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-00017668.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The discussion, involving attorneys Ms. Menninger, Ms. Moe, and the judge, centers on whether a witness's statement of "I don't remember" can be treated as inconsistent with a prior statement made to an agent concerning an individual named Epstein. The parties debate the proper legal procedure for questioning a witness about such a potential inconsistency.
DOJ-OGR-00017665.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between attorney Ms. Moe and the Judge (The Court) regarding the proper procedure for impeaching a witness ('Jane') versus refreshing her recollection using prior statements or documents. Ms. Menninger is mentioned as the attorney questioning the witness.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00017663.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a cross-examination. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger debate with the Court about the proper handling of a witness's (Jane Cross's) lack of recollection, specifically concerning whether Epstein directed her seating. The core issue revolves around refreshing a witness's memory versus allowing the jury to consider the witness's current inability to recall as relevant evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017662.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 establishing that a person named Epstein would control social situations by directing where Jane and other girls sat in a movie theater. The transcript also captures a procedural discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe, Ms. Menninger) and the judge regarding a prior statement the witness made to the government on February 27, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00017659.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning attorney confirms Jane's prior statement to the government that Maxwell and Epstein visited her house before an instance of abuse. The transcript also explores Jane's past relationship with Ghislaine, whom she once viewed as a "big sister", and confirms details about her own family, including two older sisters.
DOJ-OGR-00017656.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioner challenges Jane's testimony regarding the frequency with which she was picked up by an unnamed man and the method by which meetings at Epstein's house were arranged. The questioner points out a discrepancy between her current testimony about Ghislaine arranging meetings and a statement she gave to the government in November 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00017655.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning attorney, Ms. Menninger, confronts Jane with her alleged prior statements about being at Epstein's house with her mother and brothers, and being driven there by a chauffeur. Jane repeatedly responds that she does not recall making the statements about her family but confirms discussing the chauffeur.
DOJ-OGR-00017653.jpg
This document is page 44 (internal pagination 450) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). A witness identified as 'Jane' is under cross-examination regarding an initial meeting ('tea') with Jeffrey Epstein attended by Jane and her mother. The questioning highlights that Jane previously told the government (in Oct 2021) that Maxwell was not present at this specific meeting, and that Epstein referred to his philanthropic activities (scholarships/mentoring) using singular pronouns ('he') rather than plural.
DOJ-OGR-00017650.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning challenges the witness's testimony by highlighting inconsistencies between her current account and a prior statement she gave to the government on September 19, 2019, concerning an encounter with Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein and a discussion about scholarships. The witness suggests that any discrepancies may be due to transcription errors by the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00017643.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Moe, who is testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane'. Attorney Ms. Menninger questions the witness about an application she made in the summer of 1996, focusing on a new address in the Bear Lake Estates gated community. The questioning relates to Defendant's Exhibit J-5, which the court admits into evidence under seal to protect the witness's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017642.jpg
This page contains a transcript from the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on confirming the witness's address and validating applications for the summers of 1994, 1995, and 1996. Two exhibits, J-5 and J-6, are discussed, with the defense moving to admit J-6 under seal without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017641.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 her past entertainment career in 1994, including her participation in a touring production of 'Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat' in Florida, and confronts her with a prior statement she made: "Nothing has been very difficult for me." The transcript also records a brief pause where an attorney, Ms. Moe, confers with defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00017633.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on establishing Jane's age (16) during a specific summer and reviewing Exhibit J-3, which is identified as an application where Jane answered a question regarding scholarship or financial aid.
DOJ-OGR-00017631.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the start of a court session. The judge addresses the jury, announces the continuation of Ms. Menninger's cross-examination of a witness using the pseudonym "Jane," and reminds the witness she is under oath. The judge also instructs the courtroom sketch artists not to draw an exact likeness of the witness, indicating measures are being taken to protect her identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017630.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger) and the Court regarding the admissibility of internet materials, specifically Wikipedia pages and tabloid articles, as evidence before a jury. Ms. Menninger argues she is providing materials in advance to expedite proceedings, while Ms. Moe objects to their nature.
DOJ-OGR-00017628.jpg
This page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details a discussion between the judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. Ms. Moe updates the court on resolving prior disagreements, requests a sidebar regarding a witness issue, and flags anticipated Rule 408 objections regarding defense exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00017627.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, about how to handle 18 binders of sealed exhibits for the jury and the witness stand. After agreeing on the procedure, the judge thanks the counsel for their work on anonymity issues and calls for a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00017626.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding whether to discuss certain topics at a sidebar or to confer with a witness's attorney first. The Judge instructs the counsel to confer with the witness's attorney before bringing the matters to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017625.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. The parties are debating the timing and method for resolving two or three outstanding issues, weighing the efficiency of handling them immediately against the preference for a sidebar and the dependency of one issue on upcoming witness testimony. The conversation occurs while they are waiting for the jurors to be brought in.
DOJ-OGR-00017622.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a dispute over a witness's credibility ('impeaching') regarding where she lived at age 14. Ms. Moe argues the witness lived in a pool house due to financial issues, while Mr. Everdell argues that her 1994 Interlochen application lists a different address, contradicting her claim of being homeless or in a pool house.
DOJ-OGR-00017621.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Moe, regarding a witness's testimony. The discussion centers on clarifying the witness's past residences in Palm Beach as a teenager, specifically distinguishing between a 'first address' identified as a pool house and a 'second address'.
DOJ-OGR-00014978.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated January 15, 2025, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on a phone call in April 2021 where Rocchio allegedly defined terms such as 'child,' 'sexual abuse,' and 'nonconsensual' to a group of Assistant US Attorneys (Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, Rohrbach). Rocchio states they do not specifically recall the definitions given or the context of the notes taken by the AUSAs.
DOJ-OGR-00014847.jpg
This court transcript from August 22, 2022, details a discussion about finalizing a judgment in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court informs counsel of its decision to set the end date of the criminal conspiracy as July 2004, noting this differs from the government's previous position. The government's counsel, Ms. Moe, states she will review the exhibits and will only file a written objection if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.
Admissibility of testimony from a witness named Amanda
The Court challenges the classification of the testimony, stating it's only direct evidence if Amanda is a victim of the conspiracy (which would violate an order) and only corroborative if the age matches up. The Court questions the purpose of the witness's age and ultimately sustains an objection.
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.
Conversations with mother about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghisl...
Ms. Moe questions the witness, Jane, about whether she spoke with her mother about Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell when she was 14, 15, and 16.
Admissibility of evidence related to civil litigation set...
MS. MOE responds to the Court's questions about a legal issue, stating she is not familiar with a specific case but will look into it.
Summation of Maxwell's guilt
Ms. Moe argues that Maxwell is guilty because she instructed household staff to ignore criminal activity and because she used a consistent 'playbook' to exploit multiple young girls.
Direct examination regarding Government Exhibit 505
Ms. Moe questions the witness, Mr. McHugh, to identify Government Exhibit 505 as an asset account statement from October 1999 for account 5001 at the Financial Trust Company, Inc. She also directs Ms. Drescher on how to display the evidence.
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.
Admission of Government Exhibits 309 and 332
Discussion regarding photographs of witnesses and victims, specifically distinguishing between cropped and full versions of photos.
Admissibility of photographs
Clarifying the scope of the judge's ruling on photographs of the residence interior and requesting time to brief the issue.
Admissibility of evidence regarding age
Discussion regarding a photograph and the age of a specific person to disprove they were an underage personal assistant.
Admissibility of hearsay
Previewing questions regarding the witness's childhood disclosure to a guidance counselor and her mother's reaction.
Review of binders
Requesting opportunity for the government to review binders prepared by Mr. Everdell before they are shown to witnesses or jurors.
Procedure for document review
Clarifying that the government and court will see documents before they are shown, and asking if Ms. Moe wants to see the full binder in advance.
Government Exhibit 935/935R
Ms. Moe questions the witness, Maguire, about the contents and location depicted in a photograph identified as Government Exhibit 935.
Authentication of photograph evidence
Ms. Moe argued that the photographs are authenticated because testimony established they were seized on CDs from Jeffrey Epstein's residence and reviewed by the FBI.
Witness testimony regarding financial stake and anonymity
Ms. Moe questions the witness, Jane, who confirms she has no financial stake in the trial's outcome and has never publicly revealed her identity as a victim of Epstein and Maxwell. Jane explains her desire to remain anonymous is to move on with her life and avoid victim shaming.
Anonymity order for witness Kate
Ms. Moe asks the Court to confirm that the anonymity order for the witness, Kate, is in effect, particularly regarding sketch artists.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity