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-00017984.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the beginning of a direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Ms. Comey. The questioning concerns the layout of a house using Government Exhibit 298 but is quickly paused due to technical issues with a touch screen and the judge's decision to call a recess for the jurors' lunch.
DOJ-OGR-00017955.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, discusses his intention to use a specific study from John Jay College during cross-examination. The study concluded that certain factors cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior, and Mr. Pagliuca receives permission from the Court to question a witness on these findings.
DOJ-OGR-00017939.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on the psychological aspects of childhood sexual abuse, specifically the role of trust in treatment. Another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the line of questioning, leading to rulings from the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00017938.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio, an expert witness. The testimony focuses on the psychological factors influencing when victims of childhood sexual abuse disclose their trauma, emphasizing the need for safety and belief, and discusses the long-term adverse health impacts of such abuse. The document is part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
DOJ-OGR-00017935.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who discusses the commonality of delayed disclosure of sexual abuse in clinical and forensic practices. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question regarding the witness being the first person patients disclose abuse to, but the objection is overruled by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00017923.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. During the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, the judge sustains an objection to a line of questioning about anecdotal treatment discussions, deeming it beyond scope. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, acknowledges the ruling and prepares to continue.
DOJ-OGR-00017890.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument regarding the admissibility of a document. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues against an objection from defense counsel, stating that the document qualifies as an 'adoptive business record' of a school because it was integrated into their files and relied upon, despite a witness's testimony questioning its reliability. The judge ultimately overrules the objection, allowing the document into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017886.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Kane. The questioning establishes that the school associated with the witness does not have knowledge of or a way to verify the accuracy of information on a specific form, including details about student referrals, financial responsibility, and who paid for the student's attendance. The witness repeatedly confirms their lack of knowledge and the school's lack of relevant records.
DOJ-OGR-00017884.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records the direct examination of a witness, Kane, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, regarding the authentication of an enrollment application for the Professional Children's School, marked as Government Exhibit 761. An opposing attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects on the grounds of hearsay, but the court overrules the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017833.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Matt is being questioned about his past dating relationship with a woman named Jane and what she told him about her difficult home life as a child. The testimony is interrupted by a hearsay objection from an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, which is then argued by another attorney, Ms. Moe, before the judge makes a preliminary ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00017825.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Ms. Menninger (Defense) regarding a witness named 'Jane.' The government requests permission for Jane to leave the district to return to her family while remaining available for potential recall, while the defense raises concerns regarding the witness's exposure to media coverage of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00017808.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney, Ms. Moe, questions Jane about her application for admission to Interlochen for the summer of 1994. This application is identified as Defendant's Exhibit J-3, which the court permits the jury to view.
DOJ-OGR-00017781.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney questions Jane about a past lawsuit allegedly filed by her and her mother against her teacher for pulling her hair, which Jane denies knowing about. Another attorney, Ms. Menninger, discusses the presentation of certified court exhibits (J-7, J-8, J-9) with the judge to clarify the record.
DOJ-OGR-00017756.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on a claim Jane made against Ms. Maxwell via a 'claims program,' which resulted in an initial offer of $5 million. The witness confirms receiving the offer and a subsequent wire transfer, but suggests the amount wired was not the full $5 million.
DOJ-OGR-00017747.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on a trip she took to Europe with her family when she was possibly 15 years old. The attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, briefly discuss an exhibit, J-6, which is being used to refresh the witness's memory about past flights.
DOJ-OGR-00017738.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on Jane hiring a 'tough litigator' around 2015 to counter press allegations that she was a 'Yugoslavian sex slave'. The examination probes into payments made to this lawyer, specifically questioning a 'quarter of a million dollars' amount which Jane denies in this testimony, and confirms she spoke with the government on September 2, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00017735.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal cross-examination, likely a deposition or court testimony, dated August 10, 2022. The witness, identified as Jane, is questioned about commercial flights paid for by an unidentified male, sending a photograph with a note ('Thanks for rocking my world') to Epstein when she was 19, and her mother's alleged involvement in making her send it. The testimony also references exhibits and the lack of dates on photographs.
DOJ-OGR-00017730.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioner confronts Jane with a prior statement she allegedly made to the government about receiving phone calls from someone named Emmy in Florida when she was a teenager. Jane denies making the statement and claims the written record of it is incorrect, leading to objections from her counsel, Ms. Moe, and rulings from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017726.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, who is asked if she has seen pictures of someone named Sophie since September 2019. An attorney, Ms. Moe, objects, and another attorney, Ms. Menninger, provides 'Lack of evidence' as the grounds, which the judge questions.
DOJ-OGR-00017709.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on a discrepancy in her prior statements to the government regarding a trip to New York with Maxwell and Epstein at age 14, specifically about seeing the Broadway show 'The Lion King,' which did not premiere until she was 17. The transcript reveals communications between the government and Jane occurred through her legal representatives, including a Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00017705.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies in her prior statements to the government about a trip to New York with Epstein and Maxwell, specifically a trip to see 'The Lion King'. The witness's attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to the line of questioning, which is overruled by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017691.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. They are discussing a complex legal issue regarding an amended rule and a Second Circuit decision on the admissibility of civil litigation settlements in a criminal case. The judge expresses doubt that the rule amendment overrules the binding Second Circuit precedent and asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to research the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00017682.jpg
This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on her past interactions with 'Ghislaine' and 'Epstein' and a statement she allegedly made to the government in December 2019. The witness states she does not recall making the statement and is directed to review a document (3509-005) to refresh her memory.
DOJ-OGR-00017671.jpg
This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on Jane's prior statements to government agents about Jeffrey Epstein's behavior, specifically whether he controlled where people sat in movie theaters. The transcript includes a legal objection by an attorney, Ms. Moe, which is overruled by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017664.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the correct procedure for questioning a witness, Jane, who repeatedly claims she cannot remember her prior statements to the government. The judge advises the attorneys on how to phrase questions to avoid improperly introducing prior statements when the witness has no recollection.
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