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-00013438.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. Attorney Ms. Comey requests that the jury be directed to Government Exhibit 14, specifically to a child's name and date of birth entry. After receiving no objection from opposing counsel Mr. Everdell and approval from the court, Ms. Comey concludes her direct examination of the witness, Rodgers.
DOJ-OGR-00013413.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers. Rodgers testifies that he first met a passenger, referred to as 'Jane', on a flight on November 11, 1996, and saw her a total of four times on Jeffrey Epstein's planes. He also states that Jane flew with both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00013377.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse. The questioning focuses on messages written for Mr. Epstein, establishing that Mrs. Hesse can only vouch for the accuracy of messages she personally wrote and that she took these messages at his residence only when he was absent.
DOJ-OGR-00013364.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, focusing on a discussion about 'Government Exhibit 1B'. Ms. Moe requests the jury to access the exhibit and clarifies its location in binders, then proceeds to question Mrs. Hesse about it. A key point is Ms. Moe's caution about not reading names aloud from the exhibit, suggesting sensitive information.
DOJ-OGR-00013357.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It details testimony regarding the standard procedure for taking phone messages for a 'Mr. Epstein,' which involved writing the caller's name and number in a message book. This testimony is presented as being consistent with previous testimony from Juan Alessi, who stated that he, his wife, and another personal assistant also took messages in a similar fashion.
DOJ-OGR-00013350.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of evidence. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Pagliuca debate with the judge whether 'message slips,' allegedly from a victim named Carolyn, can be admitted under the business record exception to the hearsay rule. The discussion also covers the authentication of these slips, which are described as often undated, unsigned, and cryptic.
DOJ-OGR-00013344.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Mrs. Hesse. Hesse describes being instructed by Ghislaine (Maxwell) to record all phone messages in a specific notebook kept in the kitchen whenever Epstein and Maxwell were away from the house. The attorney, Ms. Moe, then presents Government Exhibits to the witness for identification.
DOJ-OGR-00013342.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, containing the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. The witness testifies about their employment in approximately 2003 at the Palm Beach residence of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Hesse states they were hired by Maxwell to perform maintenance and care for the home when the owners were absent.
DOJ-OGR-00013341.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the beginning of testimony from a witness named Nicole Hesse. After being sworn in, Ms. Hesse states her name for the record and answers preliminary questions from an attorney, Ms. Moe, establishing her birthplace as West Palm Beach, Florida, and that she grew up in North Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00013332.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. The witness identifies a photograph, Government Exhibit 105, as being from 'Melissa's 16th birthday' and names Carolyn, Melissa, and Candace as individuals in the photo. Following a request from the government's attorney, Ms. Comey, the court admits the exhibit into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of the individuals depicted.
DOJ-OGR-00013329.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conversation between attorneys and a judge. The discussion revolves around a procedural issue: whether the prosecution can refer to a person named Amanda Lazlo as a victim, given that her name was not previously disclosed to the defense as required by a court order. The attorneys debate the admissibility of testimony about Amanda from a witness named Carolyn the previous day, with Amanda's age (stated as 18) being a key point of contention.
DOJ-OGR-00013304.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim before a judge. The judge overrules a relevance objection made by Ms. Sternheim regarding evidence or a case mentioned by Mr. Rohrbach, but allows her to state the objection for the record.
DOJ-OGR-00013291.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal debate over whether employee insurance records from Mar-a-Lago (Government Exhibit 824) can be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are kept for business purposes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain inadmissible hearsay. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before ruling on their admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00010611.jpg
This document is page 2 of a victim impact statement filed on June 24, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Submitted by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley, the text is a first-person account from a victim detailing the lasting trauma, nightmares, and hyper-vigilance caused by Maxwell's abuse. The victim demands Maxwell spend the rest of her life in prison and vows to continue speaking out against predators.
DOJ-OGR-00010262.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, detailing the end of a witness's testimony and a subsequent procedural discussion. A witness denies that reading the case summary, which involves sexual crimes, made them reflect on their own past sexual abuse. After the witness is excused, the judge (THE COURT) discusses the schedule for post-trial briefings with the government's counsel, Ms. Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00010239.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on March 11, 2022. It details the questioning of a juror about their past sexual abuse and their decision to be open about it, which was inspired by victims' testimony during the trial. The questioner specifically references the voir dire process that occurred on November 16, 2021, where the juror was initially questioned based on a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00010232.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It captures the questioning of a witness about their answers on a jury selection questionnaire. The examiner probes whether the witness, who has a history of sexual abuse, intentionally provided inaccurate answers to get selected for the jury, which the witness denies. The witness also recounts the timeline of being summoned for jury duty and filling out the questionnaire on November 4th.
DOJ-OGR-00010180.jpg
This document is a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues against a motion for a new trial. She references a letter from Catherine Conrad about jury deliberations concerning David Parse, noting the jury struggled with the legal definitions of 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' but ultimately made a deliberate and informed decision, as evidenced by their verdict on conspiracy and tax evasion counts. The discussion highlights the legal nuances that influenced the jury's split verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00010163.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 22, 2022. In it, an attorney argues to a judge that an opposing counsel's failure to investigate a matter was not a strategic choice to "sandbag" the court, but rather a result of incompetence, described as being "careless" and "inept." The speaker references a standard from the Second Circuit and the judge's own prior findings to argue that the other counsel "dropped the ball."
DOJ-OGR-00010162.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a speaker criticizes the past actions of an unnamed woman and her two senior colleagues. The speaker argues they failed to properly investigate or report information to the court, possibly due to exhaustion or intimidation, which the judge later termed a 'tragic misjudgment'. This failure to act ultimately led to the substitution of a juror several days later.
DOJ-OGR-00010052.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, by an attorney, Mr. Davis. During the examination, a document identified as Ms. Brune's "July 21st letter at the Court" is introduced as Government Exhibit 28. After opposing counsel, Mr. Shechtman, states he has no objection, the Court officially receives the exhibit into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00010037.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning centers on a previous statement made by Ms. Trzaskoma to the court, where she offered to submit a letter about newly discovered facts. The questioner probes whether a specific 'Westlaw report' was one of these facts.
DOJ-OGR-00010006.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony from a witness, Ms. Brune, regarding the jury selection process. She explains that her team had gathered 'Google-type information' on potential jurors but she chose to credit the jurors' in-court 'voir dire' responses. Ms. Brune admits she understood she could have asked Judge Pauley to inquire further about specific jurors based on this external information but did not do so.
DOJ-OGR-00009497.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing arguments made by MS. DAVIS regarding defendant Mr. Parse. MS. DAVIS asserts overwhelming evidence of Mr. Parse's criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud, specifically mentioning his role in backdated transactions and the relevance of his CPA background. The transcript also references testimony from Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein, and communications related to the case after a jury verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009495.jpg
This document is a court transcript where an attorney argues that the opposing defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. The attorney claims the defense knew about a potentially disqualifying issue concerning the 'Brune & Richard law firm' before jury selection but deliberately withheld this information from the court. This action is characterized as an impermissible 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose' strategy, which the speaker contends is sufficient grounds to defeat a finding of ineffective counsel.
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