MR. PAGLIUCA
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding / testimony | A court session where Ms. Moe requests the jury to turn to Government Exhibit 1B, clarifies which... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn regarding her prior deposition and a complaint she f... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination of witness Carolyn as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | A witness (Dubin) is questioned under direct examination about their past relationship with Mr. E... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding a 2009 complaint ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn, during which attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn, during which counsel (Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between an attorney (Mr. Pagliuca) and a judge (THE COURT) regarding the admissibili... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the court and counsel (Ms. Pomerantz) regarding a scope objection to a line ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The conclusion of a cross-examination of witness Dr. Dubin by Ms. Moe, an objection by Mr. Pagliu... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion was held to establish the procedures for jury deliberations. | courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court regarding the defense's strategy of questioning witnesses on their percepti... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion during a court proceeding where attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca argue about the... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving direct examination of a witness named Aless... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | A witness, Mr. Alessi, is questioned about a book (Government Exhibit 52A). An objection by Mr. P... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. She is questioned about using cocaine at Mr. Epstei... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The court calls for a ten-minute recess during the cross-examination of Mr. Alessi. A logistical ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn, focusing on inconsistencies in her testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony / cross-examination | An attorney (Mr. Pagliuca) cross-examines a witness (Rocchio) about a study's conclusion that gro... | Court in the Southern District | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of records under the business record exce... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Shawn by Ms. Comey, with an objection from Mr. Pagliuca sus... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument occurred between attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca before a judge regarding t... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Mr. Alessi by attorney Ms. Comey, during which an objection by Mr. ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Mr. Alessi by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding prior deposition testi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn about the consistency of... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
EFTA00029847.pdf
This document is a legal filing by the Government opposing defense motions in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It primarily addresses Count Six (perjury), arguing that Maxwell's answers in a July 2016 deposition regarding 'sexual activities,' 'sex toys,' and 'massages' were false and not fundamentally ambiguous. The document also addresses and rejects defense requests for discovery regarding a victim's personal diary from 1996 and broad subpoenas for defendant's records.
EFTA00008716.pdf
This document is a Grand Jury Presentation from June 2020 in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It compiles evidence including photographs of Epstein's properties, flight logs from 1994-1998 showing Maxwell and others traveling with Epstein, records of a donation to Interlochen Arts Camp, and excerpts from Maxwell's 2016 deposition where she denies knowledge of underage recruitment or sexual misconduct. The flight logs notably list prominent figures such as Senator George Mitchell and Bill Richardson.
DOJ-OGR-00018336.jpg
This document is page 235 of a court transcript index from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the examination details (Direct and Cross) for witnesses Juan Patricio Alessi, Gregory Parkinson, and Michael Dawson by attorneys Pagliuca, Comey, and Everdell. It also tracks the receipt of numerous Government Exhibits (numbered between 201 and 721) into the court record.
DOJ-OGR-00018309.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. An attorney questions Parkinson about Government Exhibits 235 and 292, establishing that photographs of a "windy staircase" do not show any pictures on the adjacent wall. The proceedings also involve a discussion among attorneys and the judge about another piece of evidence, Government Exhibit 234, which is confirmed to be sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00018269.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey and the judge regarding the proper procedure for redacting video evidence to protect witness anonymity and third-party privacy. Ms. Comey also raises a technical concern that the timestamps on the redacted video will not align with the official transcripts.
DOJ-OGR-00018260.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson, by an attorney, Ms. Comey, regarding three pieces of evidence labeled Government Exhibits 238, 239, and 240. Mr. Parkinson identifies the exhibits as depicting the first floor and north side of a building.
DOJ-OGR-00018207.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines witness Mr. Alessi, who confirms he believed the people providing massages to Epstein were of age. Alessi also testifies that he saw 'hundreds of guests' at Epstein's house but does not recall a specific person named Carolyn. Following the cross-examination, Ms. Comey declines redirect, and Alessi is excused.
DOJ-OGR-00018206.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, regarding his time working for Mr. Epstein. The questioning focuses on the number and age of women present at a house, with the questioner suggesting they were hired for massages and the witness insisting they were guests. The witness confirms his belief that the women were over 20, and an objection is sustained regarding a question about their "proper age."
DOJ-OGR-00018193.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Alessi testifies that his job was to make phone calls to arrange appointments for Mr. Epstein based on direct instructions from Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, or office secretaries, and that he never sought out massage therapists on his own. He also confirms that most of the massage therapists came from spas or clubs.
DOJ-OGR-00018192.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding a statement Mr. Alessi made under oath in 2016. The questioning centers on whether Mr. Alessi had previously testified that friends of a Mr. Epstein would recommend women for massages and provide their contact information.
DOJ-OGR-00018191.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Alessi admits to having a list of massage therapists for Mr. Epstein but denies ever personally calling one to come to the house. The transcript also records procedural interactions between the attorneys (Pagliuca and Ms. Comey) and the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00018190.jpg
This page contains the cross-examination of Juan Alessi during the trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Pagliuca asks Alessi if he ever called The Breakers, Mar-a-Lago, or Boca Raton resort to find massage therapists for Jeffrey Epstein, to which Alessi replies 'Never.' The rest of the page involves procedural discussions regarding the admissibility of prior deposition testimony for impeachment purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00018189.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The discussion involves procedural arguments with the judge and another attorney, Ms. Comey, about referencing prior testimony. The page ends with Mr. Pagliuca asking Mr. Alessi if he would call resorts like The Breakers or Mar-a-Lago to find someone to deliver a message to Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00018188.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of witness Alessi (Juan Alessi). The testimony focuses on Alessi driving a woman (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell) to exclusive spas and country clubs in Palm Beach, including The Breakers, allegedly for the purpose of 'recruiting.' Alessi admits to keeping a Rolodex containing the names of 'repeat woman' and 'massage therapists' who visited the house.
DOJ-OGR-00018186.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of Juan Alessi in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Pagliuca questions Alessi about previous deposition testimony regarding whether a specific woman was considered a massage therapist and whether Jeffrey Epstein instructed Alessi to hire licensed therapists from clubs and spas—an allegation Alessi denies. Prosecutor Ms. Comey intervenes to ensure the full context of the deposition questions is read into the record.
DOJ-OGR-00018184.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning centers on establishing the date of a summer day when the witness was waiting for Ms. Maxwell. The witness's testimony shows significant uncertainty about the year, with their recollection shifting from 2001 to 2000 (a year they associate with working for 'Jeffrey' and meeting 'Virginia') and then to 2002.
DOJ-OGR-00018183.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing a lawyer, Mr. Pagliuca, cross-examining a witness named Alessi. Mr. Pagliuca reads from a prior deposition where the witness was questioned by Mr. Edwards, Virginia Roberts' lawyer, about a trip to Mar-a-Lago. The testimony reveals the witness gave conflicting dates (2000 and summer 2002) for when they went to pick up Virginia Roberts from the location.
DOJ-OGR-00018182.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions Alessi about a meeting with a Ms. Roberts at Mar-a-Lago in 2001 or 2002. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, objects to the questioning method, leading to a procedural discussion before the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018181.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The testimony focuses on Alessi confirming observing Ms. Maxwell engaging in conversation with Virginia Roberts after Maxwell received a 'treatment.' There is a brief legal dispute where Ms. Comey objects to Mr. Pagliuca misreading a line from a prior deposition, which Pagliuca then corrects.
DOJ-OGR-00018178.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. The judge confirms with counsel, Ms. Comey for the government and Mr. Pagliuca, that there are no preliminary matters to discuss. The judge then instructs court staff, Ms. Williams, to bring the witness back to the stand and to bring in the jury to resume the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00018176.jpg
Page 75 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) documenting the cross-examination of Mr. Alessi. Attorney Ms. Comey requests a full Q&A be read for the record, but cross-examining attorney Mr. Pagliuca realizes he is on the wrong page and requests a break, which the Court grants.
DOJ-OGR-00018175.jpg
In this transcript from the trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), witness Mr. Alessi is cross-examined by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. Alessi admits he did not follow the specific household manual or use its checkmarks, though he asserts he did his work. Pagliuca attempts to establish that a 'countess' was hired to write this manual, which Alessi claims not to know.
DOJ-OGR-00018174.jpg
In this court transcript page from the cross-examination of Mr. Alessi, the witness confirms that Jeffrey Epstein was considered 'the boss' and owner. The defense questions Alessi on whether Ghislaine Maxwell's instructions were understood to come directly from Epstein, to which Alessi replies he does not know. The testimony also discusses a 'household manual' and Epstein's hiring of a 'countess' to purportedly create it.
DOJ-OGR-00018173.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on confirming Alessi's prior sworn testimony about his chain of command, where he identified Mr. Epstein as his direct supervisor and Ms. Maxwell as the secondary contact.
DOJ-OGR-00018172.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on the witness's relationship and communication protocols with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, particularly concerning who was in charge at a Palm Beach property. The transcript also records a procedural exchange where another attorney, Ms. Comey, makes an objection that is overruled by the judge.
Cross-examination regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
Objection to Summary Witness
Pagliuca argues that Mr. Buscemi is not an appropriate summary witness under Rule 1006 because he may be analyzing complex records rather than summarizing admitted evidence.
Cross-examination regarding a 2009 deposition
A transcript of a court proceeding where Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about a deposition from October 21, 2009. The witness denies having seen the document and denies taking hallucinogenics. The court and the witness's counsel, Ms. Comey, also speak.
Request for limited exclusion from Rule 615
Mr. Pagliuca requested permission to provide a copy of Dr. Rocchio's testimony to Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus, asking for a limited exclusion from sequestration Rule 615.
Juror scheduling and potential trial break
Mr. Pagliuca expresses that he does not want to delay the trial but needs to know if the juror in question is from the main or alternate pool to make a decision, as it affects his prior peremptory challenges.
Basis for witness testimony under Rule 16
Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that under Rule 16, he is entitled to examine all materials a witness (Dr. Rocchio) relied on for her testimony. The Court questions the scope of this, suggesting that discarded notes or contracts may not constitute a valid basis for an opinion.
Cross-examination regarding a government contract
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Rocchio, about the terms of a government contract. Rocchio confirms the contract is for up to $45,000 at a rate of $450 per hour, and states that no payment has been received yet because an invoice has not been submitted.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibit 6
Discussion regarding a study of 322 articles, specifically regarding delayed reporting of psychological issues by males versus females.
Admission of evidence (Exhibits A and B)
Mr. Pagliuca moves to admit Exhibit A into evidence, which the court allows after confirming no objection from Ms. Pomerantz. He then begins questioning a witness, referred to as 'Doctor', about Exhibit B.
Cross-examination regarding a study on disclosure
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Rocchio, about a statement in a study that "Two-thirds of the sample did not disclose right away." Pagliuca points out that the term "right away" is not defined. Rocchio clarifies that the article submitted was a summary and admits to not having examined every underlying study or reference cited.
Application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund
Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines the witness, Carolyn, about the date she submitted her application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, using Exhibit C6 to establish the date as October 14, 2020. He also distinguishes this submission from her lawsuits against Epstein and Kellen.
Objection to evidence
Mr. Pagliuca objects on hearsay grounds to records for which the witness does not have personal knowledge, specifically beyond the signature she took.
Cross-examination regarding Mr. Epstein, Ms. Jane, and re...
MR. PAGLIUCA questions the witness, Alessi, about Mr. Epstein picking up Ms. Jane and about renovations to a Palm Beach house, referencing Government Exhibit 297 dated 4/4/94.
Witness's personal background information
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Dr. Dubin, to establish her identity and personal background, including her residence, age, marital status, husband's name, and number of children.
Admissibility of questions 16 and 17
Mr. Pagliuca discusses specific questions from a document with the Court, focusing on questions about visits to Mr. Epstein's home and financial matters. The Court sustains an objection but indicates a willingness to allow the questions.
Scope of cross-examination regarding a study on grooming ...
Mr. Pagliuca previews his intent to cross-examine a witness about a study (disclosure 3502-018) which concluded that five factors cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior. The Court grants permission, noting it is consistent with the witness's testimony.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Admissibility of evidence for impeachment
Mr. Pagliuca argues to admit paragraphs 207 and 208 regarding Sarah Kellen to impeach the witness by omission because Ms. Maxwell's name is not mentioned. The Court sustains the objection, finding the paragraphs inadmissible.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity