MS. MENNINGER
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Opposing counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
144 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Co counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Meder
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court examination | Cross-examination of witness JANE by Ms. Menninger. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Jane | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness 'Jane' | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Kimberly Meder | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Stephen Flatley | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of female witness | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of A. Farmer's testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense summation (closing argument) regarding memory science and conspiracy charges. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing arguments/Summation where Ms. Menninger allegedly argued Maxwell was a substitute for Eps... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding witness recall and sequestration violations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar regarding cross-examination of witness 'Jane'. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 424 into evidence during the testimony of Mr. Flatley. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness 'Jane' regarding prior statements. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court discussion regarding jury deliberations and note interpretation | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings discussing jury instructions and a question from the jury regarding Count Four. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of technical testimony about CD burning and file dates (cre... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Hearing/Sidebar | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Paul Kane | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Identification of Exhibit AF9 (Cowboy boots). | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trip | Ms. Menninger and her sister visited New York and engaged in various activities like seeing a pla... | New York | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Ms. Menninger and her sister met with Epstein in his office to discuss her college applications. | Epstein's office, New York | View |
| N/A | Alleged sexual abuse | While watching a movie she remembers as 'Five Monkeys', Epstein caressed and held Ms. Menninger's... | A movie theater in New York | View |
| N/A | Trial testimony | A witness gave testimony about her encounters with Maxwell and Epstein, which is now being discus... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | Discussion of the trial schedule. The defense case is set to begin on the 16th. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018359.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the Judge, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Moe regarding the sealing and redaction of exhibits marked J8 and J9. Ms. Menninger argues for specific redactions to protect plaintiffs' identities while keeping the bulk of the document public, citing 'Lugash' precedent. The Court orders the exhibits temporarily sealed while the parties confer on the specific redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00018357.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion in open court regarding the sealing and redaction of defense exhibits, specifically J15 and a proposed J15R. The core issue is the protection of identifying information related to 'Jane,' who was the subject of a recent cross-examination. Various parties, including Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Menninger, debate the necessity and process of sealing these exhibits to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.
DOJ-OGR-00018271.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 the Judge, Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell discussing procedural matters regarding the sealing of documents and objections to specific evidence (the '900 series' exhibits). Mr. Everdell notes that these objections relate to a search conducted in 2019 and will become relevant when Agent Maguire testifies to introduce the exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00018231.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe) and the judge. The discussion centers on the afternoon's witness schedule, including Kimberly Meder and Stephen Flatley, and a request by Ms. Menninger to address issues with evidentiary material that was disclosed very late the previous night. The judge and attorneys work to clarify the order of proceedings for the remainder of the session.
DOJ-OGR-00018101.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the testimony of three witnesses: Paul Kane, Lisa Rocchio, and Juan Patricio Alessi, detailing the attorneys who questioned them (Rohrbach, Menninger, Pomerantz, Comey) and the corresponding page numbers. It also lists various Government Exhibits (Nos. 761, 298, 297, 299, 606, 113, 114, and 2A/2C-2W) and the pages where they were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017893.jpg
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 Kane by Ms. Menninger. The questioning concerns a document describing a student as a 'self-employed interior decorator' who is represented by an agent. Defense attorney Mr. Rohrbach objects to the agent's name being read aloud, arguing lack of relevance, and the Court sustains the objection, instructing the jury to look at the document themselves instead.
DOJ-OGR-00017891.jpg
A court transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Rohrbach examines witness Mr. Kane regarding Government Exhibit 761, a student application for 12th grade. The testimony reveals the student's present school is the Alexander W. Dreyfoos School of the Arts, while the exhibit itself is sealed to protect the student/witness's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017889.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting a sidebar objection by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. She argues against the admissibility of a school record, comparing it to a police report with third-party hearsay, specifically regarding a form that lists Jeffrey Epstein as 'financially responsible' for a student referred to as 'Jane'. The defense argues it is unclear who wrote Epstein's name on the form (Jane or her mother) and challenges the reliability of that specific information.
DOJ-OGR-00017888.jpg
This document is page 15 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It captures a brief exchange during the direct examination of a witness named Kane, where attorney Ms. Menninger raises an objection citing Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) (Business Records Exception). The Judge acknowledges the objection and allows counsel to approach the sidebar to make a record of the argument.
DOJ-OGR-00017886.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Kane. The questioning establishes that the school associated with the witness does not have knowledge of or a way to verify the accuracy of information on a specific form, including details about student referrals, financial responsibility, and who paid for the student's attendance. The witness repeatedly confirms their lack of knowledge and the school's lack of relevant records.
DOJ-OGR-00017885.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a voir dire examination dated August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions a witness, Mr. Kane, about a form from the Professional Children's School. The questioning focuses on whether the school verifies handwritten information added to the form, with Mr. Kane stating that the school's admissions director would contact the family to confirm the details.
DOJ-OGR-00017884.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records the direct examination of a witness, Kane, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, regarding the authentication of an enrollment application for the Professional Children's School, marked as Government Exhibit 761. An opposing attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects on the grounds of hearsay, but the court overrules the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017873.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the direct, cross, and redirect examinations of witnesses JANE, MATT, and DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN by various attorneys, providing the corresponding page numbers. The index also lists Defendant and Government exhibits that were received into evidence and their respective page numbers in the transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00017834.jpg
A sidebar transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Court discuss the admissibility of testimony from a witness named Matt, specifically regarding whether a female accuser had revealed abuse allegations to him prior to meeting with the government. The Judge challenges the defense's objection, noting they had previously attacked the accuser's credibility regarding her financial background (living in a pool house, losing her home), making this testimony relevant as a 'prior consistent statement.'
DOJ-OGR-00017825.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 attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Ms. Menninger (Defense) regarding a witness named 'Jane.' The government requests permission for Jane to leave the district to return to her family while remaining available for potential recall, while the defense raises concerns regarding the witness's exposure to media coverage of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00017824.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge and several attorneys (Ms. Moe, Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Rohrbach) regarding trial procedures. Key topics include clarifying testimony about Ms. Maxwell, the status of contacts with a witness named 'Jane', and confirming an agreement that victim-witnesses will not observe the trial until after both the prosecution and defense have rested their cases.
DOJ-OGR-00017818.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022. After a witness named Jane is excused, the court calls for a break. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then raises a procedural issue, requesting a proffer from the government regarding the testimony of the next witness, Matt, to ensure it complies with evidence rules and avoids improper statements.
DOJ-OGR-00017817.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. Jane testifies about the emotional significance of compensation she received for past abuse, stating she wishes she never received the money and that it was a means to cover expenses and attempt to move on. She confirms she has no financial stake in the outcome of the current trial and expresses hope for closure.
DOJ-OGR-00017816.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (redirect examination) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the testimony of a witness named 'Jane.' Jane testifies about a specific memory where her relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell changed from 'casual' to sexual, specifically recalling the first time she was unclothed with both Maxwell and Epstein. The prosecutor asks about her age at the time (14-16) and introduces the topic of an award Jane received from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund.
DOJ-OGR-00017812.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) documenting the redirect examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The testimony focuses on Jane's height (five-foot-four), grade level (eighth grade), and potential inaccuracies ('fibbing') in applications submitted in 1995 for summer camp and the Professional Children's School.
DOJ-OGR-00017811.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on personal information from a summer camp application (height, weight, grade) and her attendance at Interlochen the following year. The transcript also records procedural matters, including an attorney's request for the jury to view a sealed piece of evidence, Defendant's Exhibit J-4.
DOJ-OGR-00017809.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a redirect examination of a witness named Jane, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning concerns an application Jane made to Interlochen in 1994 at the age of 13. The attorney focuses on a specific question from the application about difficult musical pieces performed, to which Jane had answered, "Nothing has been difficult for me." When asked what she meant by this, Jane states she has no idea.
DOJ-OGR-00017808.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney, Ms. Moe, questions Jane about her application for admission to Interlochen for the summer of 1994. This application is identified as Defendant's Exhibit J-3, which the court permits the jury to view.
DOJ-OGR-00017807.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane,' discusses a past phone conversation with a reporter where she was careful not to reveal her name. She also testifies about how she hired her attorney, Robert Glassman, noting that he was a friend of her husband's best friend.
DOJ-OGR-00017805.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures the testimony of a witness named Jane. Jane explains to the jury that she spoke to a reporter against her will because he "basically blackmailed" her. The reporter allegedly threatened to publish her name, which he claimed was in unredacted court documents and "Epstein's little black book."
Exhibits/Redactions
Email sent regarding exhibits/redactions.
Exhibits J-8/9 and J-15
Discussions regarding the release and redaction of specific defense exhibits.
Request for exhibits
Media requests for the exhibits mentioned.
Travel history
Ms. Menninger asked Jane about an international trip which Jane did not remember.
3509-008, page five
Defense attorney asks witness to read a specific paragraph from a document to refresh recollection.
Redactions (implied)
Regarding exhibits and redactions.
Clarification of legal standard
Explaining the punctuation in a hypothetical question and clarifying that the flight must be for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.
Admissibility of hearsay
Agreement regarding the exclusion of Maria Farmer's hearsay statements.
Encounters with Epstein in New York
Ms. Menninger recounted two instances of meeting Epstein in New York. The first was a meeting about college applications. The second was at a movie theater where he held her hand, an act she later reported as sexual abuse to the Victims Compensation Fund. She also stated Ghislaine Maxwell was not present and had no involvement she was aware of.
Communication efforts
Ms. Menninger offers to email the judge's chambers with the dates and times of communication efforts to create a factual record.
Evidence exhibit 332B
Ms. Comey states she told Ms. Menninger 'the other day' that they were not planning to offer exhibit 332B.
Court proceedings
Ms. Menninger reports to the court that "Ms. Moe and I spoke briefly."
Cross-examination regarding a trip to New Mexico and a me...
Ms. Menninger questions the witness, A. Farmer, about their trip to New Mexico, their encounter with Ghislaine, and a meeting with the FBI, highlighting conflicting memories about the date of the meeting.
Scheduling
Discussion regarding delaying Brian's testimony.
Application
Application received at 11:54, missing a proposed order.
Cross-examination regarding evidence
Questioning regarding the submission of a journal (Exhibit 604) to the government.
Closing Argument (Summation)
Defense attorney arguing against the credibility of witness Mr. Alessi and introducing the testimony of Dr. Loftus.
Cross Examination
Legal examination in court
Cross-examination and admission of evidence
Discussion regarding the admission of Exhibit AF1 (Bates AFarmer10472), a journal page, into evidence without redactions.
Impeachment arguments
Discussion regarding the permissibility of arguing impeachment based on read-aloud quotes during closing arguments.
Rule 16 and Impeachment Evidence
Argument regarding whether impeachment documents must be disclosed to the prosecution prior to use.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding settlement payout and specific abuse allegations.
Trial Schedule
Discussion regarding the timing of closing arguments, jury lunch, and the start of deliberations.
Introduction of Exhibit AF1
Discussion regarding the location of exhibits in a binder and the introduction of a specific page from a journal as evidence.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity