This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing a sidebar conversation during the direct examination of witness Alessi (likely Juan Alessi). The prosecutor, Ms. Comey, and the Judge discuss the admissibility of Alessi reading from an exhibit not in evidence; Alessi claims the document is a 'later version' because his name and his wife's name are missing from it.
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Alessi by Ms. Comey. The questioning focuses on authenticating 'Government Exhibit 52,' a directory containing the date range 2004-2005, which Alessi identifies as a later version of a directory he saw while working for Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecutor also attempts to ask Alessi if Sarah Kellen's name appears in the exhibit, though the Court interrupts to sustain an objection regarding authentication foundation.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. An attorney, Ms. Comey, questions Alessi about whether his name, his wife's name, or Sarah Kellen's name appears in a specific book or binder. Another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the line of questioning as leading, which the court sustains before permitting a rephrased version of the question.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the direct examination of witness Juan Alessi by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The Judge sustains a defense objection regarding a lack of foundation for Alessi's claim that an object was a 'later version of the book,' instructs the jury to disregard that statement, and allows the examination to proceed regarding a 'booklet.'
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca. The conversation centers on a foundational objection to an exhibit, specifically a book. The judge recounts the testimony of a witness, Mr. Alessi, who claimed the book in question is a later, thinner version of one he saw while employed by Mr. Epstein.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Comey, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. The conversation centers on whether to admit an exhibit into evidence immediately or reserve it for a later time. Ms. Comey gives contradictory answers, first agreeing to reserve and then stating she wants to admit it now, which she explains by saying she misunderstood the judge's question.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed August 10, 2022) during the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. A procedural discussion occurs between the Judge (The Court), Defense Attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and Prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding an objection to the foundation of the witness's knowledge about a specific 'book' created after the witness left employment in 2002. The Court decides to allow the question provisionally, noting the testimony will be stricken if proper foundation is not established.
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a brief exchange between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Comey, where they agree that a witness is not needed to verify copies. The judge then announces a short recess.
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 procedural discussion between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the admission of Exhibit 52 (and sub-exhibits A, D, E, F, G, H) in redacted form. The header indicates this occurred during the direct examination of witness Alessi.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Comey, Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge. The parties agree on a method for admitting exhibit 52 into evidence, deciding to use a redacted version consisting of specific pages (52A, D, E, F, G, H) for the jury. The agreement clarifies that the exhibit will be authenticated and admitted in this limited form.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey, in front of a judge. Mr. Pagliuca objects to the method of having a witness compare a copy of a document to a book, arguing about the lack of foundation for the evidence. The judge finds the objection reasonable and instructs Ms. Comey to address the procedural issue.
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, detailing a direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and attorneys (Ms. Comey, Mr. Pagliuca) about the witness having compared Government Exhibits 52A and 52 before taking the stand. Ms. Comey describes this as 'homework' to confirm the documents were copies, a practice the judge acknowledges.
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Ms. Comey, regarding the identification of Government Exhibit 52A as a copy of a page from Government Exhibit 52. The exchange includes a legal objection for 'lack of foundation' by another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and a discussion with the judge to clarify the nature of the exhibits.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Alessi. Alessi is questioned about a book, which he identifies as a later, thinner version of a previous one, and notes that his name, which was listed in connection with a house in Palm Beach, is absent. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the line of questioning but is overruled by the court before the proceedings turn to a sealed government exhibit.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Alessi. Alessi is being questioned about a book he saw while working for a 'Mr. Epstein' and confirms that a version he recently reviewed is a later version, printed after he left his employment. The transcript also records objections from an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and rulings from the court.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Ms. Comey presents Government Exhibit 52, which Mr. Alessi identifies as a directory belonging to Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein. The witness confirms he had reviewed the directory the previous night.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Alessi by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The witness confirms seeing two underage females at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence; one is referred to by the pseudonym 'Jane' to protect her identity, and the witness explicitly identifies the second female as Virginia Roberts.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, who is being questioned about his knowledge of an 'Exhibit 606' and confirms that he threw away a document he received after leaving a position in 2002. The transcript includes objections from an attorney, Ms. Comey, and rulings from the court.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The dialogue focuses on a procedural confusion regarding an exhibit where the pages are out of numerical order (jumping from page 42 to 49, then 50, 51, and back to 43). Ms. Comey is the attorney questioning the witness, with the Judge (The Court) intervening to clarify the document structure.
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, who is being asked to identify portions of a multi-page list he recognizes. After an objection for a leading question is sustained by the court, Mr. Alessi confirms that he recognizes the entire contents of pages 1, 2, and 3 of the document in question.
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, Mr. Alessi, by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Alessi identifies a 58-page exhibit as a booklet of instructions he was required to follow to maintain 'the house' during his employment with Mr. Epstein.
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Alessi (likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). Alessi details Jeffrey Epstein's various properties, including Zorro Ranch, Little St. James (referred to as 'Little St. Jeff'), a New York home, a Paris home, and a home in Columbus, Ohio. Alessi also describes flying once with Ghislaine Maxwell to Miami on Epstein's first plane, identified as a Hawker.
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Alessi is being questioned by Ms. Comey regarding their 12-year employment with Mr. Epstein. Alessi testifies to seeing female guests (estimated to be in their twenties) hundreds of times, noting that they were topless by the pool approximately 75-80% of the time.
This document is a page from a court transcript involving the direct examination of a witness named Alessi by Ms. Comey. Alessi testifies that while working for Epstein in Palm Beach between 1991 and 2002, Ghislaine Maxwell slept in Epstein's master bedroom and had a desk in the garden room. The witness also confirms observing 'many, many, many females' visiting the residence, and the questioning ends just as the witness is asked about the age of these females.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of Mr. Alessi by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on identifying the layout of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach property, specifically describing the 'cabana' or 'pool house' where Epstein's desk, a couch, and stereo equipment were located. Government's Exhibit 299 (GX-299), a depiction of the property layout, was admitted into evidence without objection from the defense.
| 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 |
Jury sent a note; Judge is responding by referring them to instruction number 21.
So I received your note. I refer you to instruction number 21 on page 28. Please consider the entirety of the instruction.
Asked if he had any doubt about ability to be fair; Juror 50 said 'no'.
Indicated confusion regarding Count Four and jurisdiction.
Proposed language clarifying that intent must relate to activity within New York state.
States that MDC staff conduct flashlight checks of all inmates as a matter of course.
Regarding the subpoena served on BSF.
A note posing a question that led to debate over accomplice liability and flight arrangements.
Requesting instruction on 'purpose of travel' and arguing lack of evidence for return flight arrangement.
The Court questions a juror about their exposure to case information, availability for a six-week trial starting Nov 29, and familiarity with lists of names and entities involved in the case.
Document Juror 50 is seeking a copy of.
A note signed by the foreperson that attorneys are discussing; requires redaction of signature.
Publicly available letter discussing the issue.
Referenced as Dkt. No. 191, mentioning the request for a victim's diary.
False denials regarding victim status and social media usage.
A 3.5 page motion to unseal grand jury materials filed without supporting docs.
Arguments regarding Juror 50's bias.
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.
Asking if the Court has attempted to call the missing jurors.
Previews argument regarding Juror 50's motion, claiming it is a discovery request.
Proffer that testimony would be corroborated by 'significant contemporaneous documentary evidence'.
"We would like the FBI deposition 3505-005 referred to by the defense during the cross-examination of Carolyn."
Written questionnaire and in-person questioning.
Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence proves Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, satisfying the requirement for an organizer/leader enhancement.
Documents containing answers regarding prior experience with sexual assault.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity