DOJ-OGR-00013211.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 198 of 264 1639 LC7Cmax6 Carolyn - cross things that are in the complaint. TH | responding t (eo) COURT: So that's a long way of getting to my -- my first question. MR. TH | PAGLIUCA: Yes. COURT: What paragraph is inconsistent? PAGLIUCA: Well, the fact that Ms. Maxwell -- ; COURT: Point me to a paragraph. H = GI PAGLIUCA: All of the paragraphs, your Honor. COURT: On the same theory you just pronounced? point to any PAGLIUCA: Yes. COURT: So then on your second theory, can you inconsistency? MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, these are all omissions, your Honor, factual. So paragraph 8, for example, the witness has testified now that she was the subject of penetration and intercourse by Epstein. Paragraph 8 does not include that. Paragraph 9, I think, is an expansion. We have only Kellen, often calling xcuse me. 11A is what I'm Looking at. THE COURT: So other than the omission theory, is there an inconsistency you're pointing to? MR. PAGLIUCA: No. THE COURT: Is there any other? I understand your omission theory, I'll hear from Ms. Comey on that in a second, I do have a question for you on it, and I need to read the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013211