Ms. Moe
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
19
Very Strong
|
26 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representative |
17
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
228 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Opposing counsel |
11
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mrs. Hesse
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Maguire
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Special Agent Maguire
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Drescher
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. McHugh
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding regarding trial schedule, closing arguments, and jury deliberation timing relati... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing (likely for Ghislaine Maxwell) | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing enhancements for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of Counts Seven and Eight against Ghislaine Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Carolyn testified and wrote down her mother's phone number to avoid saying it aloud. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426). | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Jane | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution announces intent to rest case | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Pre-sentencing argument | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Patrick McHugh | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Kelly Maguire | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding media reports of Epstein's flight logs | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Nicole Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing Calculation | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding Maxwell's sentencing or appeal points concerning her role in the conspiracy. | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of Shawn's testimony and calling of Nicole Hesse to the stand. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52 (a book) to the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule and closing arguments | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding sexualized massages and relationship timeline. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar regarding cross-examination of witness 'Jane'. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government meeting with witness Brian | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury questions and instructions for Count Four. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018962.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a transition between witnesses. After counsel finishes with a witness named Mrs. Hesse, she is excused, and the government's counsel, Ms. Comey, calls David Rodgers to the stand. Mr. Rodgers is sworn in and, during the initial phase of his direct examination, identifies his profession as a pilot.
DOJ-OGR-00018957.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions witness Ms. Hesse about her knowledge of women visiting Jeffrey Epstein for massages when Ghislaine Maxwell was not present, which Hesse confirms based on messages she took. The testimony also establishes that Hesse knew Maxwell had a home in New York but was unaware of a residence in Miami.
DOJ-OGR-00018954.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination involving a witness named Hesse. The testimony focuses on Hesse's employment history with Maxwell and Epstein, specifically when she started (roughly September 2003) and stopped working for them (around 2004), and that she was hired by Epstein after an interview with Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018953.jpg
This document is page 91 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on identifying a message from 'Carolyn' in Exhibit 3E and establishing that Mrs. Hesse worked at the Palm Beach house specifically when Maxwell and Epstein were not home.
DOJ-OGR-00018952.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by an attorney, Ms. Moe. The questioning confirms that a person named Carolyn left a message for a Mr. Epstein on March 11, 2003, and directs the witness and jury to review Government Exhibits 4B and 3E.
DOJ-OGR-00018951.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by an attorney named Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on confirming the spelling of the name 'Carolyn' and identifying a specific message on 'Government Exhibit 2T' that is addressed 'for Mr. Epstein'.
DOJ-OGR-00018950.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Hesse by Ms. Moe regarding 'Government Exhibit 1B'. The testimony focuses on identifying specific written messages, one dated 8/12/04 signed by the witness, and another dated 7/30 addressed 'for Mr. Epstein', potentially left by someone named Carolyn or someone with the initial 'K'.
DOJ-OGR-00018948.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. An attorney, Ms. Moe, is beginning her direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, regarding 'Government Exhibit 1B'. After a brief delay while the witness locates the exhibit in her binder, Ms. Moe prepares to ask questions, noting the need for discretion by not reading names from the document aloud.
DOJ-OGR-00018947.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a portion of the direct examination of witness Mrs. Hesse by attorney Ms. Moe. During the examination, Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are admitted into evidence under seal by the judge, despite an objection from attorney Mr. Pagliuca being overruled.
DOJ-OGR-00018946.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion between the judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe, about admitting message books as evidence. The judge overrules an objection and indicates a preference for admitting the full books, which Ms. Moe agrees to. Following this exchange, the witness, Mrs. Hesse, is dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00018945.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument regarding the admissibility of 'message books' containing caller names, dates, times, and callback numbers intended for the defendant and Mr. Epstein. The Court overrules an objection, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 803.6 (Business Records), stating that witnesses Alessi and Hesse provided sufficient foundation that these were regular records rather than miscellaneous jottings.
DOJ-OGR-00018944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a debate between two attorneys, Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Moe, over the admissibility of certain records. Mr. Pagliuca argues the records are unreliable and lack the necessary details to qualify for the business record exception. Ms. Moe counters that the records are being offered for the limited purpose of showing the dates and times of calls, and their trustworthiness is supported by the testimony of two other witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00018940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, during the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. Prosecutor Ms. Moe discusses the admissibility and formatting of message exhibits and specifically reads from Government Exhibit 606, a 'household manual,' detailing strict instructions for employees on how to record phone messages.
DOJ-OGR-00018939.jpg
A transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Moe argues for the admissibility of a bound, sequentially numbered book under the 'business records exception,' contending that witnesses do not need to testify to recording entries at the exact moment of occurrence. The Court (Judge) agrees to review the relevant case law during a break.
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-00018937.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the admissibility of spiral-bound message pads used by household staff. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues these are valid business records created under strict instructions from the defendant, while the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) counters that many messages are undated and unsigned, though noting Ms. Hesse's messages were 'well maintained.'
DOJ-OGR-00018936.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. Attorney Ms. Moe and the Court discuss the admissibility of exhibits 1B, 3P, and 3X, debating hearsay objections and the criteria for the 'business records' exception. The Judge outlines the requirements for establishing a foundation for business records.
DOJ-OGR-00018935.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the admissibility of a 'spiral bound book' of message slips during the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. Pagliuca objects under Federal Rules of Evidence 801 and 803.6, arguing the witness lacks the knowledge to establish a business record foundation, while Moe counters that the authenticity of the book itself is not in dispute.
DOJ-OGR-00018934.jpg
This document is a page from the trial transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) where the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Pagliuca) argue over the admissibility of message slips. The prosecution asserts these records prove a victim named 'Carolyn' contacted 'the house' during the conspiracy, while the defense argues the slips lack dates and signatures and cannot be fully authenticated by the current witness (Hesse).
DOJ-OGR-00018933.jpg
This page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) details a legal argument between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the Judge regarding the admissibility of phone message logs. The prosecution argues these logs are business records that corroborate victim testimony about calling 'the house' to schedule massage appointments. The document specifically notes that the name of a victim who testified the previous day appears in these messages.
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-00018931.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the admission of certain records on hearsay grounds, arguing the witness only has personal knowledge of the signatures. In response, the judge decides to address the objection after giving the jury a 15-minute morning break.
DOJ-OGR-00018928.jpg
This page is a transcript of the direct examination of Mrs. Hesse, a former employee of Epstein and Maxwell. She testifies about the protocol for taking phone messages when Epstein and Maxwell were away, specifically describing a blue spiral notebook kept in the kitchen for this purpose. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, then introduces Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to the witness.
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).
New witness list
In response to the Court, Ms. Moe confirms that defense counsel can be provided with a new witness list that evening.
Direct examination regarding messages
Ms. Moe begins questioning Mrs. Hesse about three specific messages, asking her to turn to a binder.
Authentication of an exhibit
Ms. Moe clarifies her position that the witness can authenticate an exhibit belonging to Maxwell and Epstein based on observation, not presence during a specific time period.
Ruling on an objection
The Court sustains an objection made by Ms. Comey, instructs the jury to disregard testimony, and reserves its ruling on the exhibit's admission until after hearing from 'employee one'.
Examination regarding Government Exhibit 925
MS. MOE questions the witness, Maguire, about Government Exhibit 925, which is a photograph of binders containing photo thumbnails and CDs. The witness confirms these items were seized as evidence from a residence and labeled with evidence Item 1B-19.
Summation regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's contact book and ...
Ms. Moe argues to the jury that the entries in Maxwell's contact book were not for legitimate massages, using the entry for Virginia Roberts as an example. She connects Maxwell to Virginia through her father's employment at Mar-a-Lago and through flight records.
Permissibility of closing arguments
A dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE) regarding whether an argument made by another attorney (Ms. Menninger) in her closing summation crossed the line established by the court's pretrial rulings. The argument in question is whether the government was substituting the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, for Jeffrey Epstein.
Relevance of schoolgirl outfits as evidence
Ms. Moe argues that the evidence is relevant to counter the defense's narrative that the victims were overage and that there was no interest in underage girls. She points to the fact that Jeffrey Epstein had a collection of schoolgirl outfits in the same area as his massage room.
Involvement in accounts/transactions and interactions wit...
Ms. Moe questions Mr. McHugh, who denies personal involvement in the discussed financial transactions and denies ever interacting with Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein.
Procedure for presenting evidence
Ms. Moe defends the proposal to use a witness to present evidence to avoid awkwardness and questions the objection to showing the jury evidence they haven't seen yet.
Admission of Government Exhibits 925 and 925-R
Ms. Moe offers Government Exhibits 925 and 925-R into evidence, explaining that 925 should be under seal because it contains identifying information for third parties. She then requests to publish the redacted version, 925-R, to the jury.
Admissibility of evidence under the business records exce...
An attorney (presumed to be Ms. Moe) argues that a sequentially numbered book qualifies as a business record and should be admissible. The argument focuses on the timing of record creation, stating that the rule does not require records to be made at the exact moment of an event. The Court and Ms. Moe then have a brief exchange.
Summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell
Ms. Moe argues that the case is about manipulation, money, and memory, reframing the defense's points to argue that Maxwell and Epstein manipulated and exploited young girls from struggling families using their wealth, and that the victims' traumatic memories are central to the case.
Evidence Admissibility
Ms. Moe explains the prosecution's strategy regarding victim interviews (Jane and Kate) to avoid memory contamination. The Court questions the relevance of photos taken in 2019 of 'movable objects' (schoolgirl outfits) to a conspiracy that ended 15 years prior.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the identification of objects in photographic evidence of a massage room.
Exhibit 52G Review
Requesting jurors review Exhibit 52G, specifically mentioning 'massage, Florida'.
Witness logistics
Discussion regarding contacting Jane's attorney and confirming if the defense needs to recall Jane.
Reminder about an issue
Ms. Moe stated she is 'Happy to do that this evening.'
Objection to questioning
Legal argument regarding Rule 408 and admissibility of settlement discussions.
Witness Logistics
Discussing arrangements for Jane to travel home and potential recall needs.
Witness Disclosure
Explaining confusion regarding a UK witness and lack of disclosure.
Redaction of Exhibit 911
Discussion regarding whether a photograph of an individual in Exhibit 911 needs to be redacted for privacy interests.
Identification of Exhibits 904-R and 917-R
Ms. Moe questions the witness regarding photographs of a massage room and bathroom.
Hearsay objection ruling
The Court sustains an objection based on hearsay, noting that Maria Farmer will testify later to confirm facts about being in New Mexico, rather than establishing it through the current witness via hearsay.
Defendant's supervisory role for sentencing guidelines
MS. MOE argues to the Court that trial evidence establishes the defendant (Ms. Maxwell) had a supervisory role over Sarah Kellen, which is sufficient to meet the criteria for a sentencing enhancement, even without five or more participants.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity