Mr. Pagliuca argues that the inconsistencies are factual omissions, citing that paragraph 8 does not include the witness's testimony about penetration and intercourse by Epstein.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Mr. Pagliuca argues that a legal complaint is inconsistent due to factual omissions, specifically citing that paragraph 8 fails to mention the witness's testimony of being subjected to penetration and intercourse by Epstein. The judge acknowledges this "omission theory" and states an intention to hear from a Ms. Comey on the matter.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein communication