| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
16
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Opposing counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Co counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
12
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
196 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
38 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Chapell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional adversarial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Visoski
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Espinosa
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Opposing counsel |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 1004 (Stipulation) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross Examination of Tracy Chapell | 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 | Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426). | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Lawrence Visoski | 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 | Rule 29 Argument | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and a question asked by the jury. | 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 | Cross-examination of witness Dawson regarding a residence and inconsistent statements. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding supplemental jury instructions | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of David Rodgers | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court ruling on the 'attorney witness issue' regarding the defense case-in-chief. | Courtroom | 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 | Admission of Government's Exhibit 296R | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Extension of Jury Deliberations | New York City Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Defendant's Exhibit MA1 into evidence under seal. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conference between Defense and Government | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury questions and instructions for Count Four. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial Resumption | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Michael Dawson | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and admissibility of testimony for conspiracy counts. | Courtroom | View |
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell successfully offers 'Defense Exhibit TC-1', related to FedEx business invoices, into evidence under a temporary seal. After the exhibit is admitted and made available to the jury, Mr. Everdell concludes his questioning, and the witness is excused by the court.
This document is page 43 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is cross-examining a witness named Ms. Chapell regarding her verification of 'Jeffrey Epstein invoices.' The attorney introduces Defendant's Exhibit TC-1, which the witness identifies as invoices belonging to Epstein that were provided to her by the defense.
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on her preparation for testimony, confirming she had phone calls with the government and that they sent her three old FedEx invoices to verify. The invoices are related to packages potentially sent by G. Maxwell to individuals named Carolyn or Cardine.
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell, regarding an invoice. The questioning establishes that packages were sent by G. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to Isabel Maxwell and Ron Burckle, and specifically confirms that no package was sent to a person named Carolyn according to the invoice.
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness Chapell) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses on a shipping invoice from 'October' where Ghislaine Maxwell is listed as the sender and Casey Wasserman is the recipient, with Jeffrey Epstein and the address 457 Madison Avenue also listed on the document. The defense specifically establishes that this invoice does not contain any transaction involving a recipient named 'Carolyn'.
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness Chapell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a FedEx package sent from 457 Madison Avenue listing 'Cecilia Steen' and 'Jeffrey E. Epstein' as the senders. The package was addressed to a recipient named 'Caroline' (last name withheld) in West Palm Beach, Florida.
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed August 10, 2022) documenting the cross-examination of Ms. Chapell by attorney Mr. Everdell. They are reviewing Government's Exhibit 803-R, a FedEx invoice dated October 14, 2002, associated with Jeffrey Epstein's account at 457 Madison Avenue, New York. The testimony confirms a specific shipment occurred on October 7, 2002.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Chapell by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding FedEx invoices (Exhibits 801, 802, and 803) from late 2002 associated with Jeffrey Epstein's account. The discussion focuses on orienting the jury to specific pages of Government Exhibit 803.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony concerns a package sent on October 7, 2002, which listed the names Cecilia Steen and Jeffrey E. Epstein, had a shipping address of 457 Madison Avenue, New York, and was sent to a recipient named Caroline in West Palm Beach, Florida.
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, regarding a package shipped on December 3, 2002. The testimony establishes the sender's address as 457 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, and the recipient as a person named Carolyn in West Palm Beach, Florida.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where government exhibits are being entered into evidence. Attorney Mr. Rohrbach questions a witness, Ms. Chapell, who identifies Government Exhibit 802 as an invoice connected to Jeffrey E. Epstein's account. The government then requests that this exhibit be placed under seal.
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the court proceedings as they resume, with the judge bringing in the jury and then allowing the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, to call his next witness, Tracy Chapell, for direct examination.
A transcript page from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge discusses a potential stipulation regarding testimony from Mr. Glassman about advice he gave to 'Jane' concerning cooperation with the government, aiming to avoid attorney-client privilege issues. The court also addresses administrative matters regarding letters submitted the previous night.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing procedural discussions in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Counsel, including Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, address the court regarding the placement of exhibits for the jury and the arrangements for the upcoming testimony of witness Annie Farmer. It is established that Farmer will not testify anonymously but a counsel screen will be used for her protection.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court. Mr. Everdell outlines his plan to introduce Federal Express invoices as evidence through the next witness, Tracy Chapell. He requests to submit the invoices under a temporary seal to allow time for redactions before they are made public.
This document is an index of examination from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the direct, cross, and redirect examinations of witnesses Janine Gill Velez, Shawn, Nicole Hesse, and David Rodgers by various attorneys, providing the corresponding page numbers in the full transcript. The document also includes a list of government exhibits that were received into evidence.
This document is a short excerpt from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In the transcript, the judge discusses the briefing schedule with two individuals, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, before adjourning the court. The session is formally adjourned until 8:45 a.m. on December 9, 2021.
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and several attorneys regarding the scheduling of a charging conference and the deadline for a government brief. The judge expresses a preference to hold the conference on Friday, while the government's attorney suggests filing their brief by 8 p.m. that evening.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and Mr. Everdell regarding the scheduling of a 'charging conference' and the jury's schedule for the upcoming Friday through Wednesday. They discuss the logistics of reviewing the charge and ensuring the parties have enough time to review it.
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 Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the trial schedule, specifically when the government will rest its case and when the defense will begin. Ms. Moe also requests that the defense produce Rule 26.2 disclosures immediately upon the conclusion of the government's case.
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Moe (likely prosecution), and Mr. Everdell (defense counsel) about scheduling the remainder of the trial. They discuss when the government's case will conclude, the defense's intention to call witnesses, and potential dates for a charge conference, specifically the evening of the 16th or Saturday the 18th.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the redirect examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely a pilot), who testifies to meeting a specific person in September 2003 and a 'Jane' in November 1996, referencing his flight logbook for verification. The witness confirms he recalls no one else with that first name on Jeffrey Epstein's planes, after which he is excused, and the court adjourns for the day.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning confirms that Rodgers' flight logs were previously subpoenaed and turned over to both the FBI and plaintiffs' lawyers as part of a past civil litigation, a task handled by his attorney. The name "Epstein" is mentioned briefly at the beginning of the excerpt in relation to an unnamed female.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony confirms the location of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence at 358 El Brillo Way. It also discusses a specific period when the main house was being renovated, requiring Epstein to stay at a rental property located south of El Brillo Way, across from the ocean.
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely a pilot) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The witness confirms a passenger named 'Emmy' flew on Epstein's planes but testifies that, according to his memory and flight logs, 'Annie Farmer' was never a passenger. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, then moves to show the jury documents marked LV4 and LV5, which are admitted under seal.
Correcting the judge saying Paragraph 9 instead of Paragraph 29.
Mr. Everdell proposes several edits to a document (pages 20 and 21) to the Court. These include omitting the phrase "or foreign" in multiple places, proposing to replace "an individual" with "Jane", and reiterating a previously overruled objection to the word "coerced".
Argument regarding whether photographs accurately depict the location during the time of the conspiracy.
Mr. Everdell requests a preview of the witness order in light of the day's developments.
Everdell raises a concern about the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them during direct examination.
Mr. Everdell questions Ms. Chapell about FedEx invoices, offers Defense Exhibit TC-1 into evidence under temporary seal, and concludes his questioning.
Mr. Everdell argues for a supplemental jury instruction regarding the relevance of conduct in New Mexico to a conviction under New York law. The Court rejects the proposed instruction, stating it is incorrect and that the defense failed to seek a limiting instruction on the testimony earlier.
Mr. Everdell and the Court discuss the process for entering an exhibit into evidence that contains the full names of real people. They agree that the names must be redacted, the exhibit sealed from the public, and that specific parties (the Court, Ms. Williams, the witness, the government) will view either electronic or paper versions.
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. McHugh about a series of financial transactions in June 2007 involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Air Ghislaine, and Sikorsky for the purchase of a helicopter.
Mr. Everdell questions the witness, Visoski, about the timeline of aircraft owned by Mr. Epstein. The discussion covers the sale of a Hawker around 1994, the acquisition of a Boeing 727 around 2000, and the primary use of a Gulfstream in the intervening years.
Argument regarding Government Exhibits 919, 920, and 53, specifically requesting they not be described as 'schoolgirl outfits' to the jury.
Argument regarding the elimination of a jury charge concerning investigative techniques.
Discussion regarding the timeline for the defense to present their case and the scheduling of the charging conference.
Mr. Everdell discusses photographic evidence with the judge. He confirms Exhibit 270 will not be offered, notes the prior exclusion of Exhibit 251 (a photo of a naked toddler), and argues that Exhibit 250, which depicts Jeffrey Epstein with a young girl, should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial.
Mr. Everdell discusses the logistics of preparing redacted versions of evidence (massage room photos) and informs the court that the government and defense have agreed to a testimonial stipulation for witness Sergeant Michael Dawson.
Mr. Everdell informs the court of a small issue regarding the fourth witness (Mr. Rogers) and requests time to confer with the government.
Mr. Everdell informs the court that after conferring with the government, they are withdrawing their request for a limiting instruction, believing it would be counterproductive ('the cure is worse than the disease').
Mr. Everdell proposes several edits to a document (pages 20 and 21) to the Court. These include omitting the phrase "or foreign" in multiple places, proposing to replace "an individual" with "Jane", and reiterating a previously overruled objection to the word "coerced".
Questioning regarding office seating arrangements and introduction of Exhibit 327.
Mr. Everdell argues that they should be allowed to impeach Juan Alessi using his prior inconsistent statements to Sergeant Dawson regarding a burglary.
Mr. Everdell questions witness Ms. Espinosa about whether she ever saw Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein engage in inappropriate activity with underage girls during her six years of employment. Ms. Espinosa denies seeing any such activity.
Mr. Everdell states he has 'No objection' to the government's offer of the exhibits.
Discussion regarding the use of the word 'dominant' in jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. 2421, citing United States v. An Soon Kim.
Mr. Everdell questions the witness, Mr. Rodgers, about a photograph (exhibits GX250 and C10), asking if he has seen it before and if he recognizes the person in it. The witness tentatively identifies the person as Eva Dubin.
Motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) regarding insufficiency of evidence in the S2 indictment.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity