deposition: A-5798
The deponent discusses their knowledge of Juror No. 1's background, the resources available for investigation, and the actions taken after receiving a juror letter. The deponent acknowledges having resources to investigate but chose not to initially due to doubts about the identity of Catherine Conrad. Later, they did call Nardello to assist in gathering information.
Summary
The deponent discusses their knowledge of Juror No. 1's background, the resources available for investigation, and the actions taken after receiving a juror letter. The deponent acknowledges having resources to investigate but chose not to initially due to doubts about the identity of Catherine Conrad. Later, they did call Nardello to assist in gathering information.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (3)
Related Documents (6)
deposition transcript: A-5763
The witness, Brune, testifies about their firm's involvement in jury research and investigation, including work done by Mr. Nardello's firm. Brune confirms that they did not disclose Nardello's firm's involvement to the judge during a phone call and resisted government discovery requests related to their firm's knowledge.
Deposition Transcript: A-5804
The deposition of Ms. Edelstein discusses the accuracy of statements in a court brief, specifically regarding the defendants' investigation into Catherine Conrad and their awareness of an Appellate Division suspension report. Edelstein confirms the accuracy of a statement in the brief but is questioned about the timing and extent of the investigation. The transcript highlights potential inconsistencies in the defendants' claims.
Deposition Transcript: 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 61102/20
The witness is being questioned about their knowledge of certain facts and the drafting of a legal brief. They discuss their understanding of events and the reasoning behind the wording used in the brief. The testimony highlights potential discrepancies in interpretation and the context in which the brief was written.
deposition transcript: A-5790
The witness discusses receiving a memo from David Benhamou, which included information about Juror No. 1's voir dire responses and an Appellate Division order. The witness confirms noticing details in the Appellate Division order and a suspension report related to Catherine M. Conrad.
deposition: A-5784
The deponent is questioned about their actions and knowledge regarding the identification of a juror named Catherine Conrad, and whether they took steps to verify if two similarly named individuals were the same person.
deposition transcript: A-5796
The witness, Edelstein, is being questioned about their investigation and computer research related to Catherine Conrad. The questioning focuses on what information was known on May 12th and whether certain research could have been done at that time. The witness's responses indicate some discrepancies in their previous statements.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.