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-00017162.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the closing arguments (summation) by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell was not Epstein's 'right-hand woman' in all matters and that Epstein actively kept secrets from her, including relationships with other women like Frances Jardine, Celina Midelfart, and Sherry Lewis. The text cites testimony from staff (Mr. Alessi, Cim) and flight logs to demonstrate that Epstein often traveled without Maxwell and removed her photos when other women were present.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017161.jpg

This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Menninger argues that Epstein's spending, including giving land to pilot Larry Visoski and paying employee tuition, appeared generous and educational rather than criminal. She refutes the prosecution's (Ms. Moe) claim that funds were used to buy off sex abuse cases by pointing out that accountant Harry Beller signed the checks and no bank representatives testified to the illicit nature of the funds.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017160.jpg

This document is a page from the closing arguments (summation) by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Menninger argues against the government's claim that financial transfers to Maxwell were payments for facilitating abuse, stating that transfers like the $7.4 million for a helicopter via 'Air Ghislaine' were standard asset protection strategies used by the wealthy. She draws a parallel to Epstein placing cars in Palm Beach under pilot Larry Visoski's name to show that Epstein frequently put assets in employees' names.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017159.jpg

This document is a page from the defense summation (closing argument) by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (referenced as the 'Oxford-educated, proper English woman'), filed on August 10, 2022. Menninger attempts to discredit the prosecution's 'culture of silence' theory by noting that household manager Juan Alessi threw away the 'mysterious household manual' and that no other staff testified to using it. The defense also argues that pilot Larry Visoski's nondisclosure agreement was standard practice for wealthy individuals to protect the privacy of famous passengers like Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and John Glenn, rather than to conceal illicit sexual activity.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017158.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. The speaker challenges the prosecution's portrayal of Virginia Roberts as a victim, questioning why she did not testify and presenting evidence that she was an 18-year-old masseuse at Mar-a-Lago. The summation concludes by attempting to shift blame, arguing that it was Virginia Roberts, not Ghislaine Maxwell, who introduced another young woman, Carolyn, to Epstein.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017157.jpg

This document is a transcript of a court summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense. Menninger attempts to discredit the prosecution's evidence, including a household manual, a list of massage oils, and an email from 2005 complaining about an employee, Juan Alessi, which she sarcastically calls a 'smoking gun' for a conspiracy charge. She also argues that a photograph presented as evidence is not child pornography but a personal photo given by Eva Dubin to Jeffrey Epstein of his goddaughter.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017156.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript containing the closing argument (summation) by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues that metadata presented by forensic expert Stephen Flatley does not prove Maxwell wrote specific incriminating documents, as flight logs show she was not in the location ('the house') where the desktop computer was located when those documents were created. The defense suggests multiple people had access to the computer.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017153.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, who is arguing against the credibility of a witness named Carolyn. Menninger asserts there is no physical evidence, such as phone or FedEx records, to support Carolyn's claim of being contacted by Ghislaine Maxwell. She further uses the testimony of Carolyn's boyfriend, Shawn, to contradict Carolyn's story regarding timelines, drug use, and who was calling their shared phone.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017150.jpg

This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney. Menninger argues that a witness is not credible because she had multiple opportunities in the past, including a deposition in 2009, to name Ghislaine Maxwell as an accomplice but failed to do so. The speaker also points to evidence, such as message pads, that will be given to the jury and allegedly show no incriminating messages for Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017149.jpg

This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense argues that a witness named Carolyn did not mention Maxwell in her original 2007 FBI statement or in two 2008 civil lawsuits. The text details Carolyn's interactions with Epstein, Roberts, Kellen, and Sarah, highlighting that she originally attributed specific acts (like massage instruction) to Roberts rather than Maxwell.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017148.jpg

This document is a page from the closing summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text challenges the credibility of a witness named 'Kate' using property records and then shifts focus to a witness named 'Carolyn.' It details Carolyn's 2007 interview with FBI agents Kuyrkendall and Richards, where she explicitly stated she was recruited by Virginia Roberts, who promised her money and brought her into a property where she saw a woman with an unknown accent.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017145.jpg

This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense attempts to discredit a witness named 'Kate' by highlighting her history of substance abuse, her involvement in tabloid stings, and her continued affectionate contact with Jeffrey Epstein (including emails signed 'Best love always') while he was in prison and she was in her thirties. The defense argues this behavior is inconsistent with that of an abuse victim.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017143.jpg

This document is a summation from a legal case, discussing inconsistencies and issues related to witness testimony and evidence. It questions the government's ability to corroborate stories, highlights missing diary entries from Annie Farmer, and details the interactions between various lawyers (Boies Schiller firm, Brad Edwards, Jack Scarola) and witnesses (Ms. Farmer, Virginia Roberts, Jane, Kate, Carolyn), suggesting potential 'contamination of memory' due to their communications with each other, family, and media. The document concludes by mentioning Annie Farmer's statement to the FBI regarding her story and a 'money piece' not being sexualized.

Legal document (summation)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017140.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, who is challenging the testimony of a witness named Annie. Menninger argues that Annie's reconstructed memory of a weekend trip to a ranch with Ghislaine Maxwell in April 1996 is unreliable and contradicts flight log evidence, which shows no weekend trips by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to New Mexico during that month.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017139.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues for Maxwell's innocence by highlighting inconsistencies in a victim's testimony to a compensation fund and claiming Maxwell had no role in planning the trip where the alleged abuse occurred. The attorney also describes a victim receiving $1.5 million from the fund for her story about being abused by Epstein.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017138.jpg

This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a lawyer. The speaker is challenging the credibility of a witness's testimony by highlighting inconsistencies in her statements to the government over time (2006 vs. 2020 vs. current testimony) regarding a trip to New Mexico and interactions with Ghislaine and Epstein, including the purpose of the trip and the nature of massages she received.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017136.jpg

This document is a page from the defense summation (closing argument) by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The attorney summarizes the testimony of a witness who visited New York with her sister, detailing innocent activities (Blue Man Group, The Met) and two meetings with Epstein: one in his office regarding college applications and one at a movie theater where he held her hand. The defense emphasizes that the witness testified Maxwell was not present for any of these events and argues there is no evidence of Maxwell's involvement in targeting this witness.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017135.jpg

This document is a court transcript of a legal summation. The speaker first attempts to discredit an unnamed witness by claiming she was paid $5 million by the government and that her stories of flying are uncorroborated. The speaker then discusses the testimony of Annie Farmer, a psychologist, stating the court has instructed that the alleged incident with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not illegal as charged, and that it was Annie's sister, Maria, who worked for Epstein and introduced them.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017134.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, who is attempting to discredit an unnamed female witness or victim. Menninger argues the woman's story is full of inconsistencies, citing discrepancies in her statements to the FBI about her housing, the timeline of meeting Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, and her description of her family life. The speaker ultimately alleges that the woman is fabricating details, specifically inserting Ghislaine into her narrative under the influence of her personal injury lawyer, Mr. Glassman, to strengthen her case.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017133.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, arguing that a witness named Jane has an unreliable and deliberately altered memory concerning her time with Epstein. The speaker highlights inconsistencies in Jane's testimony about a property in Santa Fe, contrasting her account with testimony from other witnesses (Annie, Larry Visoski) and a flight log entry. The summation posits that Jane's memory was contaminated by news reports and conversations with family, and that she intentionally falsified her timeline to appear younger.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017132.jpg

This page is a transcript of a defense summation (Ms. Menninger) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The attorney attempts to impeach a witness ('Jane') by highlighting discrepancies in her memory regarding the New York house, specifically her failure to recall a major 1994 reconstruction described by witnesses Juan Alessi and Larry Visoski. The text also mentions specific decor described by the accuser ('paintings of orgies') and notes that Cim Espinosa, an employee, specifically booked apartments for Jane and her mother.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017131.jpg

This document is a court transcript of a summation given by Ms. Menninger on August 10, 2022. Menninger argues that the testimony of a witness named Jane is unreliable, focusing on a significant discrepancy in her description of a Palm Beach house. Specifically, Menninger claims that Jane's memory of a separate massage room off the master bathroom is contradicted by the floor plan, which shows no such room, thereby questioning Jane's credibility.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017130.jpg

This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney. Menninger argues against the government's attempt to identify her client, Michelle, as a random person from an address book, asserting she is a specific individual who was friends with another woman, Emmy. She attacks the credibility of a key witness, Jane, accusing her of a pattern of fabricating accusations by picking names of people she knew from "Epstein's world."

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017129.jpg

This document is a page from a defense summation (closing argument) by Ms. Menninger in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorney attempts to impeach the credibility of a witness named 'Jane' regarding allegations of sexualized massages involving women named Sophie and Eva. The defense highlights flight records from November 1996 showing Jane traveled with Sophie and Dr. Eva Dubin, noting that Dubin was traveling with her child and nanny, arguing this context makes the sexual allegations improbable.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017128.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically the summation by Ms. Menninger, likely the defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger attacks the credibility of a witness's testimony, highlighting the witness's uncertainty about how many times Maxwell was present during alleged "orgies" orchestrated by Epstein. The summation also points out that other women allegedly present at these events, which involved a 14-year-old girl, did not report them to the police.

Legal document
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