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-00014681.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding a request (likely from the jury) for physical copies of testimonies from witnesses identified as Jane, Juan, and Kate. The parties discuss the formatting (binders, hole punches) and confirm that Ms. Drescher is printing the transcripts with agreed-upon redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00014680.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between Judge Nathan and counsel (Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim) regarding a scheduling note to be sent to the deliberating jury about December 23rd. Subsequently, the jury sends a note requesting testimony transcripts for witnesses identified as Jane, Wong, and Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00014677.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records the judge's decision to adjourn the court proceedings until 9:00 a.m. on December 22, 2021. The transcript captures brief concluding remarks between the judge, Ms. Comey, and Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00014676.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge expresses frustration to Ms. Comey (Government) about a three-hour delay in providing requested transcripts to the jury. The Judge also instructs court staff (Ms. Williams) to contact alternate jurors to inform them that deliberations are ongoing.
DOJ-OGR-00014674.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the Court, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding responses to jury notes, dismissal times during deliberations, lunch orders for the jury, and strict COVID-19 mask protocols mandated by the Chief Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00014671.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and a judge about a jury's question. The core issue is whether the testimony of a witness named 'Annie' can be considered for conspiracy counts, given a prior instruction that her testimony did not describe illegal sexual activity. The judge rules that the testimony is relevant and can be permissibly considered by the jury for those counts.
DOJ-OGR-00014670.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The attorneys debate the necessity and scope of a limiting instruction for the jury regarding the testimony of a witness named 'Annie' and its application to specific counts in an indictment. The judge expresses a clear opinion on the matter, while the attorneys present differing views on how to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00014669.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the Judge coordinating the dismissal of the jury for the evening and subsequently addressing 'Court Exhibit 9,' a note from the jury asking if 'Annie's testimony' can be considered as conspiracy to commit a crime in Counts One and Three. Ms. Comey argues the answer is yes, while Mr. Everdell requests a moment to confer.
DOJ-OGR-00014668.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves Ms. Comey, Ms. Sternheim, and the Judge discussing the jury deliberation schedule leading up to the Christmas holiday. They agree to inform the jury that they have the option to deliberate on Thursday, December 23rd, if necessary, to allow jurors time to make childcare or other personal arrangements.
DOJ-OGR-00014665.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a dispute between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding a response to a jury note. The jury requested an 'FBI deposition 3505-005' referenced during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The defense attempted to include testimony from Special Agent Jason Richards in the response, but the Court overruled the request, deeming it unresponsive to the jury's specific ask.
DOJ-OGR-00014664.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. It records a discussion between the judge and attorneys (Comey, Pagliuca, Sternheim) regarding a jury note and testimony related to Exhibit 3505-005 given by witnesses 'Carolyn' and Special Agent Jason Richards. The judge notes that copies of the notes provided to counsel must be redacted because the jury foreperson signed them.
DOJ-OGR-00014663.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Ms. Comey, and Mr. Pagliuca regarding how to respond to a jury question about an item labeled '3505-005'. The parties agree to send a note clarifying that 3505-005 is not an admitted exhibit but referring the jury to 'Carolyn's testimony' regarding it.
DOJ-OGR-00014662.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. The conversation revolves around how to respond to a jury's request for a specific document that is not formally in evidence, while testimony about the document is. The attorneys and the judge debate the precise wording of the response to avoid confusing the jury or diminishing the value of the admitted testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00014661.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys Ms. Comey, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge regarding a document used for impeachment that is not formally in evidence. They discuss how to properly handle this situation, with the judge proposing a clarifying instruction for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00014660.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel while the jury is not present. The conversation centers on two notes from the jury requesting testimony transcripts for individuals named Jane, Annie, and Carolyn, as well as an FBI deposition of Carolyn. The counsel confirms they are finalizing redactions before sending the documents to the jury via court staff.
DOJ-OGR-00014584.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the final sentences of prosecutor Ms. Comey's closing argument, urging the jury to find the defendant guilty of sexual abuse of underage girls. Following this, the Court (Judge Nathan) begins reading the jury instructions (The Charge), specifically starting with Instruction No. 1 regarding the Role of the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00014582.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Comey argues that the four witnesses against Maxwell were motivated by a desire for justice, not money, pointing out that they had already received 'million-dollar payouts' and would not have endured a traumatic trial and cross-examination if they were lying. The core of the argument is that the witnesses' testimony was truthful and not part of a conspiracy to frame the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00014580.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Rebuttal by Ms. Comey) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutor argues that the testimonies of victims Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie are credible specifically because they did not exaggerate Maxwell's involvement (e.g., admitting she wasn't always in the room or only touched them in specific ways), contrasting this with 'better lies' they could have told if fabricating the story. The text details specific sexual acts and interactions attributed to Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014579.jpg
This document is a transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in a criminal trial. The speaker argues that the witnesses—Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie—have no financial motive to lie in their testimony against the defendant, Maxwell, as their civil cases are settled and they have already received compensation. The speaker specifically addresses and dismisses a defense claim regarding a conversation between Jane's lawyer and a prosecutor, asserting it does not constitute evidence of a financial incentive for testifying.
DOJ-OGR-00014578.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal rebuttal by Ms. Comey, dated August 10, 2022. She argues for the credibility of several witnesses, including Juan Alessi and the ex-boyfriends (Matt, Dave, Shawn) of female accusers, stating they have no motive to lie. Comey highlights that Alessi's testimony is corroborated by external evidence, such as flight records confirming that minors named Jane and Virginia flew on Jeffrey Epstein's planes.
DOJ-OGR-00014577.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring a rebuttal argument by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Comey refutes the defense's suggestion (attributed to Ms. Menninger) that the FBI manipulated witnesses or asked leading questions, citing the ethical testimony of Special Agent Young. She argues that the victims (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) did not misremember the defendant's role in their abuse and that the defense's argument relies on the jury believing all witnesses are liars.
DOJ-OGR-00014576.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, showing a rebuttal by Ms. Comey. She argues against the defense's claim that their client, Maxwell, was framed by witnesses. Comey's reasoning is that before Epstein's death in 2019, he was the 'big fish' and the logical target for any fabricated stories, meaning there was no motive for witnesses to invent Maxwell's involvement years ago.
DOJ-OGR-00014575.jpg
This document is a transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in a criminal case against a defendant named Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues against the defense's theory that lawyers fabricated stories about Maxwell for financial gain. She presents evidence that three victims—Jane, Carolyn, and Annie—had reported Maxwell's involvement to friends, boyfriends, and the FBI years prior (in 2006 and 2007), long before any compensation fund or financial incentive existed, thus making the defense's theory untenable.
DOJ-OGR-00014574.jpg
This document is page 174 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey is delivering a rebuttal argument, refuting the defense's theory that witnesses (Kate, Carolyn, Annie, Jane) had false memories implanted by the media, the FBI, or greedy lawyers seeking money from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Comey argues there is no evidence the witnesses consumed each other's media interviews or that their lawyers conspired to fabricate stories, noting specifically that Annie's lawyer worked pro bono.
DOJ-OGR-00014573.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal rebuttal by Ms. Comey, filed on August 10, 2022. Comey argues that the defense is focusing on 'peripheral details' to distract the jury from the core fact that a witness, Carolyn, has consistently and without prompting identified Maxwell as a key figure involved in scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein, citing Carolyn's 2009 deposition. The argument aims to reinforce the credibility of Carolyn's memory against defense suggestions that it was contaminated or implanted.
Clarification regarding witnesses
Ms. Comey confirms she will make clear she is talking about witnesses; Judge acknowledges; Comey thanks the court.
Request for a moment
Ms. Comey asks for a moment, Judge grants it, counsel confers.
Jury instructions on pseudonyms
Comey asks if the jury will be instructed about pseudonyms during preliminary instructions so they can prepare their opening statement.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding identification of individuals in Government Exhibits 304 and 306.
Direct Examination
Ms. Comey asks Shawn to identify himself and Government Exhibit 20 (his ID).
Pretrial ruling on cross-examination topics
Ms. Comey requests a ruling on whether the government needs to 'draw the sting' on direct examination regarding a witness's juvenile arrests and old misdemeanors.
Admission of Evidence
Requesting admission of Exhibit 662 under seal and 662-R (redacted) for the public.
Evidentiary Ruling
The Court sustains a foundation objection regarding witness testimony about a book version, instructing the jury to disregard specific beliefs of the witness.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding a specific female passenger on Epstein's planes who attended Interlochen.
Jury Charge Draft
Inquiring when the draft of the jury charge will be available.
Admissibility of photos
Argument regarding photos of 'Jane' and nude females found on a bookshelf.
Logistical issue regarding video screens
Requesting confirmation that video played for jurors will not appear on public screens in overflow rooms.
Admission of evidence
Ms. Comey offers Government's Exhibit 332 under seal to protect a third party's privacy and later asks for jurors to be permitted to view exhibits 313 and 332.
Description of Government Exhibits 202, 206, and 209
Ms. Comey questions the witness, Mr. Parkinson, asking him to describe what is depicted in a series of government exhibits showing various parts of a property.
Massages at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach house
Ms. Comey questions Mr. Alessi about the people who gave Jeffrey Epstein massages, their gender, how they entered the house, and where the massages took place.
Identification of Government Exhibits 201-222
Ms. Comey questions the witness, Mr. Parkinson, to identify Government Exhibits 201-222. Mr. Parkinson confirms they are photos of the exterior of a residence at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. Ms. Comey then offers the exhibits into evidence.
Evidence offer 332B
Ms. Comey informed the court that they are not planning to offer exhibit 332B, so the issue does not need to be resolved.
Request to use an exhibit
Ms. Comey asks the court for permission for the witness to use an exhibit as an aid during testimony.
Identification of Government Exhibit 303
Ms. Comey questions the witness, Mr. Visoski, to identify a photograph (Government Exhibit 303) as a depiction of the interior of Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727. The exhibit is then offered into evidence.
Identification of Government Exhibit 322
Ms. Comey questions the witness, Meder, who identifies a photograph showing Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. The witness states the photo is from a CD (1B78) reviewed as part of the Epstein and Maxwell investigation.
Admission of evidence
Ms. Comey states she has no objection to Exhibit B and then moves to enter numerous redacted government exhibits into evidence.
Admission of evidence
Ms. Comey states she has no objection to Exhibit B and then moves to enter numerous redacted government exhibits into evidence.
Identification of Government Exhibit 313
Questioning regarding a photo found on a CD (1B75) from the Epstein/Maxwell investigation.
Identification of Government Exhibits 52A and 52
Ms. Comey questions the witness, Mr. Alessi, to confirm that Government Exhibit 52A is a copy of a page from Government Exhibit 52. The dialogue involves an objection from Mr. Pagliuca and clarification with the Court.
Transcript availability
Not necessarily, your Honor. We're not being recorded right now and we're getting a transcript.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity