MR. PAGLIUCA
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Opposing counsel |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
11
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Mr. Alessi
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
37 | |
|
person
Alessi
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
person
Dr. Dubin
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Alessi
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
136 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Adversarial |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Alessi
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding Exhibit 3505-005 | 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 | Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell where she is questioned about computer files and a contact list. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell regarding lists of names associated with Jeffrey Epstein. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding media reports of Epstein's flight logs | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Mrs. Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Shawn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Nicole Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 5 into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross Examination of Lisa Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca | 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 | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding the 'Craven article' and the definition of grooming. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court recess taken after discussion between counsel and judge. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52 (a book) to the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding sexualized massages and relationship timeline. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of evidentiary exhibits (1J, 1K, 1M) during trial testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Juan Patricio Alessi | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Afternoon Court Session during Jury Deliberations | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the 'business record exception' and admissibility of phone logs/notes. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Mr. Pagliuca summarizes testimony from four witnesses (Carolyn, Jane, Kate, Mr. Alessi) regarding... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | A witness is being questioned about Jeffrey Epstein's use of masseuses. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018918.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). A witness named Shawn testifies that he accompanied a 16-year-old girl named Carolyn to Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach house multiple times. He states that she would go inside alone for an hour and emerge with hundred-dollar bills, and admits they were using drugs during this period.
DOJ-OGR-00018917.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Shawn identifies individuals in a photograph from Melissa's 16th birthday and testifies about visiting Jeffrey Epstein's house multiple times with Melissa, and on one occasion with Carolyn. He also states that Melissa went inside the house with another individual named Amanda.
DOJ-OGR-00018916.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, where a witness named Shawn is under direct examination. Shawn identifies Government Exhibit 105 as a photograph from Melissa's 16th birthday, which he attended, and names Carolyn, Melissa, and Candace as being in the picture. Following a request from attorney Ms. Comey to protect privacy, the court admits the exhibit into evidence under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00018915.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on a girl named Melissa, who was 16 years old when she visited Jeffrey Epstein's house accompanied by a woman named Carolyn. The witness states that after being inside for an hour, Melissa and Carolyn emerged carrying money.
DOJ-OGR-00018911.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. The witness identifies three women—Melissa, Amanda Lazlo, and Carolyn—as former girlfriends he dated simultaneously. Crucially, the witness testifies that the first time he saw Amanda Lazlo go to Jeffrey Epstein's house, she was approximately 15 or 16 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00018905.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Shawn testifies about receiving phone calls from three women—one named Sarah, one with an English accent, and one with a French-sounding accent. The purpose of these calls was to convey a message that a person named Jeffrey was requesting someone named Carolyn to work.
DOJ-OGR-00018902.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. The witness identifies the location of Jeffrey Epstein's house as El Brillo Way on Palm Beach Island and contrasts the affluence of Palm Beach with West Palm Beach, where they lived. The witness explains they rarely visited Palm Beach because they lacked money.
DOJ-OGR-00018861.jpg
This document is an index of examinations from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the direct, cross, redirect, and recross examinations of witnesses Kimberly Meder, Stephen Flatley, and Carolyn by various attorneys. The index also lists several government exhibits that were received during the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00018860.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, the judge admonishes the attorneys to provide a specific rule of evidence when making objections, rather than using one-word grounds, to prevent improper communication with the jury or witnesses. After confirming no further business is expected for the evening, the court is adjourned until 8:45 a.m. on December 8, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018859.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. An unidentified attorney argues for the record that certain materials are not privileged, citing three reasons: no communication was required, potential disclosure to the government would waive privilege, and the intent to communicate to a third party negates privilege from the start. The judge acknowledges the argument but states that the court had already sustained an objection based on privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00018857.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and the judge. The primary topic is the status of witnesses, with the government (represented by Ms. Moe) seeking confirmation that the defense will not recall a witness named Jane, following the completed testimony of Matt and the withdrawal of Brian. The defense (represented by Ms. Menninger) requests time to consider, and the judge instructs them to confer and address the issue the next day.
DOJ-OGR-00018852.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 details the recross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding a sum of $446,000 she received in 2009 and whether it was depleted by 2012. Following the questioning, the witness is excused, and the court adjourns for the day.
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-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-00018845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on discrepancies between lawsuits she filed against Epstein and Kellen in 2008-2009 and a subsequent claim she made to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Carolyn denies adding a 'Ms. Maxwell' to her fund request and, after her memory is refreshed, clarifies she was awarded $2,804,000, not the suggested amounts of $3.25 million or $3.9 million.
DOJ-OGR-00018844.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Carolyn's submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, highlighting the claimed start date of abuse as May 1, 2001, and questioning whether she added new, specific claims of sexual abuse, which Carolyn vehemently denies as a 'lie'.
DOJ-OGR-00018843.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines a witness named Carolyn regarding her application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund submitted on October 14, 2020. The questioning highlights that this submission occurred while she was meeting with the government and distinguishes this claim from her separate lawsuits against Epstein and Kellen.
DOJ-OGR-00018842.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 Carolyn's meetings with the government in 2020, which she attended with Mr. Scarola and other lawyers, and their potential connection to her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Carolyn consistently responds that she cannot recall the details of these meetings.
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.
Scheduling and Privilege Waiver
Discussion regarding when to address the waiver theory concerning 'Jane', scheduling for Friday vs Monday, and the timeline for the government to rest its case.
Omissions in a legal complaint
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.
Meetings with the government and Epstein Victim Compensat...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about meetings she attended with Mr. Scarola and the government in 2020, and whether these meetings coincided with her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. The witness denies the timing and repeatedly states she cannot recall the meetings.
Meetings with the government and Epstein Victim Compensat...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about meetings she attended with Mr. Scarola and the government in 2020, and whether these meetings coincided with her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. The witness denies the timing and repeatedly states she cannot recall the meetings.
Objection to Exhibits
Objection to exhibits 2C through 2W because they were not written by Mr. Alessi or his wife and are not authenticated.
Rebuttal to Ms. Comey's argument
Mr. Pagliuca states his disagreement with Ms. Comey, asserting that the omission of details is significant.
Cross-examination regarding past substance abuse
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about her use of alcohol and drugs during the 2002-2003 timeframe, when she was approximately 13 years old.
Cross-examination regarding a 2016 statement
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about a previous statement under oath concerning recommendations for massages from Mr. Epstein's friends.
Admissibility of paragraphs 207 and 208 for impeachment
Mr. Pagliuca argues to admit paragraphs 207 and 208 concerning Sarah Kellen, claiming they represent impeachment by omission because Ms. Maxwell's name is not mentioned. The Court questions the inconsistency and ultimately sustains the objection, ruling the paragraphs inadmissible on those grounds.
Cross-examination regarding prior testimony in exhibit 35...
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his deposition testimony and discusses the admission of this testimony as evidence with the court.
Cross-examination regarding sexual intercourse with Mr. E...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about a previous deposition answer where she denied having sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein. The witness confirms the previous answer but then provides a detailed clarification.
Inconsistency in witness testimony regarding dates of all...
Mr. Pagliuca argues that a witness's testimony should be impeached due to a discrepancy in the timeline of alleged events. He states the indictment and direct testimony mentioned 2001, but the complaint and cross-examination point to a 2002-2003 timeframe.
Scope of direct examination regarding Dr. Rocchio's testi...
Mr. Pagliuca discusses his intent to question Dr. Rocchio about the concept of "hindsight bias phenomena" from her article on sexual grooming. The Court questions whether everything in a disclosed article is within the scope of the direct examination.
Scope of direct examination regarding Dr. Rocchio's testi...
Mr. Pagliuca discusses his intent to question Dr. Rocchio about the concept of "hindsight bias phenomena" from her article on sexual grooming. The Court questions whether everything in a disclosed article is within the scope of the direct examination.
Acknowledgment of ruling
Mr. Pagliuca thanks the judge after the ruling is made.
Discussion of paragraph 206 of an exhibit
A dialogue between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the consistency of paragraph 206 with testimony. The Court finds the paragraph is not inconsistent and sustains an objection.
Compensation fund payment and prior claims
Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines the witness, Carolyn, about a $2,804,000 compensation payment she received, a $446,000 deduction related to prior claims against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Kellen, and the consequences of submitting false information to the fund.
Working conditions at Mr. Epstein's residence
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Alessi, about the differences in his duties and living arrangements depending on whether Mr. Epstein was present at the residence. The testimony covers access to the house, working hours, and the presence of other staff.
Objection during cross-examination
Mr. Pagliuca objects to questioning Dr. Loftus about a single study, arguing it's prejudicial and similar to a previous objection the Court sustained when he tried to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio. The Court questions his intent, and he clarifies he was trying to impeach the witness.
Prior deposition testimony regarding Jane, Jeffrey Epstei...
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his previous deposition answer regarding the year Jane met Jeffrey Epstein and Glen Maxwell. Alessi clarifies his answer, stating he confused two different girls he met.
Prior deposition testimony regarding Jane, Jeffrey Epstei...
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his previous deposition answer regarding the year Jane met Jeffrey Epstein and Glen Maxwell. Alessi clarifies his answer, stating he confused two different girls he met.
Redirect Examination
Mr. Pagliuca questions Special Agent Richards about the accuracy of notes taken during interviews, confirming they are written with the possibility of future testimony under oath in mind.
Clarification on preclusion of witness testimony
Mr. Pagliuca asks the Court to confirm that testimony from Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards is being precluded, which the Court affirms. This allows the witnesses to be released.
Questioning about a 1994 flight and associated individuals.
Mr. Pagliuca questions Dr. Dubin about a document related to a 1994 flight, asking him to identify individuals listed, including 'JE' (assumed to be Jeffrey Epstein) and Eva Andersson.
Recollection of the date of an event involving Ms. Maxwell
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Alessi, about the specific date of an event. The witness's recollection of the year changes multiple times during the questioning, from 2001, to 2000, and finally to 2002.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity