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-00020837.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated February 28, 2023 (filing date). Attorneys Mr. Everdell (Defense) and Ms. Moe (Prosecution) are arguing over how to answer a jury question regarding 'Count Four' and 'Jane.' The debate centers on whether a 'return flight' from New Mexico can serve as the basis for a conviction if the initial flight's intent for illegal sexual activity is in question.
DOJ-OGR-00019061.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 procedural exchange between the judge (THE COURT) and Ms. Comey about bringing the jury and a witness, identified as Rodgers, into the courtroom. After Ms. Comey agrees to the procedure, the judge gives the order to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00019056.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers. After a series of questions about aircraft ownership were objected to by Ms. Comey and sustained by the court, the questioning shifts to Mr. Rodgers' familiarity with a place called Interlochen, described as a summer arts camp for musicians and singers.
DOJ-OGR-00019021.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The testimony focuses on two flights from July 2001, confirming that Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Roberts were passengers on a flight from Santa Fe to Teterboro. It also establishes that Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Roberts were the only two passengers on a subsequent flight from St. Thomas to Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00018978.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers authenticates their pilot logbook, confirming it is an accurate record kept in the regular course of their duties. The government attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully moves to admit the logbook into evidence as a sealed exhibit (662) and a redacted public version (662-R), which the court accepts without objection from opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00018961.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Mrs. Hesse by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding message pads containing messages for Mr. Epstein. Hesse confirms she took messages at the residence when Epstein was absent and defends the accuracy of the messages she personally wrote, while acknowledging she cannot vouch for messages written by others.
DOJ-OGR-00018938.jpg
This document is page 76 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between Ms. Moe (Prosecution) and Mr. Pagliuca (Defense) regarding the evidentiary weight and authenticity of message books/logs. Ms. Moe argues the logs are sequential and chronological, while Mr. Pagliuca contends they are disorganized, missing dates, and that multiple books were used haphazardly by staff.
DOJ-OGR-00018932.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe is seeking to admit three spiral-bound message books as evidence, arguing they have been properly authenticated and should be admitted despite a hearsay objection, citing that similar evidence was previously accepted in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00018926.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. A witness, identified as Hesse, testifies about being employed around 2003 at the Palm Beach residence of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The witness states they were hired directly by Ghislaine Maxwell to maintain the home when the owners were not present.
DOJ-OGR-00018925.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the beginning of the direct examination of a witness, Nicole Hesse, who has been called by the Government. After being sworn in, Ms. Hesse states and spells her name for the record and answers preliminary questions from an attorney, Ms. Moe, about her birthplace (West Palm Beach, Florida) and where she grew up (North Palm Beach).
DOJ-OGR-00018912.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal objection made by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, under Rule 404(b) during the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, counters that the testimony is "Direct evidence," prompting the judge to intervene.
DOJ-OGR-00018905.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Shawn testifies about receiving phone calls from three women—one named Sarah, one with an English accent, and one with a French-sounding accent. The purpose of these calls was to convey a message that a person named Jeffrey was requesting someone named Carolyn to work.
DOJ-OGR-00018897.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the beginning of the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by an attorney, Ms. Comey. During the testimony, Shawn spells his first name and identifies Government Exhibit 20 as a copy of his ID.
DOJ-OGR-00018875.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether employee insurance documents from Mar-a-Lago should be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are retained for business purposes like potential disputes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain hearsay and are not integral to Mar-a-Lago's business. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before making a ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00018846.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 a $2,804,000 compensation payment Carolyn received, from which $446,000 was subtracted for prior claims against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Kellen. The transcript also shows the judge sustaining an objection to one of Carolyn's answers and Mr. Pagliuca confirming her understanding that submitting false information could lead to forfeiture of the compensation money.
DOJ-OGR-00018814.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Comey, and the judge. They are debating inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness named Carolyn, specifically regarding the timeframe of payments she allegedly received from Mr. Epstein and whether her testimony described sexual contact or merely being seen naked in a massage room. The judge ultimately suggests checking the official transcript to resolve the dispute.
DOJ-OGR-00018805.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, before a judge. Ms. Comey defends a legal complaint against claims of inconsistency with a witness's testimony, particularly regarding the omission of certain details about 'sex acts'. The judge ultimately rules on the matter related to 'paragraph 39', sustaining an objection by finding a testified detail to be significant.
DOJ-OGR-00018786.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness named Carolyn. The questioning centers on a paragraph from a 2009 federal complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, which alleges Epstein paid Carolyn $300 after an encounter. The transcript captures a legal objection by another attorney, Ms. Comey, which the judge sustains.
DOJ-OGR-00018785.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn regarding allegations against Jeffrey Epstein. The testimony, read from a legal filing, describes an incident where Carolyn was paid $300 by Epstein to observe a sexual act performed by her friend on him. It also mentions a subsequent telephone call where Epstein requested Carolyn return to his residence to give him a massage.
DOJ-OGR-00018747.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 establishes that approximately 19 years prior, Carolyn visited a specific house for the first time, accompanied by Virginia Roberts, who led her inside and upstairs. The proceedings are then paused for a lunch break by the judge, who addresses an individual named Mr. Pagliuca.
DOJ-OGR-00018721.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn discusses her past visits to Jeffrey Epstein's house, stating she went for money to support her son, and stopped going when she 'became too old' at 18. She also admits to using and being addicted to cocaine and pain pills, continuing after her association with Epstein ended.
DOJ-OGR-00018704.jpg
This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies that either Maxwell or Sarah would schedule her appointments and arrange for a car to take her to Jeffrey Epstein's house. She states that her driver, Shawn, waited outside and that she saw Mr. Epstein outside the house on at least one occasion when she was with Shawn.
DOJ-OGR-00018689.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies that she initially told an individual named Shawn she was seventeen, but he learned her true age was nearly fourteen after attending her birthday party. She further states that Shawn facilitated her meeting with Jeffrey Epstein through his friends, Virginia Roberts and Tony Figueroa.
DOJ-OGR-00018657.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Ms. Pomerantz conducting a direct examination of witness Mr. Flatley. Mr. Flatley identifies Government Exhibits 418 and 418R, confirming they are accurate copies of a document he reviewed. Subsequently, Ms. Pomerantz offers the exhibits into evidence to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018645.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, covering the beginning of testimony from a government witness, Stephen Flatley. After being sworn in, Flatley is questioned by attorney Ms. Pomerantz and establishes his identity and his employment with the FBI's Computer Analysis Response Team in the New York division.
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