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-00013245.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the case number ending in PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Carolyn is being cross-examined by Mr. Pagliuca regarding her 2009 testimony about using cocaine in Jeffrey Epstein's bathroom and whether Epstein explicitly told her to use drugs. The questioning then pivots to her claim of having sexual intercourse with Epstein, at which point Ms. Comey interrupts to request a definition of 'sexual'.
DOJ-OGR-00013244.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by counsel Mr. Pagliuca. The witness admits to using powder cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house on some occasions. She specifies that she would use it alone in the bathroom and cannot recall the specific dates and times.
DOJ-OGR-00013243.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey, and the judge regarding which portion of a prior testimony a witness should read. The central point of contention is a question and answer where the witness apparently admitted to using cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house.
DOJ-OGR-00013241.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The witness denies using cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house. The proceedings are interrupted by procedural matters, including an attorney's objection and the judge's instruction to the witness, who also questions the relevance of a statement about Mr. Epstein telling her not to use drugs.
DOJ-OGR-00013239.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of a cross-examination where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions a witness named Carolyn about a deposition document dated October 21, 2009. The witness denies ever having seen the document and also states that she has never taken a hallucinogenic.
DOJ-OGR-00013238.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness about inconsistencies with prior testimony from 2009 and asks if she ingested 'angel trumpets' while traveling to Jeffrey Epstein's house. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) objects to the impeachment attempt, and the Judge sustains it, ruling the testimony is 'not inconsistent.'
DOJ-OGR-00013237.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn regarding her past use of Xanax, alcohol, and alleged cocaine use between 2000 and 2005. The witness admits to Xanax use for anxiety at age 13 and alcohol use in 2005, but denies the document's claim regarding the frequency of alcohol use starting in 2000 and adamantly denies using cocaine or crack in 2002-2003.
DOJ-OGR-00013235.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 past substance use, including her use of Xanax, drinking and smoking marijuana at age 13, and using benzodiazepines frequently between 2002 and 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00013233.jpg
This document is page 220 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, who attempts to introduce a prior deposition (Exhibit 3505-43) to refresh the witness's memory, while prosecutor Ms. Comey objects.
DOJ-OGR-00013232.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The judge and attorneys briefly discuss the arrival of a witness before the judge addresses the jury to apologize for a delay and outline the court's schedule for the next several weeks, which includes days off due to a scheduling conflict and the Christmas holiday.
DOJ-OGR-00013231.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. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues that a witness named Carolyn showed inconsistency by amending a prior answer to state she was 'transported via private car provided by Jeffrey Epstein,' which the judge allows into evidence. The page concludes with Ms. Sternheim requesting a recess and prosecutor Ms. Comey questioning the length of the cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013228.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues for the inclusion of specific interrogatory questions (16 and 17) regarding how the witness came to be at Jeffrey Epstein's home and whether she received any money or things of value. The Court sustains an objection regarding 'compound' questions but indicates an inclination to allow question 16.
DOJ-OGR-00013223.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) covering the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The text details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Comey and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the admissibility of questions about specific paragraphs (39, 51, 57) of a complaint. Ms. Comey explicitly describes an incident where Jeffrey Epstein brought another female into a room and penetrated the victim twice.
DOJ-OGR-00013221.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a legal debate between Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the testimony of a witness named Carolyn. Ms. Comey argues that the witness did not specify a time frame for an alleged act, while Mr. Pagliuca contends that her testimony about the frequency of the act (up to four times a week) contradicts a complaint that alleges it happened twice a month. The judge intervenes to manage the procedural aspects of their arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00013220.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, in front of a judge. The discussion focuses on whether omissions in a legal complaint regarding specific sex acts are inconsistent with a witness's testimony. The judge concludes that the testified detail is significant and sustains an objection related to the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00013219.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the cross-examination related to a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that there are inconsistencies in the testimony regarding incidents in July 2002, specifically noting that the allegations involve 'fondling of breasts and buttocks' rather than 'sexual intrusion or penetration.' The Judge clarifies the record regarding paragraph references (33 vs 39) before turning to Ms. Comey (prosecution) for a response.
DOJ-OGR-00013214.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, documenting a legal argument between counsel, Ms. Comey, and the judge. Ms. Comey objects to admitting a document (C4), arguing it was drafted by lawyers and would confuse the jury, but the judge overrules the objection. The transcript also references another document (C5) which alleges an agreement between defendant Epstein, his employee Kellen, and others to facilitate a crime.
DOJ-OGR-00013213.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features an argument by prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Comey argues that the defense has already established that the witness sued Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen in 2009 but did not name Ghislaine Maxwell, and that further questioning on this topic is cumulative and prejudicial.
DOJ-OGR-00013212.jpg
This document is page 199 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between the Judge ('The Court') and attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey regarding the legal theory of 'omission' and whether prior statements lacking certain facts constitute an inconsistency relevant to the jury. Ms. Comey argues that omission is only relevant if the omitted facts would reasonably have been expected in the original statement.
DOJ-OGR-00013211.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00013209.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, involving Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Comey, and The Court. The discussion centers on an objection regarding a document's consistency with witness testimony and the potential admission of the document or its factual paragraphs. A key point of inquiry was whether Ms. Maxwell is mentioned in the complaint, to which the answer was confirmed as no, leading to a plan to identify inconsistencies with testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013206.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding her sworn answers to interrogatories from 2009. The witness repeatedly states she is confused, and her attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully objects to the line of questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00013204.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding an alleged 6.5-hour meeting with Dr. Richard Hall on October 21, 2009. The attorney presses the witness on whether she told Dr. Hall she began seeing Jeffrey Epstein in 2002, though the witness claims no recollection of the meeting.
DOJ-OGR-00013203.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 paragraphs 206 and 207 of a complaint, with specific mentions of Ghislaine Maxwell and Sarah Kellen. The witness denies that paragraph 207, which mentions Sarah Kellen, was about engaging her in prostitution.
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 birth certificate (Government Exhibit 11).
Admissibility of Exhibit 52 / Cross-examination of Mr. Al...
Discussion regarding whether the defense had the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Alessi regarding Government Exhibit 52.
Sidebar regarding witness testimony and exhibits
Discussion regarding whether witness Alessi can read from a document not in evidence to explain why he believes it is a 'different version'.
Admission of Evidence GX 296R
Discussion regarding the admission of a redacted video exhibit under seal to protect witness identities.
Property Layout
Direct examination regarding the physical layout of Epstein's Palm Beach property.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding a specific female passenger on Epstein's planes who attended Interlochen.
Video Evidence Presentation
Discussion regarding the playback of a video on Ms. Drescher's laptop and pausing at specific timestamps.
Pretrial ruling on cross-examination topics
Requesting a ruling on whether juvenile arrests and old misdemeanors can be used in cross-examination.
Scheduling/Adjournment
Stating there is nothing further to take up and they will keep the defense informed.
Evidence Authentication and Cross-Examination
Discussion regarding stipulations on evidence, specifically birth certificates and a prior sworn statement, and upcoming discussions on cross-examination limits.
Jurisdiction over investigation into Mr. Epstein's death
Ms. Comey argues to the Court that an investigation into Mr. Epstein's death is already being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI, and that it is not within the court's purview to conduct a separate, independent investigation.
Rule 48 application to dismiss the Epstein indictment
Ms. Comey confirms the legal necessity to abate proceedings due to Epstein's death but clarifies that the investigation into coconspirators continues.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding building layout and identification of exhibits.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the frequency of visits to Zorro Ranch and identification of photos of the property.
Redirect Examination regarding binders and CDs
Ms. Comey attempts to ask Ms. Meder about specific initials seen on black binders and dates seen on CDs. Ms. Menninger objects on grounds of hearsay. The Court sustains the objections.
Identification of underage females
Questioning regarding the identity of two females seen at Epstein's Palm Beach house.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity