This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Ms. Comey, informs the judge that the witness order for the day has been changed due to travel issues, with the new sequence being Parkinson, Dawson, Maguire, Meder, and Flatley. The parties also discuss that witness Shelling's testimony has been stipulated to and that witness Maguire will likely testify after lunch.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge and counsel. The parties discuss how to present sensitive video evidence, containing nude images of a minor, to the jury while protecting the third party's privacy by using only the jurors' screens. The transcript concludes with counsel confirming the order of the next three witnesses: Parkinson (whose testimony is finished), Mr. Dawson, and Kelly Maguire.
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys and the judge regarding the admissibility of testimony about massages given by Jeffrey Epstein, with the judge ultimately sustaining an objection due to the timeframe. The transcript also details a logistical discussion about submitting a sensitive video under seal that contains images of witnesses testifying under pseudonyms.
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 prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Mr. Everdell) argue over the admissibility and context of photos found on a bookshelf, which include images of 'Jane' and nude females. There is a specific dispute over Jane's age at the time (15 vs 19), after which the discussion shifts to the introduction of evidence (video, photos) through a witness named Mr. Parkinson.
This document is page 11 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey argues for the admission of a photograph (Exhibit 250) found in the 'lake room' of Epstein's home, which depicts Epstein with a young girl across his lap, appearing to pull down her underwear. The prosecution argues this is probative because it was prominently displayed in the house that Maxwell 'ran' as the 'lady of the house,' while Defense attorney Mr. Everdell objects, calling it prejudicial and an attempt to backdoor evidence.
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. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues against the admissibility or weight of photographs taken during a 2005 walk-through of an Epstein residence, noting that witness Juan Alessi left in 2002 and witness 'Jane' only gave general descriptions of art, not specific identifications of the photos in question. The defense contends there is no testimony placing specific photos on the wall during the time relevant to the case.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of video evidence. An attorney, Ms. Comey, argues that a video showing a photograph in the context of a master bedroom shared by the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein should be admitted. The Court overrules an objection, agreeing that the video's context makes it different from the photograph in isolation and that it corroborates other testimony.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing an argument by Ms. Comey to the Court. Ms. Comey asserts that a 'disturbing photograph' displayed outside Jeffrey Epstein's master bedroom contradicts the defense's claim that the defendant was unaware of Epstein's attraction to underage girls. The defense's argument, as described by Comey, relies on a 'halo effect' from Epstein's association with prominent people, which she argues the photograph directly refutes by serving as evidence of Epstein's lifestyle.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues for the exclusion of a portion of a video walk-through (Exhibit 296). The basis for the argument is that the video shows a photograph on a wall that the judge has already ruled inadmissible as a separate exhibit (Exhibit 288). The dialogue serves to clarify the distinction between multiple pieces of related evidence for the court record.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of evidence. An attorney, Ms. Comey, contends that a 40-minute walk-through video (Gov. Exhibit 296) is relevant because it shows a previously excluded photograph (Gov. Exhibit 270) prominently displayed outside a master bedroom shared by the defendant and Mr. Epstein. The defense expresses concern that such evidence would be prejudicial to the jury.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the end of testimony from a witness, Mr. Alessi. Alessi testifies that he never saw Mr. Epstein again after an unspecified incident. Following this, the attorneys and the judge agree to adjourn for the day, with the court scheduled to resume at 9:30 the next morning.
A court transcript page from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of witness John Alessi. Alessi testifies that following an incident involving a picture, he reached an agreement with Jeffrey Epstein where Epstein would not press criminal charges but would instead treat the incident as a loan. Alessi confirms he repaid Epstein $6,300 via money order and was interviewed by the police at Epstein's request.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. Alessi testifies about being contacted by Mr. Epstein, meeting with him, and being confronted by Epstein about stealing money. The confrontation involved Epstein showing Alessi a small picture of his face that appeared inside a house.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. Alessi testifies about their duties cleaning Mr. Epstein's massage room and explicitly mentions finding a 'large dildo' during the years 1995 through 1998. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects during the questioning to request specific time frames.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Mr. Alessi. He is being questioned by an attorney, Ms. Comey, about his experiences cleaning up after Mr. Epstein's massages between 1994 and 2002. Alessi states that he did not clean up towels after every massage, explaining that repeat massage therapists would bring the towels to the laundry room themselves, unlike new ones.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Comey, the Court, and another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding the admission of evidence. The Court admits exhibit 2A unsealed and exhibits 2C through 2W under seal to protect the identities of witnesses and third parties, a measure to which Mr. Pagliuca has no objection.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, covering the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the admission of exhibits 2C through 2W, arguing they were not written by Mr. Alessi or his wife and lack authentication. The Court (Judge) asks to see 'the book' containing the exhibits and subsequently overrules the objection.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring a voir dire examination of witness Mr. Alessi. Prosecutor Ms. Comey attempts to introduce Government Exhibits 2A through 2W, requesting most be filed under seal. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi to establish that he left his position at the end of 2002 and therefore would not have taken messages or had personal knowledge of events occurring after that date.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Alessi by Ms. Comey regarding 'Government Exhibit 2,' which is identified as a booklet containing carbon copies of messages. Alessi identifies his own handwriting and his wife's handwriting on specific pages of the booklet.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Alessi, likely Juan Alessi. The testimony details the procedure for handling incoming phone calls for Mr. Epstein; specifically, if Epstein was unavailable, Alessi, his wife, or a staff member named Taylor would record the caller's name and number in a message book. Alessi confirms that these message books, both new and old, were stored in a utility closet within his office located off the staff room. The page concludes with prosecutor Ms. Comey introducing Government Exhibit 2.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The testimony details the protocol for taking phone messages for Jeffrey Epstein, specifically using a message book with carbon copies and placing the messages on his desk or kitchen table. The document also records a brief administrative interruption by the Court regarding the collection of exhibit '52'.
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from a case involving 'Alessi - Direct.' It records a legal proceeding where Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi, who testifies that he has no personal knowledge regarding whether Exhibit 52 was touched by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. The Court makes rulings on objections and reserves on a matter pending additional testimony, with Ms. Comey also participating in the discussion.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions witness Mr. Alessi regarding 'Exhibit 52' (a book/directory), establishing that Alessi had not seen the object for 19 years since leaving Epstein's employment and could not account for its chain of custody during that time. The Judge also sustains an objection regarding the foundation of the evidence.
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument by an attorney, Ms. Moe, regarding the authentication of an exhibit related to 'Maxwell and Epstein'. The Court sustains an objection made by Ms. Comey, instructs the jury to disregard certain testimony, and reserves its final decision on admitting the exhibit until after hearing from a witness referred to as 'employee one'.
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, during the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The Court and counsel (Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca) discuss the admissibility of testimony regarding an exhibit, specifically a 'book' (likely an address book) where the witness noted his and his wife's names were missing, leading him to believe it was a later version. The judge sustains a foundation objection and orders the jury to disregard the witness's belief about the book's version.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $750,000.00 | Total fine imposed. | View |
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $250,000.00 | Fine imposed on each count. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $9,500,000.00 | Value of real property offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | security company | THE COURT | $1,000,000.00 | Bond co-signed by a security company. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $550,000.00 | Cash offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | THE COURT | $28,500,000.00 | Proposed total bond amount. | View |
| 2020-12-14 | Received | Sureties (Family/... | THE COURT | $0.00 | Meaningful pledges of cash or property in amoun... | View |
| 2020-07-13 | Received | Unidentified co-s... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount by the defense, which the ... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure Maxwell's appear... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Defense/Co-signers | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom of... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure appearance. | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Ms. Maxwell / Ass... | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom us... | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $22,500,000.00 | Proposed bond amount representing all of the co... | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | MR. EPSTEIN | THE COURT | $0.00 | Defense offer to put up 'any amount' of collate... | View |
| 2019-07-11 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | THE COURT | $77,000,000.00 | Valuation of Manhattan residence to be mortgage... | View |
| 2010-07-01 | Received | Epstein's counsel | THE COURT | $5,000.00 | Proposed sanction fine for discovery violations. | View |
Replied by rote in the affirmative regarding fairness; provided explanations for incorrect questionnaire answers.
Proposal to write a letter proposing a schedule after conferring.
Question regarding Count Four and the second element.
Juror 50 completed a questionnaire regarding his background.
Submission reviewed by the court
Objection/point regarding the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them.
Discussing whether travel back to a place without illicit activity counts as significant purpose.
Asking if the jury must conclude she aided in transportation of Jane's flight to New Mexico to find guilt.
Explaining the punctuation in a hypothetical question and clarifying that the flight must be for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.
Note stating the jury is ready to leave at 5:30.
Verbal instructions regarding adjournment, prohibition on outside communication, and schedule for the following morning.
Argued presence at the scene was essential but conceded lack of proof of intent to kill.
Argued brothers were not present, sent to get water, and lacked intent.
Juror 50's responses during jury selection, specifically regarding prior experience with sexual assault.
States Juror 50 does not recall answering questions regarding sexual assault.
Juror 50 rushed through the questionnaire and provided inaccurate answers regarding prior experiences.
The Court asked Juror 50 questions regarding prior sexual abuse and ability to be impartial.
Regarding press outlets and Juror 50's interviews; requested a hearing.
Informing the Court about the juror's interviews.
Opposing the Government's request for a hearing and arguing for a new trial.
Counsel expresses concern that the jury might rush to judgment to avoid returning in January if the schedule bumps up against the Christmas holiday.
Ms. Moe argues the request is premature but states that if the defense rests the week of the 20th, the jury should be permitted to deliberate.
Court expects to hear from government by letter by 2:00.
Questions posed by defense counsel regarding Juror 50.
Request for Post-Its, paperboard, highlighters, 'Matt's transcript', and a definition of 'enticement'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity