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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument between Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell before a judge regarding the admissibility an... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination of witness Young regarding the seizure of boots and a trial prep session. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument concerning jury instructions for the terms 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' 'enticeme... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | An unnamed speaker (likely an attorney) argues before a judge that the government's lack of thoro... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Jane regarding past trips and a document labeled J-6. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Mr. Parkinson regarding photographs marked as Government Exhibits 2... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Direct examination | Ms. Menninger questions witness Mr. Hyppolite about his residence, employment history, and job re... | Courtroom or deposition set... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument regarding the admissibility of undated and unauthenticated photographs as eviden... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination of witness Mr. Parkinson by Ms. Comey regarding Government Exhibits 238, 239, ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, during which a judge sustains an objection to a li... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A speaker makes a legal argument defining the words 'persuade, induce, entice' by citing case law... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Maguire regarding the identification of Government Exhibits 903-R a... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court hearing where attorneys argued the admissibility of testimony regarding a stain found on ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Pomerantz. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | A court hearing where the purpose and motivation behind Jane's travel were debated. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Mr. Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the identification of Govern... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Kane regarding a school's record-keeping and information verificati... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A stipulation was entered into the court record regarding the authenticity of several government ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness A. Farmer, as recorded in this transcript. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Mrs. Hesse regarding messages taken for Mr. Epstein. | courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of Special Agent Maguire regarding a search and the introduction of Government... | Courtroom | 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 witness Dr. Dubin regarding identification of individuals in Government Exh... | Courtroom (implied) | 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 |
DOJ-OGR-00017562.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named "Jane." An attorney, Ms. Moe, questions Jane about whether her mother was aware that she was spending time with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as a teenager. Jane confirms her mother knew and was "enamored" by the idea, though they did not discuss it in detail. The transcript also includes a hearsay objection by another attorney, Ms. Menninger, which is overruled by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017561.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Jane. Jane describes her difficult home life in Florida between the ages of 14 and 17, following the sudden death of her father. She testifies that her family lost their home and that her mother, who was depressed and concerned with appearances, did not allow the children to grieve or discuss their feelings, which Jane found 'really difficult'.
DOJ-OGR-00017549.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named 'Jane' by an attorney, 'Ms. Moe'. Jane testifies that 'Maxwell' (Ghislaine Maxwell) was present during unspecified incidents that occurred when Jane was 14 and 16 years old. Jane also confirms that she began traveling with both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the age of 14.
DOJ-OGR-00017522.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Ms. Moe, questions a witness named Jane, who testifies that she met Jeffrey Epstein in 1994. Jane further states that she first had sexual contact with Epstein when she was fourteen years old and that it occurred more than once at that age.
DOJ-OGR-00017487.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. The witness clarifies that Ghislaine's New York residence was at 116 East 65th Street and confirms that from 1991 through the 2000s, Ghislaine maintained a residence separate from Jeffrey Epstein's. The witness also states they would pick up luggage for both Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein, but from their respective residences.
DOJ-OGR-00017459.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a brief exchange between Mr. Everdell and the court during the cross-examination of a person named Visoski, where the court announces its intention to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00011674.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. Government counsel, Ms. Moe, raises a concern about the defense's plan to show documents to a witness on a screen that the government cannot see, making it difficult to follow. The judge (The Court) proposes a solution where the defense can use the screen as long as they verbally describe their actions, and offers the same allowance for the government to use paper documents if projection is not possible.
DOJ-OGR-00011672.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Moe, representing the government, requests the opportunity to review binders of documents before they are presented to a witness or the jury. The Court affirms that the government and the Court must see any document before it is shown, clarifying the procedure for using such materials in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011670.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell about trial logistics, specifically the seating of legal teams to ensure proper distancing and the methodology for presenting evidence to witnesses and jurors. Mr. Everdell explains they have prepared physical binders for witnesses but still hope to use electronic methods.
DOJ-OGR-00011636.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The judge instructs Mr. Pagliuca on the preferred procedure for presenting documents during cross-examination, emphasizing the use of pre-organized, tabbed paper binders for efficiency. The judge also provides for exceptions, allowing for documents not in the binder to be presented either as paper copies or on a screen.
DOJ-OGR-00011583.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a portion of a court proceeding where a witness, identified only as 'Kate' due to an anonymity order, begins to deliver her victim impact statement. Before she speaks, Ms. Moe confirms the protective order with the court, which is affirmed, and Kate then starts her emotional testimony about fearing for her child's safety and fighting for justice against a 'common enemy'.
DOJ-OGR-00011577.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on July 22, 2022, concerning United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text, likely spoken by a prosecutor during sentencing arguments, characterizes Maxwell as Jeffrey Epstein's 'right hand' and a 'partner in crime' who preyed on children and viewed people as either 'disposable' or 'mattered.' It highlights that she received millions of dollars from Epstein to fund a luxurious lifestyle and emphasizes the lasting trauma inflicted on the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00011548.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on July 22, 2022, detailing a legal argument between a government representative, Ms. Moe, and the Court. The discussion focuses on establishing the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, as an 'organizer or leader' for sentencing purposes by proving she exercised a supervisory role over at least one other criminally responsible participant. The government specifically identifies Sarah Kellen as the individual supervised by Ms. Maxwell, based on evidence from the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011529.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022. In it, the judge makes findings of fact, stating it is probable the defendant paid Carolyn and Virginia for bringing and recruiting other girls. The judge then overrules two objections: one regarding the inclusion of a person named Kate, and another concerning the characterization of the defendant having groomed a person named Jane.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity