This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim, and Moe). The discussion clarifies that a 'short matter' scheduled for the following Monday is the testimony of a witness from London. A potential issue is raised by Ms. Moe, who states that the witness's name was not on the witness list provided to the government.
A page from a spiral-bound message book containing four phone message slips. Three messages are for 'JE' (Jeffrey Epstein) and one is for 'SARAH'. The bottom two messages, for Sarah and JE respectively, were recorded at the exact same time (17:52) on September 2, 2003. Caller names are redacted by the DOJ, but area codes indicate calls from New York (212), Houston (832), and the UK (44 171).
This document is page 4 of a FedEx invoice dated December 23, 2002, detailing three shipments charged to Jeffrey Epstein's account. The shipments occurred in early December 2002 originating from Epstein's 457 Madison Avenue address. Recipients include K Vauchan Edwards and Shelley Lewis (with redacted addresses, likely in London based on 'LON' code), and Jeanne Brennan at the Financial Trust Company in St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands.
This document is a historical copy of the Land Registry title for the property at 69 Stanhope Mews East, London, as of April 24, 1995. It identifies Anthony John Jeffs as the proprietor since April 4, 1995. The document also includes a restrictive covenant from a 1904 conveyance that limits the property's use strictly to that of a private dwellinghouse.
This is a historical copy of a Land Registry title register, dated 21 January 1994, for the property at 69 Stanhope Mews East, Kensington, London. It shows that Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell became the proprietor on 11 November 1988. The document also details a covenant from a 1904 conveyance that restricts the property's use to that of a private dwellinghouse only.
This document is page 23 of a Curriculum Vitae (CV) or bibliography belonging to Elizabeth F. Loftus, identified by the header 'LOFTUS-046'. It lists academic publications from 2002 and 2003, focusing heavily on false memories, eyewitness testimony, and the intersection of psychology and law. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00015234), suggesting it was included in discovery materials or a government report.
This document is the first page of the Curriculum Vitae for Elizabeth F. Loftus, a Distinguished Professor at UC Irvine. It outlines her education, teaching experience, and honorary degrees. The document is stamped as a Defendant's Exhibit (EL-1) for the case 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), which corresponds to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, indicating Loftus was utilized as an expert witness for the defense.
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing against the government's characterization of her finances. The defense contends that Ms. Maxwell has been transparent about her assets, including those shared with her spouse, and that the government's claims of her having 'unrestrained funds' to flee are untrue. The document refutes accusations of hiding assets by pointing to disclosures on joint tax returns and the difficulty of liquidating certain funds.
This page from a defense filing (dated Dec 23, 2020) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell accurately disclosed her assets to Pretrial Services despite being in jail without records. The defense rebuts the government's claim that she is hiding wealth or has 'unrestrained funds' to flee, citing a negative pledge on her London property and the illiquidity of $4 million controlled by her spouse.
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The Government contends the defendant is a flight risk due to substantial, previously underreported assets of approximately $22 million, including a $2 million London townhouse and millions in unrestrained funds. The argument is further supported by the fact that two proposed co-signers are UK residents, which would make the bond effectively worthless and unrecoverable if the defendant were to flee.
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The government contends that the defendant, who possesses approximately $22 million in assets including a $2 million London townhouse, is a significant flight risk and has previously been deceptive about her finances. The filing also asserts that the proposed bail package is inadequate, particularly because two co-signers are UK residents, making it practically impossible to recover the bond amount if the defendant were to flee.
This page is part of a legal filing (Document 97-21) filed on December 14, 2020, analyzing the likelihood of Ghislaine Maxwell successfully contesting extradition under UK law. The text argues that Maxwell cannot rely on 'passage of time' or 'forum' bars to prevent extradition, citing that while some conduct occurred in London, the majority of harm occurred in the US. It heavily references the Extradition Act 2003 and various legal precedents (Tollman, Gomes, Kakis).
A character reference letter filed on December 14, 2020, in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application. The redacted author describes knowing Maxwell since age 6, being entrusted to her care at ages 12, 15, and 19, and interning for her in New York in 2009. The letter attempts to refute negative media portrayals by highlighting Maxwell's support, integrity, and work with an 'Oceans charity'.
A character reference letter filed on December 14, 2020, in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application. The author, whose name is redacted, describes a 30-year friendship with Maxwell, noting her academic success at Oxford and honesty. The author details two specific trips to the US in February 2013 and December 2018 where they and their son stayed with Maxwell in New York and another redacted location, asserting they never witnessed inappropriate behavior.
This document is a letter of support for Ghislaine Maxwell, likely submitted for a bail application in her federal case. The author, a close friend, portrays Maxwell as a dedicated family person who was not evading law enforcement but was terrified and hiding from intense, threatening media scrutiny. The author vouches for Maxwell's character and asserts she will face her trial if released, arguing for a non-custodial environment to prepare her defense.
This legal document is a declaration from an unnamed individual defending Ghislaine against public accusations and media reports. The author attests that Ghislaine was not a fugitive but was forced into hiding due to a dangerous media frenzy, which included a £10,000 bounty offered by The Sun newspaper, and threats on social media. The author asserts Ghislaine's consistent claims of innocence and her desire for a fair legal process to clear her name.
This legal document outlines the financial activities of Ms. Maxwell from 2015 to 2020, detailing a significant shift of her assets. It notes her net worth in 2015 was over $20 million, the sale of a $15 million NYC property, her marriage in 2016, and the subsequent transfer of the majority of her assets to her spouse via a trust. By 2019, all assets in the trust were distributed to her spouse, placing them under his control.
This document is Page 28 (labeled 108 of 131 in the full production) of a word index/concordance for a legal deposition or transcript related to the Epstein case. It lists words alphabetically from 'EXAMINATION' to 'Murrell' alongside the page and line numbers where they appear in the source text. Key terms indexed include 'Jeffrey', 'Maxwell', 'massage', 'masseuses', 'girls', 'girlfriend', 'Florida', and 'island'.
This document is a page from a legal transcript dated July 26, 2017, detailing an interview about an individual's travels with an unnamed male. The interviewee states she visited his private Caribbean island and London home as a vacationing guest, not as an employee. She also recounts attending a peculiar symposium in Santa Fe, New Mexico, about cleaning homes, which she describes as "stupid."
This document is page 92 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) representing the defense summation by Ms. Menninger on August 10, 2022. The attorney argues that the government failed to provide promised evidence linking Epstein's properties to abuse, specifically refuting the existence of 'massage rooms' filled with nude photos in Palm Beach, New York, and New Mexico. The defense also highlights conflicting testimony between witnesses Kate and Cim Espinosa regarding a massage room in Ghislaine Maxwell's London home and cites FedEx records to claim Maxwell did not send items to underage girls.
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Moe in the case against Maxwell. Ms. Moe refutes the defense's claims regarding Maxwell's London residence by citing Maxwell's own 2019 deposition and argues for the credibility of four female witnesses (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie). She asserts that the witnesses are not motivated by money in the current trial, as their civil lawsuits are over and they have already received millions of dollars from the Jeffrey Epstein Victim Compensation Program.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Comey, Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Ms. Menninger), and the Court regarding the finalization of stipulations and the withdrawal of a request to issue an arrest warrant for a witness named Kelly Bovino who failed to appear for a subpoena. The parties also discuss resolving issues to avoid calling a witness from London on the following Monday.
This document is a page from a legal deposition transcript dated August 10, 2022. The witness, identified as Healy, is questioned about their relationship with a woman named Emmy Tayler, confirming they were friends who socialized. The testimony also briefly mentions an accident involving another woman at a location called Zorro Ranch, which prompted a visit from Healy.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa confirms knowledge of two of Ghislaine's residences: a townhouse on 65th Street in New York and a property at 44 Kinnerton Street in London, which Espinosa states they visited three years prior. The witness also testifies that to their knowledge, Ghislaine never resided with Jeffrey Epstein.
Page 53 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness testifies that Epstein allowed friends to hitch rides on his private plane to places like Florida, but Epstein himself did not fly commercial to the witness's knowledge. The witness confirms arranging commercial flights for Ghislaine Maxwell for trips to London (family), Miami, and California when she was not with Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity