your Honor
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
DOJ-OGR-00021572.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell argues against sentencing enhancements for his client, challenging the reliability of evidence like an 'unreliable message pad' and contesting the government's claim that the defendant received $7 million in 2007. The discussion revolves around the applicable sentencing guidelines, specifically whether the 2003 guidelines should be used based on the conspiracy's end date in 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00021571.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing an argument by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. He contends that a piece of evidence, an undated and unverified message pad, is unreliable for establishing the end date of a conspiracy. Mr. Everdell also argues that since a person named Carolyn was no longer a minor in 2005, the conspiracy as charged could not have existed at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00019152.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony reveals details of a package sent on October 7, 2002, which listed the names Jeffrey E. Epstein and Cecilia Steen, had a shipping address of 457 Madison Avenue in New York, and was sent to a recipient named Caroline in West Palm Beach, Florida. The questioning then begins to address invoices from Federal Express that were provided to the witness by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00019147.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. During the testimony, Government Exhibits are discussed and admitted into evidence, with Ms. Chapell identifying Exhibit 802 as an "Invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account." The government then offers this exhibit under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00019145.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of Ms. Chapell, a Senior Paralegal at Federal Express Corporation. Ms. Chapell testifies about her role, which involves responding to subpoenas and producing company records. She also explains that Federal Express's billing invoices are generated through scanning events and processed by the revenue service department.
DOJ-OGR-00016995.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Sternheim, Pagliuca, Rohrbach). The main topic is the formulation of jury instructions and closing arguments, with Mr. Rohrbach arguing for the inclusion of a 'conscious avoidance theory' on behalf of the government. The judge acknowledges the argument as a 'fair point' and considers giving the instruction, while also mentioning a theory related to flight records.
DOJ-OGR-00016987.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal proceeding dated August 10, 2022, detailing arguments concerning a defendant's involvement in offenses. The discussion revolves around the prosecution's theory of the defendant as an 'active participant' and the appropriateness of a 'conscious avoidance theory' instruction for the jury, particularly given the case involves children. Mr. Rohrbach presents counter-arguments, asserting that conviction remains possible based on the defendant's facilitation of offenses and the conscious avoidance theory.
DOJ-OGR-00016977.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. They are debating the precise wording to use when presenting overt acts from an indictment to a jury, specifically concerning the age of a victim. The core issue is how to handle discrepancies between the age listed in the indictment ('under 18') and the legally relevant age of consent ('17'), with proposals ranging from using general legal phrasing to modifying the specific age with the qualifier 'the indictment alleges'.
DOJ-OGR-00016956.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, is arguing a point of law to the judge regarding the jury instruction for 'dominant purpose' in a case about crossing state lines for criminal sexual conduct. He cites legal precedents, including the 'Sand' and 'Miller' cases, to support his position that the purpose need only be one of the dominant purposes, not the sole one.
DOJ-OGR-00016951.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about jury instructions. An unnamed speaker contends that a specific instruction on causation for terms like 'persuasion' and 'inducement' would confuse the jury and is not required by precedent from the Broxmeyer case. In response, Mr. Everdell argues that such an instruction would not heighten the level of proof but would simply clarify the meaning of the words as they are used in the statute.
DOJ-OGR-00016935.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. An attorney argues that a specific conspiracy charge is narrowly focused on a violation of New York law, with Jane as the sole victim. The attorney distinguishes this from separate conduct in Florida involving a person named Carolyn and clarifies that while witnesses Kate and Annie provided testimony, they are not victims under this particular charge.
DOJ-OGR-00016911.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Comey) and the Court regarding scheduling for an ongoing legal proceeding. The parties discuss the timing for bringing in the jury, potential extended hours on Monday to complete proceedings, and the estimated duration of closing arguments, including a summation argument for Ms. Moe and a rebuttal. The conversation focuses on logistical aspects of the trial's conclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00016859.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the end of the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin. Attorney Ms. Moe asks a final question about medical conditions, which is objected to by attorney Mr. Pagliuca but allowed by the judge. After a brief answer, the testimony concludes, and the court excuses Dr. Dubin.
DOJ-OGR-00016852.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of Dr. Dubin. An attorney questions Dr. Dubin about his knowledge of a woman named Eva who was reportedly dating or close to Mr. Epstein between 1994 and 2004, which Dr. Dubin cannot recall. The questioning concludes with Dr. Dubin explicitly denying ever having been in a group sexual encounter or a sexualized massage with an individual referred to as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00016830.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin. The questioning attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, has Dr. Dubin identify individuals in a photograph (Government Exhibit 241), confirming the presence of both Mr. Epstein and one of Dr. Dubin's children, who was around 20 years old at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00016815.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Young. The questioning focuses on FBI interview protocols, where Young testifies that the FBI records interviews with individuals in custody but does not record witness interviews unless the witness is a minor. An attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully objects to a question about whether recording is an option under FBI protocols.
DOJ-OGR-00016813.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a sidebar conversation where counsel Ms. Comey attempts to introduce prior consistent statements of a witness named Jane, which is objected to by opposing counsel Ms. Menninger. The Court sustains the objection on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the current examination but allows for the possibility of recalling the witness for rebuttal.
DOJ-OGR-00016806.jpg
This is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Young. The attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Comey, agree to stipulate the date on which boots were seized to save court time. Ms. Menninger proceeds to question the witness about a discussion concerning Ms. Farmer wearing these boots, which the witness confirms took place during a recent trial preparation session after the seizure.
DOJ-OGR-00016790.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Richards. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions the witness about their recollection of a person named Carolyn stating she had obtained Epstein's phone number from a telephone book. The witness confirms this account is documented in a '302' report.
DOJ-OGR-00016788.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Richards. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions the witness about a document they reviewed and initialed, which was prepared by Special Agent Kuyrkendall. The witness confirms their initials and that the document was accurate at the time, but notes that the interview in question took place 14 years ago.
DOJ-OGR-00016777.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument between prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Menninger) counsel. The core issue is whether the defense can introduce evidence related to broader investigative steps, such as a 2019 search, that were not part of the evidence presented to the jury. The prosecution argues this would be confusing and violate a court order, while the defense attempts to justify its relevance.
DOJ-OGR-00016770.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney argues to a judge that the government failed to properly investigate information provided by witnesses, which is probative of the defendant's innocence. The attorney cites the 'Watson case' as precedent where law enforcement prematurely concluded guilt and then begins to question a witness about conversations with a person named 'Jane' regarding 'group sexualized massages'.
DOJ-OGR-00016769.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney argues that the government's investigation was not thorough. The attorney uses the example of a witness, Jane, who testified about her involvement in 'sexualized massages' and named other participants, including a 'Michelle'. The attorney claims that despite this information, the government failed to follow up and interview Michelle and others, arguing this lack of diligence is significant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016767.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that the defense should be allowed to highlight that the allegations are 25 years old. He asserts this explains the absence of corroborating evidence, such as geo-location data, because records are destroyed over such a long period.
DOJ-OGR-00016766.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge warns Mr. Everdell that his intended line of questioning for a witness—focusing on what the government didn't do—would violate a prior court order. Mr. Everdell defends his approach as an attempt to elicit evidence about the absence of evidence, but the judge reiterates that the jury's role is to evaluate the evidence the government did present.
Scope of witness testimony and disclosures
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.
Ambiguity of evidence regarding flights
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.
Acknowledgment of ruling
Mr. Pagliuca thanks the judge after the ruling is made.
Admissibility of photographic evidence
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.
Witness Logistics
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