Brian
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
JANE
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Sister
|
Siblings |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Siblings |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Witnesses who communicated |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Familial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Fellow witnesses |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Communicated |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Prosecutor and witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Co witnesses |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Cooperating witness informant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Informational |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Former witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
[REDACTED] female student
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Informational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Government withdrew witness Brian. | Court | View |
| N/A | Witness testimony | Brian is scheduled to testify, but the court decides he will not testify until after lunch. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Flight | Brian had planned to fly home, creating a scheduling issue for his testimony. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conversation | Brian volunteered information to the government. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Communication | Jane communicated with Brian about a document she was shown on the stand. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Flight | Brian is planning to fly home. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Brian met with the government long before the trial began. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conversation | A recent conversation between Jane and Brian occurred during the trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Brian had planned to fly home tomorrow. | From court location to home | View |
| N/A | Trial | An ongoing trial where testimony is being heard and discussed. The case number is 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony | The testimony of a witness named Brian is being discussed, specifically its consistency with prio... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government meeting with witness Brian. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government meeting with witness Brian | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Violation of Sequestration Order: Witness Jane contacted witness Brian to discuss testimony. | Unknown | View |
| 2025-11-21 | Meeting or travel | A potential event is scheduled for "Friday 5:30pm". | oregon | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017647.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The defense questions Jane about conversations she had with her older brother, Brian, shortly after a meeting with Epstein in 1994, specifically asking if she mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell's presence or Epstein's comments about her father (Jane claims not to recall these specific details). Jane does confirm speaking to her younger brother about the events over the last 20 years.
DOJ-OGR-00018868.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge, defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding witness strategy. The defense is undecided about recalling 'Jane' or calling 'Brian', while the prosecution flags the possibility of calling 'victim 2' to the stand that day.
DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg
This is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense (Mr. Rohrbach) argues that the recall of witness 'Jane' should be limited to a prior consistent statement. The prosecution (Ms. Menninger) argues that Jane's potential contact with her subpoenaed younger brother violates a sequestration order and should be open for questioning. The Court discusses a lack of a specific order prohibiting witnesses from speaking to each other and references a text message from June 15th.
DOJ-OGR-00018866.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense attorney (Ms. Menninger) and the prosecutor (Mr. Rohrbach) are discussing a potential witness named Brian before the Judge. The government has decided not to call Brian, and the defense is debating whether to call him despite having him under subpoena, due to concerns about his prior inconsistent statements regarding his sister and the risk of opening the door to prior consistent statements.
DOJ-OGR-00018864.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. The dialogue involves a procedural dispute between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the potential recalling of a witness named Jane and the subpoena status of a witness named Brian. The defense raises concerns about missing disclosures regarding conversations Jane had with her brother, questioning the truthfulness of the recounting of events.
DOJ-OGR-00018857.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and the judge. The primary topic is the status of witnesses, with the government (represented by Ms. Moe) seeking confirmation that the defense will not recall a witness named Jane, following the completed testimony of Matt and the withdrawal of Brian. The defense (represented by Ms. Menninger) requests time to consider, and the judge instructs them to confer and address the issue the next day.
DOJ-OGR-00018853.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about witness scheduling. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, informs the court that an investigation could not be completed and they will not call a witness named Brian. In response to a request from defense counsel, the court directs that an updated witness list be provided that evening.
DOJ-OGR-00018758.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion between a judge and attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger. The main topics are a potential violation of a witness sequestration order, after Ms. Menninger admits to speaking briefly with a Ms. Moe, and the scheduling of future proceedings. The judge requires the attorneys to brief the sequestration issue and indicates a decision on whether a person named Brian will testify is pending their input.
DOJ-OGR-00018752.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details an afternoon session where the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Menninger) discuss the late discovery of text messages involving 'Jane' and her brother. As a result, the parties agree to delay the testimony of a witness named Brian until the following morning to allow time to review the new evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018682.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe, Mr. Pagliuca). The conversation focuses on scheduling the next witness, whose testimony is expected to extend past the lunch break, and the potential need to call a witness out of order. The judge agrees to the proposed flexibility before preparing to bring the jury into the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00018615.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge sustains an objection to Exhibit 309 and grants a request by Ms. Moe for a sealed sidebar discussion regarding the cross-examination of an individual named Brian due to privacy concerns. Consequently, pages 1440 to 1443 of the transcript are noted as sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00018610.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. The judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger discuss the timeline for investigating a potential violation of a sequestration order, deciding not to expedite the matter due to a person named Brian's travel plans. Ms. Menninger also raises a new issue, highlighting a discrepancy between a recent letter from the government and information she received in a prior conferral.
DOJ-OGR-00018609.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and two counsels, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the scheduling and scope of testimony for a witness named Brian, who has a flight planned for the next day. The court directs the government to first inquire about what Brian learned from another individual, Jane, before he testifies.
DOJ-OGR-00018607.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a potential sequestration order violation has occurred. She expresses concern that a witness, Brian, was told information by another person, Jane, about a document shown during testimony. Ms. Menninger requests that the court question Brian under oath, outside the jury's presence, to determine the extent of the communication before he testifies.
DOJ-OGR-00018605.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and a lawyer, Ms. Moe. The judge expresses concern that a witness, Brian, may have been coached by another person, Jane, during a recent conversation. Ms. Moe refutes this by arguing that Brian's testimony is consistent with statements he provided to the government long before the trial, which are documented in '3500 material', thus proving his testimony was not recently influenced.
DOJ-OGR-00018604.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. It details a discussion between the Judge and Prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding witness conduct, specifically whether witnesses were instructed not to confer with one another. Ms. Moe confirms it is standard practice to instruct witnesses not to speak to each other, and discloses a meeting 'last night' with a witness named Brian, who revealed he had spoken with another witness, Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00018601.jpg
This legal document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing an argument about witness tampering. An attorney informs the judge that a witness who already testified contacted a future witness, Brian, to discuss their testimony, potentially violating a sequestration order. The attorney requests that Brian be barred from testifying, while another attorney, Ms. Moe, begins a counterargument by citing legal rules regarding witness exclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00013284.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between attorneys and a judge about witness strategy. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, states she cannot yet confirm which witnesses her side will call, while the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, flags the possibility of calling 'victim 2' later that day. The discussion highlights the fluid nature of trial proceedings and witness scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00013283.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys discuss the potential recall of a witness named 'Jane' and whether she violated a sequestration order by communicating with her younger brother, who was also under subpoena. The Judge notes that while such communication is poor practice, no specific order barring witness communication had been entered.
DOJ-OGR-00013282.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 the Judge (The Court), defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding a potential witness named Brian. The defense is weighing the risks of calling Brian due to his prior inconsistent statements regarding his sister, while the prosecution notes that Brian has already left the district as he is no longer a government witness.
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-00013272.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. The discussion involves logistics regarding witnesses identified as Jane, Matt, and Brian. The government (Ms. Moe) seeks confirmation that the defense will not recall Jane so she can be released, noting that Matt has testified and Brian will not be testifying.
DOJ-OGR-00013268.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the Court and various counsel. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, announces they cannot complete a factual investigation on time and have decided not to call a witness named Brian. Other counsel then discuss the need for an updated witness list in light of this development.
DOJ-OGR-00013173.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge and attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger about a potential violation of a witness sequestration order. The judge instructs the attorneys to brief the issue and schedules further discussion on whether a potential witness named Brian will testify.
DOJ-OGR-00013167.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion about newly discovered text messages between a person named Jane and her brother. The government attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, requests a delay in calling a witness, Brian, to allow time to analyze the messages. The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, agrees but expresses concern about the piecemeal disclosure of information and requests a formal, under-oath representation from the witness.
Legal compulsion to testify
Ms. Menninger confirms 'We have him under subpoena.'
Court testimony
A witness who had already testified called Brian, an anticipated witness, to discuss their experience on the witness stand, including a document they were shown. This communication is the basis for a request to bar Brian from testifying.
Report of call from Jane
Brian told the government about his call with Jane.
Unknown
Communications between Brian and Jane discussed in court.
Inconsistent statements
Statements inconsistent with his sister's accounts.
Unknown, but involved Brian volunteering two pieces of in...
Brian volunteered two pieces of information to the government. Ms. Menninger is concerned there was more to this conversation than what was revealed.
Substance of testimony
Brian relayed the substance of his testimony to the government long before the trial began, which was memorialized in '3500 material'.
Substance of testimony
Brian relayed the substance of his testimony to the government long before the trial began, which was memorialized in '3500 material'.
Pre-trial/Trial preparation
Brian unprompted mentioned he heard from Jane.
Unknown
Brian heard from Jane (content cut off at end of page).
Witness Preparation/Interview
Brian mentioned unprompted that he heard from Jane regarding her status as a witness subject to recall.
Trial Status
Jane mentioned she was potentially subject to recall and recross.
Post-testimony warning
Jane told Brian the defense attorney is an expletive and 'that's what this will be like.' She also mentioned being shown an Interlochen application.
Testimony discussion
Jane discussed her court testimony with Brian and disclosed a document shown during cross-examination.
Report of witness communication
Brian reported the phone call he received from another witness to the government, and this information was then relayed to the speaker's party via handwritten notes.
Meeting with Epstein
Defense alleges Jane told Brian she was approached by Epstein and that Epstein knew their father. Jane states she does not recall.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity