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-00016763.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that he should be allowed to question an agent to explain the absence of modern evidence (like geo-location and phone records) due to the age of the allegations. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach questions the necessity of this, noting that a custodian has already testified regarding recordkeeping.
DOJ-OGR-00016756.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. A judge is explaining their rationale for sustaining several objections related to the testimony of a witness named Annie concerning a Ms. Maxwell. The judge concludes there are no inconsistencies in Annie's testimony, particularly her statement "I don't recall," and discusses these rulings with two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Ms. Menninger.
DOJ-OGR-00016716.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. An individual named Ms. Menninger questions a witness, Mr. Hyppolite, who identifies himself as a specialist and record custodian for the Palm Beach School District. Mr. Hyppolite explains that his job involves coordinating subpoena processing and representing the district in trials and depositions.
DOJ-OGR-00016713.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. A witness named Aznaran confirms that a record for Annie Farmer reflects an actual border crossing at an airport related to a Düsseldorf flight, and that this information is not dependent on airline data. After attorney Mr. Everdell concludes his questions, attorney Ms. Pomerantz begins a new recross examination regarding the absence of digital kiosks in the 1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00016711.jpg
This document is page 228 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the redirect examination of a witness named Aznaran regarding the technical details of how airline flight reports integrate with immigration (TECS) data when passengers pass through kiosks. The discussion specifically focuses on distinguishing record-keeping practices prior to September 11, 2001, clarifying that records initially reflect flight times but are updated when a passport is physically stamped at an immigration site.
DOJ-OGR-00016672.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the redirect examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning establishes that Loftus has worked as a consultant for multiple U.S. federal agencies, including the Secret Service, DOJ, FBI, and IRS, while also having a history of testifying for the defense in criminal cases. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, makes several objections to the line of questioning on grounds of mischaracterization and foundation.
DOJ-OGR-00016669.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning focuses on the nature of memory experiments Loftus has conducted, establishing that while they have studied memories of car crashes and interviewed sexual abuse survivors, they have never conducted unethical studies such as arranging for abuse to occur or attempting to implant false memories of abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00016658.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. Mr. Pagliuca objects to the cross-examination of expert witness Dr. Loftus focusing on a single study, arguing it's prejudicial and inconsistent with a prior ruling involving another expert, Dr. Rocchio. The discussion revolves around the proper use of studies to impeach a witness versus introducing affirmative evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016645.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Loftus. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, questions Dr. Loftus about a specific passage from her book, "Witness for the Defense," concerning the dual role of a psychologist as both an advocate and an impartial educator in court. The book and the specific passage on page 238 are identified as Government Exhibit 1518.
DOJ-OGR-00016584.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a witness is questioned about the meaning of fields in financial records belonging to Epstein, which span from January 1999 to December 2006. After confirming the scope of the records, the attorney, Mr. Everdell, concludes his questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00016580.jpg
This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Sud. He is being questioned about a report, Defense Exhibit RS-1, which he confirms he ran in 2016 for a customer with the file name "Epstein". The report contains invoice details and covers the years 1999, 2005, and 2006.
DOJ-OGR-00016576.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of Mr. Sud by Mr. Everdell. Mr. Sud testifies that he lives in East Windsor, New Jersey, and is the Vice President of Shoppers Travel, a company he has worked for since its founding in 1988.
DOJ-OGR-00016553.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The questioning focuses on two pieces of evidence: an envelope labeled CE3 and a photograph labeled CE4. The witness identifies the person in the photograph as 'Jane' and confirms the presence of an inscription on it before being interrupted by Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00016540.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00016517.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a Ms. Espinosa. She describes her current role as a senior executive assistant to a CEO and recounts her past employment history, specifically moving to New York around October 1996. Upon arriving, she was hired by J. Epstein & Co. as a legal assistant for the legal team, which included counsels Jeff Schantz and Darren Indyke.
DOJ-OGR-00016503.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about a witness who has contracted COVID. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that the witness be allowed to testify remotely via WebEx, while the opposing government counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, insists on the need for cross-examination and demands proof of the positive COVID test. The Court intervenes to clarify whether this proof has already been provided in a letter.
DOJ-OGR-00016496.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. Mr. Everdell seeks to admit property records showing the O'Neill family, not his client Ms. Maxwell, owned a property until 1997. This is intended to counter government testimony that Ms. Maxwell lived there starting in 1992, but the judge emphasizes that the key legal question is residence, not ownership.
DOJ-OGR-00016492.jpg
This court transcript captures a dialogue between defense counsel Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding the timeline of Ms. Maxwell's ownership and residency at a property in the UK. Mr. Everdell explains the complex leasehold title, stating the deal closed in early 1997, to argue that Ms. Maxwell did not live there before 1996. This evidence is intended to counter testimony from a witness, Kate, about alleged events at the property in 1994 and 1995.
DOJ-OGR-00016460.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a legal argument asserting the defendant's guilt on two theories. The first is that the defendant personally exerted coercive control over a victim named Jane, leading to her sexual abuse. The second theory is that the defendant is also guilty of aiding and abetting Jeffrey Epstein by knowingly facilitating his abuse of Jane, being present on the plane and in the room in New York where the abuse occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00016458.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, in which an attorney argues that the evidence against an individual named Ghislaine is insufficient to prove criminal enticement. The attorney contends that her role in arranging travel was merely a 'ministerial function,' akin to a travel agent, and did not involve the persuasion or inducement required by the statute. To support this claim, the attorney cites the 2008 Second Circuit case, United States v. Joseph, as a legal precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00016457.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on August 10, 2022. A speaker, likely a defense attorney, argues that their client, Ghislaine Maxwell, did not illegally 'entice' a witness named Jane to travel. The argument asserts that arranging a return flight does not qualify as enticement, that Jane's travel was typically handled by Jeffrey Epstein's office, and that there is no testimony Maxwell encouraged, convinced, or even offered to arrange the travel in question.
DOJ-OGR-00016456.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) where a defense attorney argues that the testimony of a witness named 'Jane' is insufficient to prove Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement in enticing travel. The attorney summarizes Jane's testimony, noting that she traveled with Epstein and Maxwell, that Maxwell sometimes made arrangements, and specifically details an incident where Maxwell helped a 15-year-old Jane board a flight from New York to Palm Beach despite having no identification.
DOJ-OGR-00016455.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney argues the legal definitions of "persuade," "induce," and "entice." Citing the case U.S. v. Broxmeyer and the Random House Dictionary, the speaker asserts these words imply causation, requiring an action by the defendant to bring about an effect. The attorney concludes by stating that the only evidence linking their client, Ms. Maxwell, to a trip taken by "Jane" to New York is Jane's own testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016446.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Swain. Swain recounts multiple attempts to ask a person named Annie about a trip she took to New Mexico, specifically after Annie's return from Thailand and Vietnam in the summer of 1996. Annie was consistently evasive and refused to discuss the trip, repeatedly stating, "I'm not going to let it ruin my life."
DOJ-OGR-00016444.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination where an unnamed witness describes picking up a person named Annie from the airport in Arizona after her trip to New Mexico. The witness states Annie was quiet and withdrawn, and that Ghislaine had bought her a new pair of boots. The testimony also covers a trip Annie took in the summer of 1996 to Thailand and Vietnam, which was allegedly paid for by a 'Foundation'.
Witness Logistics
Discussing arrangements for Jane to travel home and potential recall needs.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity