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-00017752.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on the financial support she provided to her mother, who lived with her, and a conversation she had with her attorney, Mr. Glassman, about cooperating in a criminal case after hiring him in September 2019. An objection by Ms. Moe to a question about this conversation was sustained by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017747.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 a trip she took to Europe with her family when she was possibly 15 years old. The attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, briefly discuss an exhibit, J-6, which is being used to refresh the witness's memory about past flights.
DOJ-OGR-00017738.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on Jane hiring a 'tough litigator' around 2015 to counter press allegations that she was a 'Yugoslavian sex slave'. The examination probes into payments made to this lawyer, specifically questioning a 'quarter of a million dollars' amount which Jane denies in this testimony, and confirms she spoke with the government on September 2, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00017735.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal cross-examination, likely a deposition or court testimony, dated August 10, 2022. The witness, identified as Jane, is questioned about commercial flights paid for by an unidentified male, sending a photograph with a note ('Thanks for rocking my world') to Epstein when she was 19, and her mother's alleged involvement in making her send it. The testimony also references exhibits and the lack of dates on photographs.
DOJ-OGR-00017727.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) depicting a sidebar conference during the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. Prosecutor Ms. Moe objects to defense questions regarding investigative techniques (specifically showing photographs), citing a previously granted motion in limine. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger attempts to complain about the excessive number of objections, but the Court dismisses the concern, stating the record is clear.
DOJ-OGR-00017726.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, who is asked if she has seen pictures of someone named Sophie since September 2019. An attorney, Ms. Moe, objects, and another attorney, Ms. Menninger, provides 'Lack of evidence' as the grounds, which the judge questions.
DOJ-OGR-00017718.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioner presses Jane on whether she recalls telling the government in December 2019 that she was introduced to the dean of Interlochen by Epstein at a cocktail party. Jane repeatedly states she does not remember or recall this event, though she does confirm remembering meeting the dean of admissions for Julliard.
DOJ-OGR-00017713.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane.' Attorney Ms. Menninger questions Jane about a prior interview with the government, specifically regarding whether Jane remembered any specific abuse occurring during trips to New Mexico. The witness states she does not recall making the statements presented to her, and the prosecution (Ms. Moe) objects to the form of the questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00017712.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions Jane about her recollection of an alleged abuse incident in New Mexico and her prior statements to the government. Jane repeatedly states that she does not recall the events or making the statements in question.
DOJ-OGR-00017710.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions Jane about a trip she took on "Epstein's plane" to New Mexico and what she previously told "the government" about being ignored on that trip. Jane repeatedly responds that she does not recall the events or her prior statements, leading to objections and a request for clarification from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017703.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, recording the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane'. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger questions Jane about a statement she made to the government regarding being flown to New York by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to see 'The Lion King'. The proceedings are briefly interrupted when a juror suffers a coughing fit, causing a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00017702.jpg
This court transcript excerpt, filed on August 10, 2022, captures the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on discrediting her timeline of events, specifically a first meeting she previously claimed occurred in September 2019. Jane admits her timeline was wrong but states she does not recall repeating the story on later dates in December 2019 and February 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00017700.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 'Jane' by attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on clarifying Jane's memory regarding statements made to the FBI and the government in November 2019 and April 2020. Specifically, Jane confirms reporting that she was abused '90 percent of the time' she traveled with Epstein and Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017699.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney questions Jane about incidents in New York involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and despite objections from another attorney, Jane confirms that she did tell the government about at least one such incident.
DOJ-OGR-00017697.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Ms. Menninger is cross-examining a witness identified as 'Jane' regarding inconsistencies between her current testimony and notes taken by the government during interviews in September 2019 and February 2020. Jane disputes the accuracy of the government's notes regarding her 'first trip to New York,' stating she was never recorded and the notes are 'out of sequence and incorrect.'
DOJ-OGR-00017696.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies between her current testimony and prior statements made to the government in 2019 regarding a trip to New York at age 14 where she allegedly met Epstein. Jane denies the accuracy of the statements being presented, and her counsel, Ms. Moe, objects to the line of questioning, with the court sustaining the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017695.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies between Jane's current testimony (stating abuse began at Epstein's Palm Beach pool house) and a prior statement given to the government in December 2019 (where the defense suggests she claimed it began in New York while taking headshots).
DOJ-OGR-00017694.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding a juror's question about a 'letter of recommendation' and 'Interlochen applications' contained in evidence binders. Following this discussion, the jury enters, and the court instructs Ms. Menninger to resume her cross-examination of the witness identified as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00017692.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the admissibility of evidence for impeaching a witness named Jane, debating whether the issue falls under Rule 408, and emphasizing the necessity of the witness's personal knowledge. The judge also elaborates on the binding nature of Second Circuit precedent on district courts unless overturned by a higher authority.
DOJ-OGR-00017690.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutors and defense attorneys argue over the admissibility of questions regarding a witness's ('Jane') settlement negotiations, with the defense arguing it proves bias and the prosecution objecting under Rule 408. The Judge intercedes by citing *Manko v. United States*, suggesting that the civil settlement exclusion rule (Rule 408) may not apply in criminal prosecutions.
DOJ-OGR-00017689.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) involving a sidebar discussion between the defense (Ms. Menninger), the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the Judge. The defense argues for the right to cross-examine a witness named 'Jane' regarding her participation in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program to show bias or financial motivation. Specifically, the defense highlights that Jane was offered $5 million but her lawyer rejected it, filing a motion for reconsideration to demand an 'eight-figure settlement' (at least $10 million).
DOJ-OGR-00017688.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural argument between attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe before the Court regarding the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane.' The dispute centers on whether a letter written by Jane's civil attorney can be used to refresh her recollection without introducing hearsay into the record.
DOJ-OGR-00017686.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and a judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The core issue is whether questions about a $25 million settlement demand, made by the witness in a civil case, are admissible under Rule 408 to show bias, particularly as the demand was made while a related criminal case against Ms. Maxwell was pending. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues the questions are proper to show bias, while attorney Ms. Moe seeks to limit the scope of the examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017684.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between counsel and the judge during a break in a trial. After the jury is excused for a ten-minute break, counsel Ms. Moe raises two procedural matters with the Court: an ongoing anonymity issue and a Rule 408 issue concerning documents that were just received that morning.
DOJ-OGR-00017683.jpg
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 'Jane' by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies or gaps in Jane's memory regarding whether Ghislaine Maxwell was present for, or touched Jane during, sexual encounters (specifically oral sex) with Jeffrey Epstein, and what Jane previously told the government about these details.
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.
Witness's prior statements about being at Epstein's house.
Ms. Menninger cross-examines the witness, Jane, about her prior statements regarding being at Epstein's house with her mother and brothers, and being driven there by a chauffeur. The witness repeatedly states she does not recall making the statements about her family but confirms talking about the chauffeur.
Summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell
Ms. Menninger argues against the credibility of witness memories, contrasts expert witnesses Dr. Loftus and Dr. Rocchio, and outlines the conspiracy charges against Ghislaine Maxwell, urging the jury towards acquittal.
Redactions on exhibits
Ms. Menninger reports having conferred with the government multiple times about redactions on outstanding exhibits.
Cross Examination
Questioning regarding a full body massage and nudity during the massage.
Cross-examination regarding claim forms
Exchange regarding the legal implications of signing a claim form, penalties of perjury, and questions about sexual abuse locations.
Prior inconsistent statement contentions
Discussion over the break regarding witness statements and scheduling.
Cross-examination regarding exhibit J-5
Questioning regarding financial declarations on an application form.
Witness Testimony Strategy
Discussion regarding the strategic risks of calling Brian as a witness due to inconsistent statements compared to his sister.
Witness statements
Spoke over the break regarding prior inconsistent statement contentions.
Impeachment Materials
Argument regarding whether impeachment photos needed to be produced prior to trial; discussion of specific photos of the Epstein home.
Limiting Instruction
Proposal to handle Ms. Farmer's testimony instruction the same way as Kate's.
Sidebar regarding Victim Compensation Fund
Discussion about whether the witness ('Jane') understands if the jury verdict affects her compensation payout.
Student files search
Questioning regarding the search for student files related to the case and district record keeping.
Scheduling
Discussion regarding the time (4:59 PM) and the decision to break for the evening.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity