. And when a @) fered not for its truth, that is certainly a pro inference. When we compare the numbers in Government which I dn't testify xpert uld make evidence. he closing. o Government "s ruling. and intent, ses, things document is per Exhibit 52 against the message pads, the language was the number here is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014478