deposition: 1:20-cv-03038-PAE Document 616-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 73 of 117
Mr. Schoeman testifies that he didn't know if more information would have helped his analysis of Juror No. 1's identity, but agrees that sharing a middle initial with another person of the same name makes it statistically more likely they are the same person.
Summary
Mr. Schoeman testifies that he didn't know if more information would have helped his analysis of Juror No. 1's identity, but agrees that sharing a middle initial with another person of the same name makes it statistically more likely they are the same person.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (3)
Related Documents (6)
deposition: A-5822
The document is a deposition transcript where Mr. Schoeman is questioned about his analysis of Juror No. 1's identity and whether more information would have been helpful. He expresses uncertainty about the usefulness of additional information but agrees that sharing a middle initial makes it statistically more likely that two individuals with the same name are the same person.
deposition: A-5821
The document is a deposition of Mr. Schoeman, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, discussing his investigation into Juror No. 1. He was questioned about his actions and decisions regarding potentially relevant information about the juror's connection to a suspended attorney. Mr. Schoeman stated that he did not receive certain information from Theresa Trzaskoma and was uncertain about what he would have done if he had received it.
11 MAY 25-MAY 27 901_Redacted.pdf
Kristen M. Simkins From: Irons, Janet Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 11-29 AM To: Richard C. Smith Cc: Jeffrey T. We Subject: Meeting with Prison Society tomorrow Hello Warden Smith, I'm writing in preparation for our meeting with you and Director Hite tomorrow at 9:30 to talk about the Law Library. We have been in touch with Kim Kelmor, Assistant Director ofthe Law Library at Penn State, who has experience with prison libraries. She has helpfully provided us with some questions and guida
deposition: A-5829
The witness discusses a conversation with someone from the Brune firm about Juror No. 1 and a potential connection to a suspended attorney. The witness didn't receive detailed information about the connection but recalls discussing Juror No. 1's possible involvement in a personal injury case. The witness is questioned about whether they would have wanted information about a written report on Juror No. 1's background.
deposition: A-5783
The deposition transcript discusses Ms. Edelstein's reaction to learning about a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad and whether Juror No. 1 could be the same person. Ms. Edelstein initially thought it was impossible due to Juror No. 1's voir dire responses, specifically her education level. The questioning focuses on whether further investigation was warranted to verify Juror No. 1's identity.
INTERLOCHEN
DOJ EFTA Data Set 10 document EFTA01265496
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.