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-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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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).

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

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

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

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.

Court transcript (sidebar conference)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

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

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript (case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
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