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-00016436.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Swain, by attorney Ms. Pomerantz, where the witness identifies Maria Farmer's middle child as Annie Farmer. The questioning then leads to the identification of Government Exhibit 13 as Annie Farmer's birth certificate.
DOJ-OGR-00016434.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the end of the testimony of a witness named Mulligan, who speaks briefly about a memorable conversation with someone named Annie regarding New Mexico. After Mulligan is excused, the government's attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, calls the next witness, Janice Swain.
DOJ-OGR-00016428.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which a witness named Mulligan provides testimony. The witness recounts what a person named Annie told her about an experience with Jeffrey Epstein in New Mexico while they were in high school. According to the testimony, Annie was afraid to speak up about the incident because she feared jeopardizing her sister Maria's opportunities with Epstein. The witness states that Annie told her that after a massage, Epstein followed her into her bedroom and climbed into bed with her.
DOJ-OGR-00016383.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer. The questioning focuses on discrepancies between her current testimony and prior statements made to a victims' compensation fund and the government regarding massages she received from Mr. Epstein. The questions highlight details such as Epstein staring and groaning during a foot massage, and another massage in New Mexico where her chest and breast were touched.
DOJ-OGR-00013281.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger and Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach argue over the relevance of a potential witness identified as 'the other brother' and his potential communications with a witness named 'Jane.' The defense notes they have subpoenaed this brother based on his prior FBI interviews, while the prosecution argues there is no basis for further inquiry as 'Jane' has already testified and the government is not calling 'Brian' as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013254.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on voice messages left for the witness by a Mr. Scarola in 2019 and 2020 concerning contact with the government. The opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, repeatedly objects to this line of questioning on the basis of privilege, and the court sustains her objections, preventing the witness from answering.
DOJ-OGR-00013206.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding her sworn answers to interrogatories from 2009. The witness repeatedly states she is confused, and her attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully objects to the line of questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00013191.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, confronts Carolyn with her 2007 statement to the FBI, in which she allegedly claimed a person named Sarah called her to relay messages from Epstein regarding concert tickets and a request to take photographs. The witness appears to challenge the relevance of the questions to the document she is being shown.
DOJ-OGR-00013176.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conversation during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Attorneys, including Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, debate the appropriateness of discussing Carolyn's mental health and family issues, which are linked to past actions by someone named Epstein. The judge ultimately decides to move the sensitive discussion to the robing room to be held under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00013152.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. An attorney questions her about a statement she allegedly made to the FBI in 2007, claiming Virginia offered her $300 at a party. Carolyn denies the accuracy of the statement, clarifying the event was not a party and took place at Virginia's house.
DOJ-OGR-00013136.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies that she visited Jeffrey Epstein's house multiple times after giving birth to her son because she needed money, and that she stopped visiting when she turned 18 because she was "too old." She also admits to developing an addiction to cocaine and pain pills after her association with Epstein ended.
DOJ-OGR-00013093.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley. The testimony centers on a computer which had only one non-default user account belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell. The questioning attorney attempts to establish that other people could have accessed the computer, but the witness repeatedly states they do not know who had access or where the computer was located.
DOJ-OGR-00013051.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. An attorney for the government, Ms. Comey, successfully enters Exhibit 332 into evidence under seal to protect a third party's privacy. After the jury is instructed to view the evidence, attorney Ms. Menninger begins her cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Meder, regarding photographs she copied.
DOJ-OGR-00013046.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents the direct examination of a witness named Meder by an attorney, Ms. Comey. The witness identifies a photograph, admitted as Government Exhibit 348, which was sourced from a CD during the 'Epstein and Maxwell investigation'. The witness confirms the photograph shows Ghislaine Maxwell on the left and Jeffrey Epstein on the right.
DOJ-OGR-00013043.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on August 10, 2022, related to case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. During the direct examination of a witness named Meder, a photograph showing Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein is identified and admitted into evidence as Exhibit GX-342. The photo originated from a CD logged as '1B63' from the 'Epstein and Maxwell investigation'.
DOJ-OGR-00013038.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Meder by an attorney, Ms. Comey. The witness identifies a photograph, admitted as Government Exhibit 324, as originating from a CD related to the 'Epstein and Maxwell investigation.' The witness confirms the photograph depicts Jeffrey Epstein on the left and Ghislaine Maxwell on the right.
DOJ-OGR-00013026.jpg
This page contains a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. A defense attorney is arguing before the judge to limit the testimony of a witness named Mr. Flatley. The argument focuses on distinguishing between factual testimony regarding metadata (which the defense accepts) and expert opinion, as well as precluding testimony regarding CDs (Compact Discs) because Flatley was only disclosed to review 'devices.'
DOJ-OGR-00013024.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between two lawyers, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe, and the judge regarding the testimony of a witness named Brian. The discussion focuses on scheduling Brian's testimony around his plan to fly home the next day and the scope of his questioning, specifically concerning information he may have received from another individual named Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00013018.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion between attorney Ms. Moe and the judge regarding a conversation between two siblings, one of whom was a witness named Jane. Ms. Moe explains that one sibling described her court testimony as an 'unpleasant experience' to the other. The judge inquires about whether the government had instructed witnesses not to discuss testimony, and Ms. Moe recounts her own conversation with Jane's attorney on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00013017.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE). The discussion centers on the rules of witness sequestration, specifically concerning communications between two witnesses, Jane and Brian, who are implied to be family members. The judge questions the legality and propriety of sequestered witnesses being provided with trial transcripts, testing the boundaries of the sequestration order.
DOJ-OGR-00012999.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues against the admissibility of certain photographs as evidence. She contends that unlike items seized by law enforcement, photographs require a witness to provide context, confirm they are unaltered, and testify to what they depict, especially when they are undated.
DOJ-OGR-00017344.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, discussing the scheduling of a trial's jury deliberation. An unnamed speaker (likely the judge) explains the necessity of the current schedule, citing a significant increase in COVID-19 omicron variant cases in New York City, which poses a risk to trial completion and could lead to a mistrial. Mr. Pagliuca, addressing 'Your Honor,' expresses concern about jurors deliberating through the weekend and New Year's, arguing against retracting a prior commitment from the Court to give them those days off, suggesting deliberation only during the workweek.
DOJ-OGR-00017324.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. They are debating how to respond to a confusing note from the jury, as the placement of a comma in the jury's question drastically changes its meaning regarding responsibility for a flight to New Mexico. Ms. Moe argues that the note is too ambiguous to answer directly and suggests referring the jury back to their instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00017320.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument concerning jury deliberations in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion focuses on whether Maxwell arranged flights for a victim named 'Jane' to or from New Mexico, whether such travel constitutes a crime under Count Four (corrected from Count Two), and the confusion surrounding a specific note sent by the jury regarding these hypothetical facts.
DOJ-OGR-00017317.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, dated August 10, 2022, pertaining to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a discussion between MR. EVERDELL and MS. MOE, addressing 'Your Honor,' regarding a defendant's alleged role in transporting 'Jane' to and from New Mexico. The central issue is whether these flights were intended for illegal sexual activity and if the defendant's actions constitute aiding and abetting, with the jury currently deliberating on these points for a potential conviction on Count Four.
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