Ms. Comey
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
18
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Opposing counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Opposing counsel |
12
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representative |
12
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Mr. Alessi
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Parkinson
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mr. Parkinson
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
38 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Shawn
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Meder
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
37 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
155 | |
|
person
Mr. Visoski
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 1004 (Stipulation) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar/conference regarding a response to a jury question concerning witness Carolyn and a... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding three missing jurors who are stuck on the security line or unaccounted for o... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Lawrence Visoski | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Kimberly Meder | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Dawson regarding a residence and inconsistent statements. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Shawn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of David Rodgers | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Kimberly Meder | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government's Exhibit 296R | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Lawrence Visoski by Ms. Comey | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of witness Carolyn. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of Shawn's testimony and calling of Nicole Hesse to the stand. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court recess taken after discussion between counsel and judge. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Lawrence Visoski | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of Michael Dawson | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Rodgers regarding Government Exhibit 662 (a logbook). | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibits 252, 253, and 254 under seal. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of Gregory Parkinson | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 2 for identification. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Juan Patricio Alessi | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018849.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) covering the redirect examination of a witness named Carolyn. During this segment, defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca finishes his questioning regarding a photo exhibit (C10), after which prosecutor Ms. Comey questions Carolyn about the authorship of her civil complaint and her application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, to which Carolyn admits she did not write them herself. The page concludes with a question regarding an FBI interview report.
DOJ-OGR-00018847.jpg
This page is a transcript from the cross-examination of a witness named 'Carolyn' in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense attorney attempts to impeach the witness's credibility by suggesting she has an incentive to lie and questioning her about schizophrenia and alleged past loss of child custody due to substance abuse, which the witness repeatedly denies. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to the line of questioning regarding the witness's incentive to stick to her story.
DOJ-OGR-00018846.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a $2,804,000 compensation payment Carolyn received, from which $446,000 was subtracted for prior claims against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Kellen. The transcript also shows the judge sustaining an objection to one of Carolyn's answers and Mr. Pagliuca confirming her understanding that submitting false information could lead to forfeiture of the compensation money.
DOJ-OGR-00018841.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning, led by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, focuses on emails sent on Carolyn's behalf by her agent, Mr. Scarola, to the government in July 2020, prior to her interviews. The transcript captures objections from another attorney, Ms. Comey, and rulings from the judge regarding potentially privileged communications between the witness and her representative.
DOJ-OGR-00018840.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Carolyn in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Pagliuca questions the witness about the timing of her cooperation with the government, specifically attempting to link her first response in July 2020 to the opening of the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund in June 2020. The witness denies knowing about the fund opening date but confirms responding through her attorneys, Mr. Danchuk and Mr. Scarola.
DOJ-OGR-00018836.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on establishing that in previous interactions—including 2007 FBI interviews, two lawsuits involving Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, and a 2009 deposition—the witness never mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney also attempts to refresh the witness's memory regarding a government meeting in Florida in 2007 with a Ms. Villaflana, whom the witness does not recall.
DOJ-OGR-00018832.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness, Carolyn. Mr. Pagliuca reads from prior testimony, questioning Carolyn about whether she had sexual intercourse with a Mr. Epstein. The witness's read testimony denies any sexual intercourse, and the exchange is interrupted by an objection from another attorney, Ms. Comey, and a correction from the judge stating that Mr. Pagliuca misread the testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018831.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness named Carolyn. The questioning centers on a previous statement where the witness denied having sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein. The witness clarifies her answer, stating she replied 'no' because she was not a willing participant and that he had intercourse with her, which she stopped.
DOJ-OGR-00018830.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The defense attorney (Mr. Pagliuca) questions the witness about her 2009 testimony regarding drug use (cocaine) at Jeffrey Epstein's house, specifically establishing that Epstein did not instruct her to use drugs. The questioning then pivots to her claim of having sexual intercourse with Epstein before being interrupted by an objection from Ms. Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00018828.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a trial. Attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey debate with the judge which portions of a prior testimony should be read to a witness to refresh their memory. The specific testimony in question involves the witness being asked about doing cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house.
DOJ-OGR-00018826.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Carolyn in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness about alleged cocaine use at Jeffrey Epstein's house, which she denies. The witness spontaneously interjects that Epstein told her not to take drugs, prompting an objection from Ms. Comey and an admonishment from the Court to wait for rulings on objections.
DOJ-OGR-00018824.jpg
This document is a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning centers on a deposition from October 21, 2009, which Carolyn denies ever having seen. During the exchange, Carolyn also states that she has never taken a hallucinogenic drug.
DOJ-OGR-00018823.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a prior deposition from 2009 and an incident involving the alleged ingestion of 'angel trumpets' (a flower) while visiting Jeffrey Epstein's house, which the witness denies ingesting. Ms. Comey objects to a line of questioning regarding prior testimony, which is sustained by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00018820.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Carolyn's history of substance use, including taking Xanax for anxiety, drinking and smoking marijuana at age 13, and using benzodiazepines frequently between 2002 and 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00018818.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to direct Carolyn to specific passages in a prior deposition, leading to procedural clarifications from the judge and an objection from another attorney, Ms. Comey. The transcript captures the formal and often disjointed process of presenting evidence in a legal setting.
DOJ-OGR-00018817.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a moment after a recess where the judge and attorneys prepare for a witness, and the judge then addresses the jury to apologize for a delay and inform them of upcoming scheduling changes, including days off due to a personal conflict and the Christmas holiday.
DOJ-OGR-00018816.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about a witness's amended testimony. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, highlights that the witness later added they were transported in a private car provided by Jeffrey Epstein, arguing this change in memory is significant. The judge acknowledges the inconsistency, after which other attorneys discuss procedural matters like taking a break and the time remaining for cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018815.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a legal debate between attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge regarding the admissibility of specific testimony or evidence (items 20 and 21). The discussion focuses on whether seeing a female naked in a massage room before Jeffrey Epstein entered constitutes 'lewd and lascivious conduct' or mere nudity.
DOJ-OGR-00018814.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Comey, and the judge. They are debating inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness named Carolyn, specifically regarding the timeframe of payments she allegedly received from Mr. Epstein and whether her testimony described sexual contact or merely being seen naked in a massage room. The judge ultimately suggests checking the official transcript to resolve the dispute.
DOJ-OGR-00018813.jpg
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 admissibility of specific questions (16 and 17) to be asked during a cross-examination, which concern visits to Mr. Epstein's home and any financial compensation received. The judge sustains an objection but ultimately indicates a willingness to allow the questions for a person identified as Ms. Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00018811.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey before a judge. The discussion centers on whether a complaint's allegations are limited to a period ending in August 2003, which Mr. Pagliuca asserts is inconsistent with testimony. Ms. Comey counters that the complaint is consistent and suggests how to question the witness, Carolyn, on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00018806.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, presided over by a judge. The discussion centers on whether a witness's testimony about the frequency of an act (up to four times a week) is inconsistent with a complaint stating it occurred twice a month. The attorneys debate the significance of the time frame and the conflicting frequencies mentioned in the testimony versus the complaint.
DOJ-OGR-00018805.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, before a judge. Ms. Comey defends a legal complaint against claims of inconsistency with a witness's testimony, particularly regarding the omission of certain details about 'sex acts'. The judge ultimately rules on the matter related to 'paragraph 39', sustaining an objection by finding a testified detail to be significant.
DOJ-OGR-00018804.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the cross-examination regarding a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court about inconsistencies in testimony regarding incidents in July 2002, specifically noting a lack of allegations regarding sexual penetration versus fondling. The Judge clarifies which paragraph of the legal document is being discussed (moving from 33 to 39) before turning to prosecutor Ms. Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00018796.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the cross-examination context of a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that there are factual omissions in the complaint compared to the witness's live testimony, specifically noting that the witness testified to 'penetration and intercourse by Epstein,' which was not included in Paragraph 8 of the complaint. The Judge questions Pagliuca on his theory of inconsistency versus omission and prepares to hear from prosecutor Ms. Comey.
Objection to document C4
Ms. Comey objects to the inclusion of document C4, arguing it was crafted by lawyers, not the witness, and would confuse the issues for the jury.
Identification of person in exhibits
Ms. Comey questions the witness, Mr. Visoski, asking him to identify the person depicted in Government Exhibits 115 and 111.
Description of Mr. Epstein's ranch property in New Mexico
Ms. Comey questions the witness, Mr. Visoski, about the layout and buildings on a ranch property owned by Mr. Epstein in New Mexico.
Credibility of witnesses against Ghislaine Maxwell
Ms. Comey argues that the four witnesses against Ghislaine Maxwell testified for justice, not for financial gain. She states they had already received 'million-dollar payouts' and would not have subjected themselves to a grueling and humiliating trial and cross-examination if their testimony were false.
Government Exhibit 310 (a photograph)
Ms. Comey questions the witness, Mr. Visoski, about the contents of a photograph. Mr. Visoski identifies the people, aircraft, and location in the photo.
Witness's relationship with Virginia Roberts and her conn...
Ms. Comey questions the witness, Shawn, about their acquaintance with Virginia Roberts. The testimony establishes they were schoolmates, met in 2001, and socialized with Roberts and her boyfriend, Tony Figueroa. It is also stated that an unnamed female met Jeffrey Epstein through Virginia Roberts.
Female passenger on Mr. Epstein's plane
Ms. Comey questions witness Mr. Rodgers about a female passenger on Mr. Epstein's plane who he understood attended Interlochen. She directs him to identify the passenger's name using Government Exhibit 12 without saying it aloud.
Identification of Little St. James
Q&A regarding the identification of an aerial photo of the island and descriptions of buildings on it.
Relevance of a photograph as evidence
Ms. Comey argues that a disturbing photograph displayed outside Mr. Epstein's bedroom contradicts the defense's argument that the defendant was unaware of Epstein's attraction to underage females due to a 'halo effect'.
Observations of female guests at Epstein's home
Questioning regarding the frequency and behavior of female guests at the pool over a 12-year period.
Cleaning procedures after Mr. Epstein's massages.
Ms. Comey questions Mr. Alessi about what he cleaned up after Mr. Epstein's massages. Mr. Pagliuca objects to the time frame. Mr. Alessi explains that whether he cleaned up towels depended on if the massage therapist was a repeat visitor or a new person.
Closing Argument
Argument for guilty verdict based on evidence and Judge's instructions.
Identification of Evidence
Questioning regarding the identification of people in Government Exhibit 347.
Admission of Evidence
Request to admit Government Exhibits 252, 253, and 254 into evidence under seal.
Admission of Evidence
Requesting permission for jurors to view Government Exhibits 223, 224, and 225.
Direct Examination regarding flight logs
Q&A regarding Mr. Alessi's role and the details of flight 979 on May 9, 1997.
Bringing friends to Jeffrey Epstein's house
Ms. Comey questions the witness, Carolyn, about the ages of her friends (Amanda, Tatum, Julie) when she brought them to Jeffrey Epstein's house. Carolyn states Epstein asked her to bring friends, and describes entering the house and going to a massage room.
Rebuttal Argument
Ms. Comey argues that the case is about Ghislaine Maxwell's specific crimes and participation in abuse, refuting the defense's attempts to distract the jury.
Direct Examination
Questions regarding the procedure following the search on October 20, 2005.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding interactions at Epstein's Palm Beach house.
Objection to Defense Opening
Ms. Comey objects that the defense is violating a pretrial ruling by arguing the government is targeting the defendant. The Court clarifies that the defense can argue witnesses are using the defendant as a scapegoat, but cannot attack the prosecution's motives.
Case Schedule and Stipulations
Informing the court that stipulations have been reached and the case may conclude that afternoon.
Missing Jurors
Asking if the Court has attempted to call the missing jurors.
Proposed limiting instructions
At the court's request, Ms. Comey reads the proposed (but now withdrawn) limiting instructions for a video and a photo (Government Exhibit 250) into the record.
Motivation of witnesses testifying against Ghislaine Maxwell
Ms. Comey argues that the four witnesses against Ghislaine Maxwell testified for justice, not for financial gain. She posits that since they had already received large financial payouts, they had no monetary incentive to risk perjuring themselves in a federal trial.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity