132 H3vlgiu2 ih activity, that's the truth. But aware of the reports. 2 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor, and the reason why she 3 could be aware of the reports is because she'll -- remember, 4 her testimony is that she worked for Epstein from the early 5 "90s until 2009. This investigation took place in 2006, your 6 Honor, during the course of the time she was allegedly managing 7 the Palm Beach home and his active employee, his right-hand 8 person. So yes, of course, we should be able to ask her those 9 questions, show her the report: Were you aware of this, of 10 these reports? Were you aware that these reports were made, 1a you know, as part of this investigation? And then she can 1 answer that. 13 THE COURT: Well, that's fine. You could do that. 14 You could show her the reports and say, were you aware of them, 15 but that would not get the hearsay part in. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Well, your Honor, and of course we have de two other of the exceptions, the business record exception, 18 which we talked about, and we also noticed this as one of the 19 residual hearsay -- 20 THE COURT: Yes, but even as a business record, I 21 think GOUunsel 1S correct —-- under the business records 22 exception, the activities of the cops and what they did, all of 23 that can go in, yes, because they're under a duty, etc., but 24 not the statements. 25 MS. McCAWLEY: So for example, one of the witnesses on SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011435