Ghislaine Maxwell Trial (Epstein’s side piece)

I just want to point out that people should be mindful when they read this kind of court material that testimony - whether it be in the form of deposition transcripts or written testimony such as a declaration or written discovery response - is not fact, nor is it original source material.

I'm seeing quite a bit of activity on social media and in less-than-scrupulous media quoting testimony from the court release as if it were fact, or at least strongly insinuating that the testimony establishes facts or presumptions. But testimony is nothing more than a person's view and memory about the events and is often wrong. While yes it is sworn with penalty of perjury, and that does assist credibility, it is nonetheless one person's account and faulty memory, mistaken belief, or confusion are not perjury but nonetheless make testimony inaccurate.

Credibility is a huge factor in weighing of the merit of testimony - and where testimony is corroborated by other material including original source documents, data, or other credible testimony, confidence grows in that testimony. Conversely, where testimony is shown to be unreliable by those same factors or others (including recantations and other impeachment), confidence is diminished.

Not all of the released material here is testimony. The flight logs, for example, are contemporaneous original source material that, unless shown to be unreliable for some reason, have a greater presumption of accuracy over a person's memory. But my point is simply that material is from a court record doesn't mean we give it weight on its own accord - every bit of evidence has to be considered as to its form, nature, and reliability.