| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Sophia Papapetru
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Speaker (implied lawyer)
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. DONALESKI
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. FIGGINS
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
unnamed attorney
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Weinberg
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unidentified speaker (attorney)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Anonymous Juror
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unidentified speaker
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Joe Ficalora and Thomas Cangemi
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Chauntae Davies
|
Witness judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed speaker
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A court hearing regarding the defendant's potential release on bail. | the Southern District | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Witness Kate is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz about a visit to Maxwell's house and is shown Governm... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal argument | A speaker in court argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's actions regarding Jane's travel do not constit... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Oral argument during which the government was asked about the routine nature of shining lights in... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The dismissal of the indictment in case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB is discussed. | court | View |
| N/A | Trial | A long trial is mentioned as the context for the events, possibly explaining the exhaustion of th... | Court | View |
| N/A | Summation | Ms. Menninger delivers a summation to the judge and jury, questioning the prosecution's narrative... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial is being discussed where testimony and exhibits, such as a photograph and flight logs, ar... | Court | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A speaker is addressing a judge, arguing about the significance of threats received by their clie... | court | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | Ms. Moe presents the government's case, asserting that the facts of the defendant's conduct, incl... | this court | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | Redirect examination of Ms. Brune by Mr. Davis, during which Government Exhibit 28 (a letter from... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal objection | A speaker objects to the admission of photographs taken in 2019 as evidence, arguing they are irr... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Ms. Brune is giving testimony under direct examination. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court hearing/litigation | A lawyer is presenting arguments to a judge regarding a client's case, discussing past conduct (1... | Court (implied by 'THE COUR... | View |
| N/A | Trial | A summation is being given in a trial, arguing that accusers' memories have shifted over time. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | A long trial is mentioned as the context for the events being discussed. | Court | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Sentencing hearing | A government representative makes an argument to a judge for imposing an above-guideline sentence... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Mr. Visoski provides testimony during a direct examination by Ms. Comey, describing the layout of... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Shawn by Ms. Comey, with an objection from Mr. Pagliuca. | Court of the Southern District | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument concerning the admissibility of undated photographs as evidence in a criminal case. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Sidebar discussion | Attorneys Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Comey discuss with the judge whether Amanda can be... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Mr. Visoski in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Dr. Dubin regarding identification of individuals in Government Exh... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | A sidebar conversation during a trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) regarding the admissibility of evi... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of Special Agent Maguire regarding a search and the introduction of Government... | Courtroom | View |
An email dated July 13, 2020, from a U.S. Pretrial Services Officer in the Southern District of New York regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The email attaches a bail report (filename: 6653181._Maxwell,_Ghislaine.pdf) and notes that Maxwell is scheduled for a remote appearance the following day. It includes strict confidentiality warnings citing Local Rule 57.1 and Title 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(1).
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Kate testifies about visiting Ghislaine Maxwell's house for tea. Kate explains she was excited to befriend Maxwell, who was friends with a man Kate was dating. She describes the house's exterior and identifies a photograph of it, marked as Government Exhibit 702, which is then offered into evidence without objection.
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion in open court regarding the sealing and redaction of defense exhibits, specifically J15 and a proposed J15R. The core issue is the protection of identifying information related to 'Jane,' who was the subject of a recent cross-examination. Various parties, including Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Menninger, debate the necessity and process of sealing these exhibits to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of Sergeant Dawson by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning concerns Sergeant Dawson's potential participation in an investigation of a burglary at Jeffrey Epstein's residence, to which Dawson responds that he does not recall. The proceedings are briefly interrupted by confusion over the correct binder of documents being used as evidence, which the judge helps to resolve.
This document is a court transcript from a sidebar conversation dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before a judge about whether to allow the impeachment of a witness, Juan Alessi, based on prior inconsistent statements he made to Sergeant Dawson about a burglary. Mr. Everdell argues it is relevant to Alessi's credibility, while Mr. Rohrbach contends it is a collateral matter not central to the trial.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. During the proceedings, the government attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully has several photographs admitted as evidence, and then questions Sergeant Dawson about a search. Sergeant Dawson testifies that he notified the crime scene unit, led by Greg Parkinson, to photograph and process the evidence he seized.
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson, by an attorney, Ms. Comey, regarding three pieces of evidence labeled Government Exhibits 238, 239, and 240. Mr. Parkinson identifies the exhibits as depicting the first floor and north side of a building.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. He identifies a series of photographs (Government Exhibits 243-250) as accurately depicting the interior of a property at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The government's attorney, Ms. Comey, offers the exhibits into evidence under seal, and the opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, states he has no objection.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson. Parkinson testifies about photographs of a 'garden room' at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The government, represented by Ms. Comey, successfully moves to admit three exhibits (GX223, 224, 225) into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of third parties, with no objection from opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell.
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 named Parkinson by an attorney, Ms. Comey, who asks the witness to identify various rooms (garden room, lake room, foyer, bathroom) within a property based on viewing a recording at specific time marks. The proceedings are briefly interrupted by the judge to allow for a monitor adjustment at the lectern.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Parkinson identifies Government Exhibits 201-222 as fair and accurate photos of the exterior of a residence at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared around October 20, 2005. Following this identification, Ms. Comey offers the exhibits into evidence, to which opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, has no objection.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on the witness's relationship and communication protocols with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, particularly concerning who was in charge at a Palm Beach property. The transcript also records a procedural exchange where another attorney, Ms. Comey, makes an objection that is overruled by the judge.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on an occasion when Mr. Epstein picked up a "Ms. Jane" from her home in West Palm Beach, Florida, and drove her to his house. The topic then shifts to renovations at a Palm Beach house, with the attorney introducing Government Exhibit 297, dated April 4, 1994, as evidence.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Alessi's purchase of a $590,000 property with his wife in West Palm Beach in September 2002, which is linked chronologically to a break-in at Mr. Epstein's house. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, objects to the line of questioning, and the court sustains the objection.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his prior deposition testimony concerning an incident where he went to a house at night to get money while no one was home. The court is also present, facilitating the proceeding.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. An unnamed speaker, likely an attorney, is making an objection to the judge regarding the admission of photographs of a New York townhouse taken in 2019. The attorney argues the photos are irrelevant and should not be shown to the jury, as they do not accurately represent the property's condition during the conspiracy period of 1994-2004, citing testimony from witnesses Juan Alessi and Jane about renovations and only general descriptions of the interior.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, discussing the evidence gathered during a July 2019 FBI search of Mr. Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. An attorney outlines the government's plan to introduce photographs via FBI agent Maguire and notes an agreement has been reached not to introduce certain hard drives and CDs as physical evidence. The discussion also mentions other physical items found, such as costumes and a massage table.
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of testimony. An attorney objects to an agent's testimony about finding a stain resembling semen on a massage table during a search on October 20, 2005, arguing it is prejudicial and irrelevant as it was found a year after the alleged conspiracy ended in 2004. Attorney Ms. Comey counters that the testimony will be brief and clinical, merely describing the agent's observation.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal debate between Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell over the admissibility of a photograph as evidence. Ms. Comey argues for showing a closeup to establish its placement on a bookshelf, while Mr. Everdell contends it must be shown in the wider, non-prejudicial context of other nonsexual photos to avoid misleading the jury.
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case against Jeffrey Epstein or a related associate. The defense argues against admitting a specific photograph into evidence, claiming it is prejudicial and could lead the jury to incorrectly assume Epstein was attracted to prepubescent girls. Prosecutor Ms. Comey counters by questioning the defense's argument and noting the context in which the jury will see the photo.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey argues for the admissibility of evidence showing a 'sexually suggestive photograph of a young girl' located in the entryway to the bedroom where Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein allegedly slept. Comey argues this proves Maxwell's knowledge of the environment, countering the defense's portrayal of Epstein as an upstanding citizen surrounded by prominent people.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The testimony concerns a communal message pad kept on a kitchen desk. Following the testimony, an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the admission of certain messages as evidence, arguing they are hearsay while conceding that messages in Mr. Alessi's or his wife's handwriting have been authenticated.
This page is a transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Alessi in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The questioning focuses on 'Exhibit 52,' a book containing names and arrows; the defense establishes that Alessi did not add the arrows and lacks personal knowledge regarding the document's creation, chain of custody over the last 19 years, or potential alteration (photocopying/reassembling) originating from Palm Beach. Ms. Comey objects to the final question regarding the hypothetical manipulation of the book.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by attorney Ms. Comey. Mr. Alessi states he has no personal knowledge of a document maintained after he left Mr. Epstein's employment in 2002, but he does identify an address on the document as being Mr. Epstein's residence. An objection from another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, is overruled by the court, and 'Government's Exhibit 606' is admitted into evidence.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. Alessi is questioned about and confirms recognizing several pages of a booklet given to him by a Ms. Maxwell. Following this testimony, an attorney, Ms. Comey, offers the item as Exhibit 606 into evidence for the government.
An attorney addresses the judge to clarify the acceptable scope of testimony for a witness, Mr. Flatley. The attorney objects to potential expert opinion testimony regarding metadata verification mentioned in a November 26 disclosure but is agreeable if the testimony is limited to factual matters from an earlier September disclosure.
MS. MOE responds to the previous speaker, stating that a note being discussed is unclear about which flight it refers to (a return flight vs. a flight to New Mexico), making it difficult to determine intent.
Mr. Pagliuca thanks the judge after the ruling is made.
Ms. Menninger argues that photographs require a witness for authentication to be admissible, especially if they are undated, to establish context and verify they haven't been altered.
Discussing arrangements for Jane to travel home and potential recall needs.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity