Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Procedural discussion regarding submitting an exhibit under seal | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court trial cross-examination of Visoski | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct Examination of Ms. Espinosa | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing (Ghislaine Maxwell trial context implied by case number). Exhibits DH1-DH4 and J2 a... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine M... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and a jury note. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination testimony of David Rodgers in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Chapell in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE regarding witness testimony limitations. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding the admissibility of evidence (Exhibit 250) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony of witness Visoski regarding Epstein's Paris property. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 507 (JP Morgan account signature card) into evidence. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing filing date. | Open Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding discussing trial schedule. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony regarding the identification of photos from 358 El Brillo Way. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding jury deliberations and exhibits. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony of Ms. Espinosa during direct examination. | Courtroom (implied Southern... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding discussing the wording of Count Five and charges related to 'Carolyn'. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript regarding jury instructions. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding/filing discussing jury instructions regarding sex trafficking charges. | Courtroom (implied Southern... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court trial proceedings (Cross-examination of Jane) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018248.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson. Parkinson testifies about photographs of a 'garden room' at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The government, represented by Ms. Comey, successfully moves to admit three exhibits (GX223, 224, 225) into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of third parties, with no objection from opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00018244.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson, by an attorney, Ms. Comey. The questioning focuses on identifying specific rooms and features of a property, such as a computer room and an elevator on the second floor, with references to diagrams and Government Exhibit 297. The proceedings are overseen by a judge, with another attorney, Mr. Everdell, present.
DOJ-OGR-00018237.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson. The testimony authenticates a video depicting the interior and exterior of 358 El Brillo Way (Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence) as it appeared during a search on October 20, 2005. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) successfully moves to admit the video (Exhibit 296R) under seal to protect the identities of pseudonym witnesses and third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00018233.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on the logistics of presenting evidence, including whether to provide a paper binder to the court and how a video will be displayed in the main courtroom but not in an overflow room. The judge gives instructions to ensure the public can view exhibits after the video is shown.
DOJ-OGR-00018230.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a discussion about legal strategy and evidence presentation. The defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, confirms to the court their request to not give a specific jury instruction regarding a photo of a minor, to avoid highlighting it. Subsequently, Ms. Comey informs the court that the parties have agreed to redact a portion of a video (Government Exhibit 296), which shows Detective Recarey reading a search warrant, before it is played for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00018229.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022, where the jury is not present. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, withdraws a request for a limiting instruction, arguing it would be counterproductive. At the court's request, another attorney, Ms. Comey, reads the proposed instructions into the record, which were intended to guide the jury on how to interpret video and photo evidence concerning Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018227.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a segment where the Court excuses Mr. Parkinson and a witness for a lunch break, while Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, counsel, discuss plans to confer on limiting instructions and technical preparations. The proceedings are set to resume in 45 minutes, highlighting the procedural management of a court hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00018225.jpg
This document is page 124 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey questions witness Mr. Parkinson about photographic exhibits (GX 264-267) depicting various angles of a kitchen containing an island with books and appliances. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, offers no objection to the exhibits, which are subsequently admitted by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00018218.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Parkinson identifies Government Exhibits 201-222 as fair and accurate photos of the exterior of a residence at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared around October 20, 2005. Following this identification, Ms. Comey offers the exhibits into evidence, to which opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, has no objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018212.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Parkinson. He identifies Government Exhibit 721 as an aerial map of Palm Beach and West Palm Beach, specifically confirming it depicts the area around 358 El Brillo Way. After no objection from opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, the court admits the map into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018132.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves attorneys (Moe, Everdell, Comey) and the Judge discussing the testimony of a witness named 'Jane,' specifically her detailed description of the interior and artwork of a house. Additionally, Ms. Comey raises a privacy concern regarding ensuring that a video shown to jurors does not simultaneously appear on public screens in overflow rooms, which is relevant for the witness following Mr. Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00018129.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell are discussing with the judge the proper way to present evidence, including items in a bag and photographs of a residence. Mr. Everdell raises a concern about the relevance of photographs taken during a 2019 search, as they depict the residence's interior 15 years after the alleged conspiracy ended in 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00018128.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe debating the admissibility and description of 'costumes' (Government Exhibit 53) and photographs of them (Exhibits 919 and 920). The defense argues specifically that these items must not be described to the jury as 'schoolgirl outfits' to avoid prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00018127.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the presentation of evidence. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, objects to the prosecution's proposal to show the jury a bag of costumes and related photographs, arguing that this should not happen until 'witness 3' testifies to establish the items' relevance. Everdell expresses concern that showing the items prematurely could unfairly prejudice the jury if the witness's testimony is delayed or does not occur.
DOJ-OGR-00018122.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell and the judge regarding the admissibility of evidence. The key points are the government's intent to use photographs of a massage room rather than the physical table, and Mr. Everdell's argument that costumes found in a 2019 search are irrelevant as they were discovered 15 years after the alleged conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00018120.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Ms. Comey, informs the judge that the witness order for the day has been changed due to travel issues, with the new sequence being Parkinson, Dawson, Maguire, Meder, and Flatley. The parties also discuss that witness Shelling's testimony has been stipulated to and that witness Maguire will likely testify after lunch.
DOJ-OGR-00018119.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge and counsel. The parties discuss how to present sensitive video evidence, containing nude images of a minor, to the jury while protecting the third party's privacy by using only the jurors' screens. The transcript concludes with counsel confirming the order of the next three witnesses: Parkinson (whose testimony is finished), Mr. Dawson, and Kelly Maguire.
DOJ-OGR-00018118.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys and the judge regarding the admissibility of testimony about massages given by Jeffrey Epstein, with the judge ultimately sustaining an objection due to the timeframe. The transcript also details a logistical discussion about submitting a sensitive video under seal that contains images of witnesses testifying under pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00018116.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. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Mr. Everdell) argue over the admissibility and context of photos found on a bookshelf, which include images of 'Jane' and nude females. There is a specific dispute over Jane's age at the time (15 vs 19), after which the discussion shifts to the introduction of evidence (video, photos) through a witness named Mr. Parkinson.
DOJ-OGR-00018115.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal debate between Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell over the admissibility of a photograph as evidence. Ms. Comey argues for showing a closeup to establish its placement on a bookshelf, while Mr. Everdell contends it must be shown in the wider, non-prejudicial context of other nonsexual photos to avoid misleading the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00018112.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey argues for the admission of a photograph (Exhibit 250) found in the 'lake room' of Epstein's home, which depicts Epstein with a young girl across his lap, appearing to pull down her underwear. The prosecution argues this is probative because it was prominently displayed in the house that Maxwell 'ran' as the 'lady of the house,' while Defense attorney Mr. Everdell objects, calling it prejudicial and an attempt to backdoor evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018111.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues against the admissibility or weight of photographs taken during a 2005 walk-through of an Epstein residence, noting that witness Juan Alessi left in 2002 and witness 'Jane' only gave general descriptions of art, not specific identifications of the photos in question. The defense contends there is no testimony placing specific photos on the wall during the time relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00018106.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues for the exclusion of a portion of a video walk-through (Exhibit 296). The basis for the argument is that the video shows a photograph on a wall that the judge has already ruled inadmissible as a separate exhibit (Exhibit 288). The dialogue serves to clarify the distinction between multiple pieces of related evidence for the court record.
DOJ-OGR-00018105.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of evidence. An attorney, Ms. Comey, contends that a 40-minute walk-through video (Gov. Exhibit 296) is relevant because it shows a previously excluded photograph (Gov. Exhibit 270) prominently displayed outside a master bedroom shared by the defendant and Mr. Epstein. The defense expresses concern that such evidence would be prejudicial to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00018104.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues to the judge ('your Honor') about the admissibility of photographic evidence, specifically Government Exhibit 250. He describes the photo as depicting Jeffrey Epstein with a young, 'prepubescent' girl and contends it is irrelevant and prejudicial, similar to other photos that were already excluded.
Status of Bequest and Fines
Discussion regarding whether a bequest should be considered an asset for fines given the estate's bankruptcy.
Jury Instructions for Ms. Maxwell's case
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.
Ghislaine Maxwell's and Jeffrey Epstein's conduct
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.
Cross-examination regarding a photograph
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.
Cross-examination and submission of evidence
Mr. Everdell questions Ms. Chapell about FedEx invoices, offers Defense Exhibit TC-1 into evidence under temporary seal, and concludes his questioning.
Admission of Government Exhibits 925 and 925-R
Mr. Everdell states he has 'No objection' to the government's offer of the exhibits.
Impeachment of witness Juan Alessi
Mr. Everdell argues that they should be allowed to impeach Juan Alessi using his prior inconsistent statements to Sergeant Dawson regarding a burglary.
Proposed edits to legal document language
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".
Admissibility of Government Exhibits 250, 251, and 270
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.
Redacted evidence and witness stipulation
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.
Courtroom procedure for handling documents and witness an...
Mr. Everdell agrees with the court's directions and explains the careful procedure they have planned for handling paper binders and manila folders to respect the court's ruling on witness anonymity.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding office seating arrangements and introduction of Exhibit 327.
Epstein's residences in Palm Beach
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. Rodgers about the location of Epstein's residence at 358 El Brillo Way and a time when Epstein temporarily moved to a rental property during renovations.
Conscious avoidance jury charge
Mr. Everdell argues that a 'conscious avoidance' charge would invite the jury to convict on an improper basis. The Court responds by asking for a specific response to the argument about the defendant's lack of knowledge.
Procedural point on cross-examination
Everdell raises a concern about the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them during direct examination.
2007 helicopter purchase and related financial transactions
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.
Withdrawal of request for a limiting instruction
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').
Motion for Acquittal
Motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) regarding insufficiency of evidence in the S2 indictment.
Witness order
Mr. Everdell requests a preview of the witness order in light of the day's developments.
Limiting Instruction Edits
Discussion regarding changing wording in jury instructions from 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact'.
Admission of Exhibit RS-1
Defense offers RS-1 for identification; prosecution agrees if under seal; accepted by Court.
Border crossing data systems (TECS and APIS)
Mr. Everdell questions the witness, Aznaran, about the definition of 'border crossing' and the mechanisms by which traveler data is entered into government databases. Aznaran explains that international airline manifests are submitted to the Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS), which then links to the TECS system.
Exclusion of evidence (Government Exhibits 288, 270, 296)
Mr. Everdell argues that a portion of a video walk-through (Exhibit 296) should be excluded because it shows a photograph on a wall that the Court has already excluded as a separate piece of evidence (Exhibit 288).
Withdrawal of request for a limiting instruction
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').
Age of allegations and lack of evidence
Everdell argues that highlighting the 25-year age of the allegations is fair because records get destroyed over time, explaining the absence of corroborating evidence like geo-location data.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity