MS. MENNINGER
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Opposing counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
144 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Co counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Meder
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court examination | Cross-examination of witness JANE by Ms. Menninger. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Jane | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness 'Jane' | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Kimberly Meder | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Stephen Flatley | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of female witness | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of A. Farmer's testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense summation (closing argument) regarding memory science and conspiracy charges. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing arguments/Summation where Ms. Menninger allegedly argued Maxwell was a substitute for Eps... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding witness recall and sequestration violations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar regarding cross-examination of witness 'Jane'. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 424 into evidence during the testimony of Mr. Flatley. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness 'Jane' regarding prior statements. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court discussion regarding jury deliberations and note interpretation | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings discussing jury instructions and a question from the jury regarding Count Four. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of technical testimony about CD burning and file dates (cre... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Hearing/Sidebar | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Paul Kane | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Identification of Exhibit AF9 (Cowboy boots). | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trip | Ms. Menninger and her sister visited New York and engaged in various activities like seeing a pla... | New York | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Ms. Menninger and her sister met with Epstein in his office to discuss her college applications. | Epstein's office, New York | View |
| N/A | Alleged sexual abuse | While watching a movie she remembers as 'Five Monkeys', Epstein caressed and held Ms. Menninger's... | A movie theater in New York | View |
| N/A | Trial testimony | A witness gave testimony about her encounters with Maxwell and Epstein, which is now being discus... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | Discussion of the trial schedule. The defense case is set to begin on the 16th. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017681.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on a statement Jane made to the government on February 27, 2020, where she admitted she was 'not sure' if she had ever been alone in a room with just Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, contradicting or challenging her current memory.
DOJ-OGR-00017676.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' by attorney Ms. Menninger. The defense attorney questions the consistency of Jane's memory regarding her first encounter with Ghislaine Maxwell, suggesting she fabricated a memory recently that she did not possess in December 2019. The dialogue also references a meeting between Jane and the government in February 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00017670.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 interruption during the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' regarding a missing exhibit in the jurors' binders. The page concludes with Ms. Menninger resuming questioning about a past event where the witness went to the movies with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017668.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The discussion, involving attorneys Ms. Menninger, Ms. Moe, and the judge, centers on whether a witness's statement of "I don't remember" can be treated as inconsistent with a prior statement made to an agent concerning an individual named Epstein. The parties debate the proper legal procedure for questioning a witness about such a potential inconsistency.
DOJ-OGR-00017666.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Menninger, and the judge. The discussion centers on the proper procedure for impeaching a witness who claims not to recall a prior statement made to the FBI. The judge explains that a claim of not recalling is not an inconsistent statement and details the standard process of using a 302 form to refresh the witness's recollection.
DOJ-OGR-00017665.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between attorney Ms. Moe and the Judge (The Court) regarding the proper procedure for impeaching a witness ('Jane') versus refreshing her recollection using prior statements or documents. Ms. Menninger is mentioned as the attorney questioning the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00017664.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the correct procedure for questioning a witness, Jane, who repeatedly claims she cannot remember her prior statements to the government. The judge advises the attorneys on how to phrase questions to avoid improperly introducing prior statements when the witness has no recollection.
DOJ-OGR-00017663.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a cross-examination. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger debate with the Court about the proper handling of a witness's (Jane Cross's) lack of recollection, specifically concerning whether Epstein directed her seating. The core issue revolves around refreshing a witness's memory versus allowing the jury to consider the witness's current inability to recall as relevant evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017662.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on establishing that a person named Epstein would control social situations by directing where Jane and other girls sat in a movie theater. The transcript also captures a procedural discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe, Ms. Menninger) and the judge regarding a prior statement the witness made to the government on February 27, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00017659.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning attorney confirms Jane's prior statement to the government that Maxwell and Epstein visited her house before an instance of abuse. The transcript also explores Jane's past relationship with Ghislaine, whom she once viewed as a "big sister", and confirms details about her own family, including two older sisters.
DOJ-OGR-00017655.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning attorney, Ms. Menninger, confronts Jane with her alleged prior statements about being at Epstein's house with her mother and brothers, and being driven there by a chauffeur. Jane repeatedly responds that she does not recall making the statements about her family but confirms discussing the chauffeur.
DOJ-OGR-00017650.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning challenges the witness's testimony by highlighting inconsistencies between her current account and a prior statement she gave to the government on September 19, 2019, concerning an encounter with Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein and a discussion about scholarships. The witness suggests that any discrepancies may be due to transcription errors by the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00017648.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies between her testimony and prior statements made to her younger brother and a journalist regarding an 'initial meeting' with Epstein. Specifically, the questioner probes whether Jane initially omitted mentioning the presence of a woman or Ghislaine.
DOJ-OGR-00017646.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' by attorney Ms. Menninger regarding Jane's first meeting with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in 1994. The testimony details that Jane was 14 years old, eating ice cream at a picnic table during a break from classes, when she was approached by Maxwell (described as a tall, thin woman with a dog) and subsequently Epstein, who claimed to know Jane's mother.
DOJ-OGR-00017644.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning, likely led by defense attorney Ms. Menninger, focuses on an application (Exhibit J-5) Jane submitted to the Interlochen Arts Camp. Specifically, the defense establishes that Jane checked 'no' on the application regarding whether she was applying for financial aid or expecting any outside funds, scholarships, or grants for her attendance.
DOJ-OGR-00017643.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Moe, who is testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane'. Attorney Ms. Menninger questions the witness about an application she made in the summer of 1996, focusing on a new address in the Bear Lake Estates gated community. The questioning relates to Defendant's Exhibit J-5, which the court admits into evidence under seal to protect the witness's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017642.jpg
This page contains a transcript from the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on confirming the witness's address and validating applications for the summers of 1994, 1995, and 1996. Two exhibits, J-5 and J-6, are discussed, with the defense moving to admit J-6 under seal without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017636.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of a cross-examination from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Menninger questions a witness named Jane about a letter of recommendation included in her application, specifically inquiring about its content, the qualifications of the unnamed recommender who was on the board of the Palm Beach School of the Arts, and whether Jane solicited the letter. The Court oversees the exchange, which also references government exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00017635.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, who confirms the authenticity of exhibits including her signature, photographs taken before she was 14, and a letter of recommendation. The transcript also captures a procedural exchange between the judge and an attorney, Ms. Menninger, regarding a binder of government exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00017633.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on establishing Jane's age (16) during a specific summer and reviewing Exhibit J-3, which is identified as an application where Jane answered a question regarding scholarship or financial aid.
DOJ-OGR-00017632.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' (testifying under a pseudonym) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Ms. Menninger questions Jane regarding her applications to Interlochen, specifically asking about her knowledge of financial aid and scholarships, and clarifying her age (13 to 17) during the three summers she attended. The Judge interrupts at the end to clarify if a statement made by the attorney was a question.
DOJ-OGR-00017631.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the start of a court session. The judge addresses the jury, announces the continuation of Ms. Menninger's cross-examination of a witness using the pseudonym "Jane," and reminds the witness she is under oath. The judge also instructs the courtroom sketch artists not to draw an exact likeness of the witness, indicating measures are being taken to protect her identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017630.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger) and the Court regarding the admissibility of internet materials, specifically Wikipedia pages and tabloid articles, as evidence before a jury. Ms. Menninger argues she is providing materials in advance to expedite proceedings, while Ms. Moe objects to their nature.
DOJ-OGR-00017628.jpg
This page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details a discussion between the judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. Ms. Moe updates the court on resolving prior disagreements, requests a sidebar regarding a witness issue, and flags anticipated Rule 408 objections regarding defense exhibits.
Exhibits/Redactions
Email sent regarding exhibits/redactions.
Exhibits J-8/9 and J-15
Discussions regarding the release and redaction of specific defense exhibits.
Request for exhibits
Media requests for the exhibits mentioned.
Travel history
Ms. Menninger asked Jane about an international trip which Jane did not remember.
3509-008, page five
Defense attorney asks witness to read a specific paragraph from a document to refresh recollection.
Redactions (implied)
Regarding exhibits and redactions.
Clarification of legal standard
Explaining the punctuation in a hypothetical question and clarifying that the flight must be for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.
Admissibility of hearsay
Agreement regarding the exclusion of Maria Farmer's hearsay statements.
Encounters with Epstein in New York
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.
Communication efforts
Ms. Menninger offers to email the judge's chambers with the dates and times of communication efforts to create a factual record.
Evidence exhibit 332B
Ms. Comey states she told Ms. Menninger 'the other day' that they were not planning to offer exhibit 332B.
Court proceedings
Ms. Menninger reports to the court that "Ms. Moe and I spoke briefly."
Cross-examination regarding a trip to New Mexico and a me...
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.
Scheduling
Discussion regarding delaying Brian's testimony.
Application
Application received at 11:54, missing a proposed order.
Cross-examination regarding evidence
Questioning regarding the submission of a journal (Exhibit 604) to the government.
Closing Argument (Summation)
Defense attorney arguing against the credibility of witness Mr. Alessi and introducing the testimony of Dr. Loftus.
Cross Examination
Legal examination in court
Cross-examination and admission of evidence
Discussion regarding the admission of Exhibit AF1 (Bates AFarmer10472), a journal page, into evidence without redactions.
Impeachment arguments
Discussion regarding the permissibility of arguing impeachment based on read-aloud quotes during closing arguments.
Rule 16 and Impeachment Evidence
Argument regarding whether impeachment documents must be disclosed to the prosecution prior to use.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding settlement payout and specific abuse allegations.
Trial Schedule
Discussion regarding the timing of closing arguments, jury lunch, and the start of deliberations.
Introduction of Exhibit AF1
Discussion regarding the location of exhibits in a binder and the introduction of a specific page from a journal as evidence.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity