DOJ-OGR-00002703.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 148 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 23 have committed the offenses alleged. Instead, this information, crucial to whether an underlying violation of § 130.55 could have occurred at all, remains “shrouded in mystery.” See Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 575. To take the “flight records” as an example, Po Thus, the limited information provided in the “flight records” lead to a dead-end when trying to ascertain any of the details omitted by the indictment. Similarly, the “diary entries” Pe Not knowing the Accusers’ names and dates of birth compounds the difficulty associated with the absence of dates of key events in the indictment. Accuser-3, for example, purportedly was “encouraged” to provide massages to Epstein “between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995.” According to her month and year of birth, as disclosed to the defense, ee which would bear on whether she was a “minor.” Similarly, the government has not alleged how the supposedly false statements made by Ms. Maxwell at her two depositions in the civil defamation action were “material to the proceeding in which [they were] given,” a necessary element of the crime of perjury. United States v. Zagari, 111 F.3d 307, 329 (2d Cir. 1997) (emphasis omitted). Ms. Maxwell is therefore left to guess how she allegedly perjured herself, as charged in Counts Five and Six. The DOJ-OGR-00002703