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-00017024.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell case). The Judge and attorneys (Moe, Menninger, Sternheim) discuss balancing public access with necessary redactions and establish time limits for upcoming arguments, with the government requesting up to 2.5 hours. Attorney Sternheim shares a brief anecdote about Judge Motley to contextualize strict time limits.
DOJ-OGR-00017023.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and counsel for the prosecution and defense. The discussion centers on procedural matters, specifically the confirmation that trial exhibits have been made public through the U.S. Attorney's Office and the logistics of redacting sensitive information from closing argument slides in a timely manner. Counsel clarifies which version of a specific exhibit, AF-1R, is the public version.
DOJ-OGR-00016925.jpg
This document is an index of examinations from a legal transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on August 10, 2022. It lists four witnesses—Jason Richards, Amanda Young, Eva Adnersson Dubin, and Michelle Healy—and details which attorneys conducted their direct, cross, and redirect examinations, along with the corresponding page numbers in the full transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00016908.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Comey, Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Ms. Menninger), and the Court regarding the finalization of stipulations and the withdrawal of a request to issue an arrest warrant for a witness named Kelly Bovino who failed to appear for a subpoena. The parties also discuss resolving issues to avoid calling a witness from London on the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00016906.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). Attorneys Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach argue before the judge regarding the admissibility of a prior deposition excerpt from Mr. Epstein. The defense (Rohrbach) objects to the evidence based on Rule 804, arguing that the government's motive in the current criminal case (determining where Epstein personally lived) differs from the motive in the prior civil litigation (determining if he had moved).
DOJ-OGR-00016864.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Healy. Healy identifies Ghislaine Maxwell in the courtroom, confirms Maxwell was their boss, and states they also reported to a person named Jeffrey. The witness describes Maxwell's role as overseeing properties and decorating, and their own past duties as running errands like dropping off documents around New York.
DOJ-OGR-00016837.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated August 10, 2022. It details procedural discussions between the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) and the prosecution (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe) regarding the admissibility of flight records and the submission of legal applications. The court sustains an objection based on Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 during the direct examination of a witness named Dubin.
DOJ-OGR-00016819.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It records the conclusion of Agent Young's testimony and the calling of the next defense witness, Dr. Eva Dubin (Eva Andersson Dubin). The transcript captures the swearing-in process and the initial spelling of her name for the record.
DOJ-OGR-00016813.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a sidebar conversation where counsel Ms. Comey attempts to introduce prior consistent statements of a witness named Jane, which is objected to by opposing counsel Ms. Menninger. The Court sustains the objection on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the current examination but allows for the possibility of recalling the witness for rebuttal.
DOJ-OGR-00016811.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Young. The testimony focuses on the procedure of past interviews with a subject named 'Jane,' specifically who was present (attorneys, AUSAs, agents) and the nature of the reports generated (summaries, not verbatim transcripts). The witness confirms that Jane never reviewed the reports for accuracy.
DOJ-OGR-00016808.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing a sidebar conference. Prosecutor Comey argues that FBI Agent Young should be allowed to testify about non-suggestive interview training to rebut defense claims (supported by Dr. Loftus) that witness memories may have been implanted via leading questions. The Judge expresses skepticism, suggesting the line of questioning is 'beyond the scope' and risks 'opening the door' to broader issues regarding interview conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00016806.jpg
This is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Young. The attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Comey, agree to stipulate the date on which boots were seized to save court time. Ms. Menninger proceeds to question the witness about a discussion concerning Ms. Farmer wearing these boots, which the witness confirms took place during a recent trial preparation session after the seizure.
DOJ-OGR-00016805.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Young. An unnamed questioner reads passages from another document for Young to confirm, describing a person named Jane's first trip to New York, her meeting with Epstein, and her former residence in a gated community in Florida called Bear Lakes. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, then interjects to bring up a matter related to an 'Annie Farmer issue'.
DOJ-OGR-00016802.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Young by Ms. Menninger. The questioning centers on a report from a November 2019 interview with a person named 'Jane', which was authored by the witness's partner, Detective Byrne. The testimony confirms that Jane was present at Epstein's house and was unsure if Maxwell had ever called her to make appointments.
DOJ-OGR-00016800.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The testimony features witness Young being questioned by Ms. Menninger regarding the timeline of drafting and filing a specific report in late 2019. The Judge intervenes to ensure a specific name is not mentioned in open court, instructing the attorney to use the pseudonym 'Jane' instead.
DOJ-OGR-00016796.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a portion of the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Farmer, by an attorney, Ms. Menninger, regarding the date some boots were obtained. The witness is unable to recall the specific date but confirms it happened sometime during that year, before the fall.
DOJ-OGR-00016783.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court trial held on August 10, 2022. After addressing the jury, the judge allows Mr. Pagliuca to call his next witness, Special Agent Jason Richards. Mr. Pagliuca begins the direct examination, during which Richards identifies himself as an FBI agent who investigates violations of United States laws.
DOJ-OGR-00016782.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between a judge and several attorneys. The main topics are the logistics for a subpoenaed witness who has been placed 'on call' for the trial and a statement from one attorney that the defense is not expected to stipulate on an issue.
DOJ-OGR-00016781.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge and several lawyers (Pagliuca, Comey, Everdell, Menninger) about witness scheduling. The discussion revolves around the absence of a scheduled witness, Ms. Dubin, a proposal to call another witness, Agent Young, and difficulties in contacting other individuals in Colorado. The judge grants the lawyers a short break to organize their witnesses before resuming the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00016778.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal debate over the execution of a search at a New York residence. Attorneys argue about the specific roles of Special Agent Maguire and Agent Young, particularly concerning who was the overall search leader and who was responsible for extracting files from electronic devices. The judge actively questions the attorneys to clarify these disputed facts.
DOJ-OGR-00016777.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument between prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Menninger) counsel. The core issue is whether the defense can introduce evidence related to broader investigative steps, such as a 2019 search, that were not part of the evidence presented to the jury. The prosecution argues this would be confusing and violate a court order, while the defense attempts to justify its relevance.
DOJ-OGR-00016776.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues about the vast amount of data ('millions of files') seized from Mr. Epstein's residence in 2019, contrasting it with the limited evidence presented by the government. A discussion ensues about the witness who testified on this matter, with another attorney, Ms. Comey, correcting Mr. Everdell that the witness was Kimberly Meder, not Mr. Flatley.
DOJ-OGR-00016759.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell). The conversation centers on the prior testimony of a witness named Jane, specifically her memory of a trip to New York around 1997 and whether that memory was influenced by her attorney, Mr. Rossmiller. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, also informs the court of their intent to call Special Agent Amanda Young as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016758.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Ms. Comey and Ms. Menninger discuss with the Court the admissibility of testimony and specific emails involving Mr. Glassman (referencing 'The Lion King') and Mr. Rossmiller. The discussion centers on a prior ruling limiting testimony from attorneys to specific statements regarding whether testifying would help the defendant's case.
DOJ-OGR-00016757.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal debate between Ms. Menninger (defense) and Ms. Comey (prosecution) regarding the scope of closing arguments related to impeachment and witness statements. Additionally, Ms. Comey notes that due to rulings on 'Annie Farmer statements,' it is no longer necessary to call AUSA Rossmiller as a witness.
Cross-examination regarding seized CDs and photographs
Ms. Menninger questions a witness about their participation in two searches in July 2019 where CDs were seized, and their subsequent review of hundreds of these CDs containing thousands of photographs.
Response regarding exhibit binder
Ms. Menninger responds to the judge, stating she believes they provided a binder the previous day but will check with Ms. Lundberg to confirm.
Timing of when boots were obtained
Ms. Menninger questions witness Ms. Farmer about the date some boots were obtained. Ms. Farmer states she does not recall the specific date or month but confirms it was sometime in the current year and earlier than the fall.
Witness's profession as a psychologist
Ms. Menninger questions the witness, A. Farmer, about her profession as a psychologist and her work with victims of sexual trauma in relation to her public appearances. An objection by Ms. Pomerantz leads to a question being withdrawn.
Admissibility of evidence regarding Mr. Epstein's residence
Ms. Menninger argues that a statement in Judge Chin's prior opinion about when Mr. Epstein abandoned a property is not a factual finding and can be disputed, referencing potential testimony that Epstein lived on East 71st Street prior to 1996.
Witness scheduling
In response to a question about scheduling, Ms. Menninger estimated it would be an hour.
Admissibility of a photograph
Ms. Menninger argues that a photograph of a witness should not be introduced after she has left the stand, as it could not be authenticated by her and the circumstances of its creation could not be explored.
Hearsay related to testimony of Annie Farmer and statemen...
Ms. Menninger discusses with the judge the extent to which hearsay from Maria Farmer will be introduced, specifically regarding Annie Farmer's travel to New York and Maria's claim of stolen photographs.
Credibility of witnesses
Ms. Menninger argues that the jury should doubt the testimony of witnesses like Carolyn and Jane because their stories have changed, they may be motivated by money, and their claims are contradicted by other witnesses like Eva and Michelle.
Rebuttal to the admissibility of a photograph as evidence
Ms. Menninger argues against the prosecution's claims, stating that metadata on the photo and testimony from Mr. Alessi (who met the victim in 2001 or 2002) both indicate the victim was not a minor, contradicting the government's assertion.
Timeline of Annie Farmer's travels
Ms. Menninger argues that records (flight logs, border patrol records) show Annie Farmer's trips occurred in 1997 when she was almost 18, not 1996, contradicting a previous narrative.
Objection to introducing prior consistent statements
Ms. Menninger objects to Ms. Comey's proposed questioning, arguing it would open the door to introducing other prior inconsistent statements that were previously ruled out.
Defense summation regarding the credibility of accusers' ...
Ms. Menninger argues to the judge and jury that the accusers' memories have been manipulated and changed over time, citing specific examples from accusers Carolyn, Jane, and Annie, and referencing an expert, Professor Loftus, to support her claims.
Timeline of Annie Farmer's travels
Ms. Menninger argues that records (flight logs, border patrol records) show Annie Farmer's trips occurred in 1997 when she was almost 18, not 1996, contradicting a previous narrative.
Clarification of court exhibits J-8 and J-9.
Ms. Menninger informs the judge that she has a certified original document, marked as exhibits J-8 and J-9, that she intends to show the witness. She clarifies that although marked as two pieces, they are one combined document from the Court.
Cross-examination regarding the date of an FBI interview
Ms. Menninger questions witness A. Farmer to establish the precise date of a past interview with the FBI, using a document to refresh the witness's memory.
The identity of Michelle and credibility of witness Jane
Ms. Menninger argues that the Michelle being discussed is a specific person, her client, who was friends with Emmy. She refutes the government's suggestion that it could be any Michelle from an address book and attacks the credibility of a witness named Jane, accusing her of fabricating connections to people from 'Epstein's world'.
Cross-examination regarding photos on CDs
Ms. Menninger questions witness Meder, who confirms they have no personal knowledge about the dates, accuracy, potential alteration, or origin of photos on CDs. Meder also cannot confirm if the photos are an accurate representation of any fact.
Cross-examination regarding photos on CDs
Ms. Menninger questions witness Meder, who confirms they have no personal knowledge about the dates, accuracy, potential alteration, or origin of photos on CDs. Meder also cannot confirm if the photos are an accurate representation of any fact.
Journal entry about a ski trip
Ms. Menninger questions witness A. Farmer about a journal entry they wrote concerning a trip to a ski cabin, cross-country skiing, and watching the movie 'Sleuth'.
Admissibility of photographic evidence
Ms. Menninger argues that photographs require a witness for authentication to be admissible, especially if they are undated, to establish context and verify they haven't been altered.
Direct examination regarding a report about an interview ...
Ms. Menninger questions the witness, Young, about a report authored by Young's partner, Detective Byrne, concerning an interview with a person named Jane that took place in November 2019.
Witness scheduling and late disclosure of materials
Ms. Menninger informed the court about two upcoming witnesses, Kimberly Meder and Stephen Flatley, and requested time to address issues related to materials that were disclosed after midnight.
Cross-examination regarding prior civil case testimony an...
Ms. Menninger questions witness A. Farmer about preparing to testify in a civil case around 2016/2017 and her knowledge of her attorneys also representing Virginia Roberts. Ms. Pomerantz repeatedly objects to the line of questioning.
Credibility of a witness's testimony against Ghislaine Ma...
Ms. Menninger argues that a witness's testimony is unreliable due to her stated lack of memory regarding key events involving Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, such as whether Maxwell touched or kissed her, or was present during sexual contact.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity