Trove
Sign In Sign Up

MS. MENNINGER

Person
Mentions
1436
Relationships
123
Events
528
Documents
700
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
123 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person A. Farmer
Legal representative
14 Very Strong
16
View
person JANE
Legal representative
14 Very Strong
11
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Client
13 Very Strong
11
View
organization The Court
Legal representative
13 Very Strong
12
View
person Ms. Comey
Opposing counsel
13 Very Strong
10
View
person JANE
Professional
10 Very Strong
8
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Professional
10 Very Strong
5
View
person A. Farmer
Professional
10 Very Strong
27
View
person Ms. Moe
Professional adversarial
10 Very Strong
6
View
person your Honor
Professional
10 Very Strong
6
View
person MS. POMERANTZ
Professional
10 Very Strong
23
View
person Ms. Moe
Professional
10 Very Strong
27
View
organization The Court
Professional
10 Very Strong
144
View
person MR. ROHRBACH
Professional
10 Very Strong
9
View
person Ms. Comey
Professional adversarial
10 Very Strong
6
View
person Ms. Comey
Professional
10 Very Strong
13
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Professional
9 Strong
5
View
person Mr. Everdell
Co counsel
9 Strong
5
View
person Ms. Moe
Opposing counsel
9 Strong
5
View
organization The government
Opposing counsel
9 Strong
5
View
person JANE
Adversarial
8 Strong
3
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Client
8 Strong
4
View
person Meder
Professional
8 Strong
3
View
person Jane
Professional
8 Strong
4
View
person Ms. Sternheim
Professional
8 Strong
4
View
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-00016245.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Annie (A. Farmer). Under questioning by Ms. Pomerantz, Annie states she was 16 when she took a trip to New York and identifies Jeffrey Epstein in a photograph. She then describes her first meeting with Epstein, stating that she and her sister went to his home after he had purchased tickets for them to see 'Phantom of the Opera'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016243.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the direct examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Pomerantz. Farmer testifies that she flew commercially and alone to New York but did not pay for the ticket herself. When asked who she thought bought the ticket, she begins to answer 'When I met Epstein' before being interrupted by a sustained hearsay objection from defense attorney Ms. Menninger.

Court transcript (trial testimony)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016242.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a witness named A. Farmer (addressed as Annie) testifies that her sister, Maria, told her that a person named Epstein was purchasing a ticket for her to travel to New York. The stated reason for the trip and the ticket purchase was Epstein's interest in helping the witness with her education.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016241.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct examination of witness A. Farmer. The witness testifies about visiting her sister, Maria, who was working for Jeffrey Epstein in New York in December 1995. The witness notes that she could not afford the travel herself and that Jeffrey Epstein purchased the plane ticket for her.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016226.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge clarifies a procedural matter with counsel, Ms. Moe, regarding which parts of evidence marked as 'identification 52' are being entered into the record. After a brief recess, the judge confirms with both Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger that they are ready to proceed and directs that the jury be brought in.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016120.jpg

This document is page 10 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim) and the Judge regarding the logistics of projecting evidence on screens for a witness. The primary concerns raised are ensuring the government can follow the proceedings and preventing the public gallery from viewing the screens to maintain privacy.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019171.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The judge announces to the jury and counsel that an unnamed attorney in the case is ill and needs care, leading to the adjournment of the court for the day. The judge indicates proceedings are expected to resume the following morning.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019129.jpg

This document is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Menninger argues regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence involving sisters Annie and Maria Farmer, specifically noting that Maria Farmer alleged nude photographs were stolen from her, but a search of Mr. Epstein's home yielded no such photos. The defense notes that Annie Farmer is a practicing therapist who has made public statements on the topic.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019128.jpg

This document is page 4 of 49 from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys Everdell and Menninger discuss procedural logistics with the Court, including the distribution of exhibits to jurors and the upcoming testimony of witness Annie Farmer, who is noted as testifying openly rather than anonymously. Ms. Comey, representing the government, offers no objection to the handling of juror exhibits.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017198.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court rebuttal on August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Comey, argues against the defense's claim that the FBI manipulated witnesses. She asserts there is no evidence for this accusation, citing testimony from witnesses like Special Agent Young, Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie, who all stated they were only asked to tell the truth. Ms. Comey concludes that for the defense's argument to hold, the jury would have to believe that all these witnesses lied about the defendant's role in their abuse.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017185.jpg

This document is a page from a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey) rebuttal in a criminal trial, filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Comey argues that the defendant was knowingly complicit in a sexual abuse scheme, citing the environment at a Palm Beach house, a list of masseuses used as a 'ruse for sex', and a $30 million payment as evidence of this complicity. She dismisses the defense's arguments about missing evidence as a distraction from the powerful testimony of victims Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017180.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Court regarding defense attorney Ms. Menninger's closing summation. The prosecution argues that the defense improperly suggested to the jury that the government was using Ms. Maxwell as a substitute for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017179.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger discuss emails between 'Kate' and Jeffrey Epstein, noting that the physical emails were introduced as redacted exhibits, but their content was established through oral testimony. Ms. Moe raises concerns about mischaracterizations of evidence during closing arguments and discusses a curative instruction for the jury.

Court transcript (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017177.jpg

This document is a summation in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It mentions Jeffrey Epstein and includes a statement from the court thanking Ms. Menninger.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017176.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation given by Ms. Menninger. She argues that the jury should hesitate to convict due to a lack of credible evidence, pointing to inconsistencies in testimonies, the timing of changed stories relative to the opening of a victims' compensation fund, and the absence of physical proof like photographs or financial records. The speaker repeatedly uses the phrase 'That should make you hesitate' to emphasize her points about the weakness of the prosecution's case.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017175.jpg

This document is page 154 of a court transcript from the closing summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Menninger attacks the credibility of witnesses Carolyn and Jane, arguing that financial motivation and the passage of time have flawed their memories. She specifically highlights that witnesses Eva and Michelle contradicted Jane's testimony regarding participation in sexual orgies, and notes that Epstein's death prevents him from confronting these accusers.

Court transcript (summation/closing argument)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017174.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the closing arguments (summation) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger is instructing the jury on the concept of 'reasonable doubt,' emphasizing that the lack of evidence or missing witnesses should be considered when deciding if the government met its burden of proof. She explicitly states that if such doubt exists, it is the jury's duty to acquit Ms. Maxwell.

Court transcript (summation/closing argument)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017173.jpg

This document is a transcript of a court summation delivered by Ms. Menninger on behalf of her client, Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Menninger explains to the jury the concept of 'reasonable doubt,' stressing that the government bears the entire burden of proving every element of the charges. She instructs them that they must acquit Ms. Maxwell if the government fails to meet this high standard of proof for any part of the case.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017172.jpg

This document is a transcript of a defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney argues for Maxwell's acquittal by claiming a lack of concrete evidence, such as phone records, and emphasizing that mere presence at a location or knowledge of a plan without participation is insufficient for a conviction. She reminds the jury that suspicion is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that Maxwell is presumed innocent.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017171.jpg

This document is a summation by Ms. Menninger in a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Menninger argues for reasonable doubt regarding Carolyn's involvement in Count Six, suggesting Carolyn added Ghislaine Maxwell to her story after financial difficulties. The summation also addresses the government's conspiracy theory involving Epstein and Maxwell arranging for underage females to travel to New York for sex acts, clarifying that Carolyn did not travel to New York and Annie Farmer's travel was independent of Ghislaine Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017170.jpg

This document is page 149 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing the summation by Ms. Menninger. She explains the legal structure of the charges against Ms. Maxwell, specifically distinguishing between conspiracy counts and substantive counts regarding enticement, transportation, and sex trafficking. The page highlights that Counts Two and Four rely entirely on the testimony of an accuser referred to as 'Jane'.

Court transcript (summation)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017169.jpg

This document is a transcript of a court summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger challenges the reliability of witness memories, citing manipulation and the passage of time, while contrasting the credibility of expert witnesses Dr. Loftus and Dr. Rocchio. She concludes by introducing the six counts against Maxwell, including conspiracy, and tells the jury they have the opportunity to acquit her.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017168.jpg

This document is a page from a legal summation in a court case, filed on August 10, 2022. The speaker argues that memory is a constructive and fallible process, using Annie Farmer's incorrect recollection of an April 1996 date as an example. The speaker also defends the credibility of an expert, Dr. Loftus, by stating she has consulted for the Department of Justice, FBI, and Secret Service, countering the implication that she is solely a defense witness.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017167.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation delivered by Ms. Menninger on August 10, 2022. She argues that the accusers' memories may be unreliable by explaining psychological concepts such as autosuggestion and memory contamination. Menninger suggests that factors like discussions with lawyers, media, other accusers, and the prospect of financial recovery from lawsuits or a victims' compensation fund could have distorted their recollections.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017163.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript featuring the summation by Ms. Menninger, likely in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text focuses on discrediting the testimony of Juan Alessi regarding the household hierarchy involving Epstein and Ghislaine, as well as questioning the validity of evidence concerning a household manual and a black address book.

Court transcript / summation
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
82
As Recipient
6
Total
88

Exhibits/Redactions

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: the government

Email sent regarding exhibits/redactions.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Exhibits J-8/9 and J-15

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: the government

Discussions regarding the release and redaction of specific defense exhibits.

Conferral
N/A
Communication Source

Request for exhibits

From: the media
To: MS. MENNINGER

Media requests for the exhibits mentioned.

Requests
N/A
Communication Source

Travel history

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: JANE

Ms. Menninger asked Jane about an international trip which Jane did not remember.

Legal questioning
N/A
Communication Source

3509-008, page five

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: JANE

Defense attorney asks witness to read a specific paragraph from a document to refresh recollection.

Document reference
N/A
Communication Source

Redactions (implied)

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: Government officials

Regarding exhibits and redactions.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification of legal standard

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Explaining the punctuation in a hypothetical question and clarifying that the flight must be for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Strategy

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: co-counsel

(Counsel conferred)

Conference
N/A
Communication Source

Admissibility of hearsay

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: the government

Agreement regarding the exclusion of Maria Farmer's hearsay statements.

Meeting/conferral
N/A
Communication Source

Encounters with Epstein in New York

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: Court/Investigator ('y...

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.

Testimony/statement
N/A
Communication Source

Communication efforts

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: chambers (The Court)

Ms. Menninger offers to email the judge's chambers with the dates and times of communication efforts to create a factual record.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Evidence exhibit 332B

From: Ms. Comey
To: MS. MENNINGER

Ms. Comey states she told Ms. Menninger 'the other day' that they were not planning to offer exhibit 332B.

Verbal communication
N/A
Communication Source

Court proceedings

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: Ms. Moe

Ms. Menninger reports to the court that "Ms. Moe and I spoke briefly."

In-person conversation
N/A
Communication Source

Cross-examination regarding a trip to New Mexico and a me...

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: ["A. Farmer"]

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.

Court testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Scheduling

From: MR. ROHRBACH
To: MS. MENNINGER

Discussion regarding delaying Brian's testimony.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Application

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Application received at 11:54, missing a proposed order.

Application/filing
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Cross-examination regarding evidence

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: A. Farmer

Questioning regarding the submission of a journal (Exhibit 604) to the government.

Court proceeding
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Closing Argument (Summation)

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: Jury/Court

Defense attorney arguing against the credibility of witness Mr. Alessi and introducing the testimony of Dr. Loftus.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Cross Examination

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: Annie Farmer

Legal examination in court

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Cross-examination and admission of evidence

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: The Court / A. Farmer

Discussion regarding the admission of Exhibit AF1 (Bates AFarmer10472), a journal page, into evidence without redactions.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Impeachment arguments

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Discussion regarding the permissibility of arguing impeachment based on read-aloud quotes during closing arguments.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Rule 16 and Impeachment Evidence

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Argument regarding whether impeachment documents must be disclosed to the prosecution prior to use.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Cross-examination

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: A. Farmer

Questioning regarding settlement payout and specific abuse allegations.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Trial Schedule

From: THE COURT
To: MS. MENNINGER

Discussion regarding the timing of closing arguments, jury lunch, and the start of deliberations.

Courtroom dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Introduction of Exhibit AF1

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Discussion regarding the location of exhibits in a binder and the introduction of a specific page from a journal as evidence.

Court proceeding
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search