Event Details

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues against the concept of 'conscious avoidance,' stating that the core issue is a factual dispute regarding the ages of alleged victims (specifically Jane and Kate) and whether the defense had any interaction with another individual named Carolyn. The defense cites testimony from Mr. Alessi stating he only saw two underage-looking individuals at Epstein's house, contrary to the inference of 'hundreds' of underage women.

This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing before the Judge regarding legal definitions of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'causation' in relation to interstate travel statutes. The discussion focuses on whether the persuasion must be the direct cause of the travel for the statute to be satisfied.

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 text captures a legal debate between attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge regarding the admissibility of specific testimony or evidence (items 20 and 21). The discussion focuses on whether seeing a female naked in a massage room before Jeffrey Epstein entered constitutes 'lewd and lascivious conduct' or mere nudity.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the admissibility of questioning a witness (indicated as 'Dubin' in the header) about media reports concerning flight logs. Ms. Moe clarifies that the official flight records in evidence are sealed/redacted and differ from public versions. Mr. Pagliuca argues that inaccurate media reports have influenced perceptions of his client (Maxwell) and that the witness can testify to these inaccuracies.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim discusses two exhibits (823 and 824) with the Judge. Exhibit 823 concerns the employment start date of Sky Roberts around the year 2000, while Exhibit 824 is an insurance document listing Sky Roberts' dependents, specifically naming his daughter, Virginia Roberts. The defense argues these are not proper business records as the employee Ms. Gill, who might testify to them, did not start employment until 2007.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Ms. Comey and Ms. Menninger discuss with the Court the admissibility of testimony and specific emails involving Mr. Glassman (referencing 'The Lion King') and Mr. Rossmiller. The discussion centers on a prior ruling limiting testimony from attorneys to specific statements regarding whether testifying would help the defendant's case.

This document is page 76 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between Ms. Moe (Prosecution) and Mr. Pagliuca (Defense) regarding the evidentiary weight and authenticity of message books/logs. Ms. Moe argues the logs are sequential and chronological, while Mr. Pagliuca contends they are disorganized, missing dates, and that multiple books were used haphazardly by staff.