DOJ-OGR-00018803.jpg

524 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 524 KB
Summary

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. They are discussing the consistency of testimony from a witness named Carolyn, specifically focusing on a discrepancy in the date of an incident. The judge points out that a complaint states the incident occurred in 2002, while Carolyn's testimony places it in 2001.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Carolyn Witness
Mentioned in the header as the subject of a cross-examination ("Carolyn - cross"). Her testimony is being discussed.
MR. PAGLIUCA Attorney
A speaker in the transcript, addressing the court and discussing testimony.
THE COURT Judge
A speaker in the transcript, ruling on objections and clarifying points of evidence. Addressed as "your Honor".

Organizations (1)

Name Type Context
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. Company
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.

Timeline (1 events)

2022-08-10
A discussion during a court hearing about the consistency of a witness's (Carolyn's) testimony regarding the timeline of an incident. The court notes a discrepancy between a complaint (stating 2002) and testimony (stating 2001).
Courtroom

Relationships (2)

MR. PAGLIUCA Professional THE COURT
Mr. Pagliuca addresses the Court as "your Honor," indicating a formal, professional relationship between an attorney and a judge in a courtroom setting.
MR. PAGLIUCA Adversarial/Professional Carolyn
The document header states "Carolyn - cross," indicating that Mr. Pagliuca is likely an attorney conducting a cross-examination of Carolyn, who is a witness.

Key Quotes (2)

"the first incident described in this complaint took place in 2002, and her testimony is that it took place in 2001."
Source
— THE COURT (The judge summarizing the core inconsistency in the evidence and testimony that is being discussed.)
DOJ-OGR-00018803.jpg
Quote #1
"21 and 27. 27 is called incident two."
Source
— THE COURT (The judge clarifying which specific paragraphs or items of evidence are being referred to in the discussion.)
DOJ-OGR-00018803.jpg
Quote #2

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document