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-00014513.jpg

This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The attorney attacks the credibility of a witness (likely 'Jane' or Carolyn) by highlighting inconsistencies in her statements to the FBI regarding her housing (Bear Lake Estates), her age when moving to Interlochen, and the timeline of meeting Donald Trump in a green car owned by Epstein. The defense argues the witness fabricated Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement at the suggestion of her personal injury lawyer, Mr. Glassman.

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

DOJ-OGR-00014512.jpg

This document is a transcript from a legal summation by Ms. Menninger on August 10, 2022, arguing that a witness named Jane has an unreliable and 'contaminated' memory. The speaker presents evidence, including testimony from other witnesses (Annie, Larry Visoski) and a flight log, to contradict Jane's account of events involving Epstein's Santa Fe property. The summation alleges that Jane deliberately altered her timeline to make herself seem younger and that her memory was influenced by news reports and conversations with family.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014511.jpg

This document is a page from a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely in a trial related to Epstein. The speaker challenges a witness's testimony about Epstein's New York house by pointing out she failed to recall a major 1994 renovation mentioned by Larry Visoski. The speaker also argues that no government staff corroborated the witness's story or confirmed anything unusual, and introduces testimony from Cim Espinosa, who worked for Epstein and booked guests like "Jane" and her mother into his apartments.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014510.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the closing summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. She attacks the credibility of a witness named 'Jane' by highlighting discrepancies between Jane's testimony about the Palm Beach house layout (specifically the location of the massage room and master bathroom) and the actual floor plans/photos. Menninger argues that Jane's description of a 'light beachy feel' and a separate massage room off the master bath is factually incorrect, asserting the attached room is merely a closet.

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

DOJ-OGR-00014509.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. Menninger argues against the government's claim that a woman named Michelle is a random person, citing testimony from witnesses Jane and Michelle herself to establish that she is a specific individual who was friends with another person named Emmy. The summation aims to prove that Jane is not fabricating connections but identifying real people she encountered in 'Epstein's world'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014508.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, who is analyzing the testimony of a witness named Jane. Menninger questions Jane's credibility regarding allegations of 'sexual massages' with women named Sophie and Eva, suggesting Jane may have invented the names. However, Menninger then introduces a flight log from November 1996 showing Jane, Sophie, and Eva (identified as Dr. Eva Dubin) on a flight together, using this evidence to re-contextualize their relationship and challenge Jane's narrative.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014506.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript where a defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, is delivering a summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger systematically attacks the credibility of a key witness by highlighting numerous instances where the witness claims she cannot remember crucial details of her alleged encounters with Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. The attorney argues that the witness's lack of memory regarding being touched, kissed, or seeing Maxwell present during sexual acts contradicts the government's case and makes her testimony unreliable.

Legal document (court transcript)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014505.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the witness 'Jane' originally had no memory of abuse in New Mexico in 2019 but fabricated or recovered a memory after being pressured by the government four times, characterizing this as 'suggestion.' The defense also highlights that Jane testified she does not recall ever being alone in a room with both Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein during the abuse.

Court transcript / trial summation
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014504.jpg

This document is a transcript page from a defense summation by Ms. Menninger in a criminal trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorney argues that a witness's testimony is unreliable due to significant memory lapses and inconsistencies, specifically highlighting contradictory accounts given to the FBI versus in court regarding the location and circumstances of the first instance of sexual abuse involving Epstein.

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

DOJ-OGR-00014502.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 attorney attacks the credibility of a witness referred to as 'Jane' by highlighting discrepancies in her testimony regarding her age during Mike Wallace's birthday and presenting a photo inscription where Jane thanks Epstein for 'rocking my world.' The text also notes that Jane continued to fly on Epstein's planes (paid for by Shoppers Travel) into her early 20s, including flights with Prince Andrew and Mark Epstein.

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

DOJ-OGR-00014501.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger filed 08/10/22) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorney attacks the credibility of a witness named 'Jane' by highlighting inconsistencies in her testimony regarding dates, her age during specific trips (New York, New Mexico, Europe), and her communications with her mother regarding abuse versus other lawsuits. The text specifically mentions Jane receiving 'wads of cash' from Jeffrey Epstein and cites a 1997 flight log entry.

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

DOJ-OGR-00014497.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, who is challenging the credibility of a witness named 'Jane'. Menninger points out that Jane failed to identify Ghislaine and other women in a sworn pleading, despite allegedly being with them. She also contrasts Jane's claims of extreme poverty and homelessness with evidence that she and her two brothers applied for an expensive arts camp costing $12,000 per year for three years.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014493.jpg

This document is a page from a defense attorney's (Ms. Menninger) summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney argues that the government failed to prove its case, specifically challenging the narrative that Maxwell targeted and recruited young women. The defense points to testimony indicating that other individuals, such as Virginia Roberts and Maria Farmer, were responsible for introducing victims like Carolyn and Annie Farmer to Jeffrey Epstein, not Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014486.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically the summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. She argues that the government failed to record interviews with accusers, questions the credibility of witnesses who added Maxwell to their stories only after hiring personal injury lawyers, and points out discrepancies between testimony and flight logs regarding travel.

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

DOJ-OGR-00011675.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the Defense (Ms. Sternheim), and the Judge regarding the placement of screens in the courtroom to ensure evidence shown to a witness is not visible to the public in the gallery. The prosecution expresses concern about visibility for their paralegal and the public, which the Defense addresses by clarifying seating arrangements.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011661.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion during a final pretrial conference. The judge inquires about the exclusion of witnesses, and the government's counsel, Ms. Comey, clarifies that victims have a right to be present after testifying but other witnesses will be excluded. Another attorney, Ms. Menninger, then raises a related issue about the admissibility of accusers' prior inconsistent statements.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011648.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, involving a discussion between the Judge, defense counsel (Pagliuca, Menninger), and the government (Rohrbach). The primary topic is whether potential expert witnesses LaPorte and Naso will testify; the defense suggests it is unlikely and was done out of caution related to a document concerning 'Accuser No. 2,' while the government expresses concern about being surprised mid-trial.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011647.jpg

This document is page 26 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Judge regarding Rule 16 disclosures and the sufficiency of notice provided to the defense concerning the opinions of expert witness Mr. Flatley. The Judge warns the government that if their notice is insufficient, they may face issues later, emphasizing equal standards for both parties.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011645.jpg

A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Ms. Menninger), and the Judge regarding expert witness Mr. Flatley. The discussion focuses on the scope of Mr. Flatley's expertise, specifically regarding forensic principles, digital document storage, and metadata, and whether proper notice was given to the defense regarding his opinions. The Judge instructs that any differing expert opinions on these technical matters must be noticed.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011644.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated August 10, 2022) involving a legal debate over witness testimony. Ms. Menninger argues that the government did not provide sufficient notice regarding the scope of Mr. Flatley's testimony concerning the extraction of user data and metadata, claiming the '3500 material' was insufficient. Mr. Rohrbach responds that while they view Flatley primarily as a fact witness, they provided expert notice due to the blurred lines between fact and expert testimony in this technical context.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011643.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge, Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the rules for disclosing expert testimony and the scope of evidence contained on several hard drives marked as exhibits. The attorneys debate the government's representations about which documents will be used, and Mr. Rohrbach clarifies that a witness, Mr. Kelso, will testify on the general principles of document creation.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011641.jpg

This document is page 20 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The text documents a legal argument between attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger) and the Judge regarding a witness named Kelso. The debate centers on whether Kelso will testify as a fact witness or an expert witness regarding computer forensics and metadata, and whether sufficient disclosure has been made under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.

Court transcript / legal filing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014290.jpg

This document is page 76 of a deposition transcript where an unnamed witness is questioned by attorney Ms. Menninger. The witness recounts being suddenly invited on a trip to New York City by "Jeffrey," who instructed her to come to "the house" and get her passport. The witness denies having discussed the particulars of her prior massages with Jeffrey or "Ghislaine" before this trip was initiated.

Deposition transcript
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014289.jpg

This document is page 39 of a deposition transcript where a witness recounts her experiences with someone named Jeffrey. She testifies to overhearing Jeffrey on the phone trying to 'find some girls' for Frederic Fekkai in Hawaii and describes an 'odd' shopping trip where Jeffrey took her to Victoria's Secret and accompanied her into the fitting room.

Deposition transcript
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014288.jpg

This document is page 38 of a deposition transcript where a witness testifies about magician David Copperfield. The witness confirms Copperfield was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein's and recounts a conversation where Copperfield allegedly asked her if she knew that 'girls were getting paid to find other girls' in connection to Epstein.

Deposition transcript
2025-11-19
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