deposition transcript: A-5805
The witness, Edelstein, is questioned about their knowledge of an investigation conducted by Theresa Trzaskoma prior to receiving a letter. Edelstein's responses suggest a discrepancy between their understanding of the investigation's timeline and the facts presented by the questioning attorney.
Summary
The witness, Edelstein, is questioned about their knowledge of an investigation conducted by Theresa Trzaskoma prior to receiving a letter. Edelstein's responses suggest a discrepancy between their understanding of the investigation's timeline and the facts presented by the questioning attorney.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (3)
Related Documents (6)
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.
Court Transcript Index: A-5670
This is an index to a court transcript from the trial of Paul M. Daugerdas, detailing the examination of witnesses Theresa Marie Trzaskoma and Catherine M. Conrad, as well as the receipt of various government and defense exhibits.
deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-03303-PAE
The deposition transcript shows Edelstein being questioned about their knowledge of an investigation conducted by Theresa Trzaskoma and the accuracy of a statement regarding when the investigation began. Edelstein's testimony appears to be inconsistent, and they are pressed to clarify their answers.
transcript of a court hearing or deposition: A-5920
The document discusses the defense's decision not to disclose information about a juror during voir dire or after an investigation, and the government's argument that this was a tactical choice that cannot form the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The defense considered several alternatives but chose to do nothing. The government's view is that this conscious and deliberate choice was a strategic decision.
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.
Court Transcript: 64432
The transcript is of a court proceeding where Ms. Edelstein is being questioned about her law firm's handling of information regarding Juror No. 1, including whether they would have disclosed it to the Court if not prompted. The discussion also touches on whether they considered raising it as an appellate issue.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.