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-00018868.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge, defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding witness strategy. The defense is undecided about recalling 'Jane' or calling 'Brian', while the prosecution flags the possibility of calling 'victim 2' to the stand that day.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg

This is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense (Mr. Rohrbach) argues that the recall of witness 'Jane' should be limited to a prior consistent statement. The prosecution (Ms. Menninger) argues that Jane's potential contact with her subpoenaed younger brother violates a sequestration order and should be open for questioning. The Court discusses a lack of a specific order prohibiting witnesses from speaking to each other and references a text message from June 15th.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018866.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense attorney (Ms. Menninger) and the prosecutor (Mr. Rohrbach) are discussing a potential witness named Brian before the Judge. The government has decided not to call Brian, and the defense is debating whether to call him despite having him under subpoena, due to concerns about his prior inconsistent statements regarding his sister and the risk of opening the door to prior consistent statements.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018864.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves a procedural dispute between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the potential recalling of a witness named Jane and the subpoena status of a witness named Brian. The defense raises concerns about missing disclosures regarding conversations Jane had with her brother, questioning the truthfulness of the recounting of events.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018861.jpg

This document is an index of examinations from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the direct, cross, redirect, and recross examinations of witnesses Kimberly Meder, Stephen Flatley, and Carolyn by various attorneys. The index also lists several government exhibits that were received during the proceedings.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018860.jpg

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, the judge admonishes the attorneys to provide a specific rule of evidence when making objections, rather than using one-word grounds, to prevent improper communication with the jury or witnesses. After confirming no further business is expected for the evening, the court is adjourned until 8:45 a.m. on December 8, 2021.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018857.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and the judge. The primary topic is the status of witnesses, with the government (represented by Ms. Moe) seeking confirmation that the defense will not recall a witness named Jane, following the completed testimony of Matt and the withdrawal of Brian. The defense (represented by Ms. Menninger) requests time to consider, and the judge instructs them to confer and address the issue the next day.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018856.jpg

This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about scheduling a future court session, with the judge suggesting evening or weekend dates to avoid conflicting with the jury. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, also makes a formal request to the court to order a witness named Jane and her attorney not to communicate about her testimony with another witness, who is Jane's younger sibling and is also under subpoena.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018853.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about witness scheduling. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, informs the court that an investigation could not be completed and they will not call a witness named Brian. In response to a request from defense counsel, the court directs that an updated witness list be provided that evening.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018759.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and attorneys Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Menninger regarding trial procedure. The key topics are the timing of an objection to a potential witness's testimony and the estimated length of the cross-examination for the current witness, Carolyn, with the judge emphasizing the need for efficiency to not waste the jury's time.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018758.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion between a judge and attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger. The main topics are a potential violation of a witness sequestration order, after Ms. Menninger admits to speaking briefly with a Ms. Moe, and the scheduling of future proceedings. The judge requires the attorneys to brief the sequestration issue and indicates a decision on whether a person named Brian will testify is pending their input.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018757.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach). They discuss procedural issues, including a potential motion to call a witness's brother, a past request from a November 23rd pretrial conference to share Dr. Rocchio's expert testimony, and the government's communication with a witness named Jane after she left the stand.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018756.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 Court, Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding deadlines for submitting briefs and the results of a factual investigation concerning a male witness. The text also addresses a conflict where the defense has moved to preclude this witness's testimony while simultaneously holding him under a defense subpoena.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018752.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details an afternoon session where the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Menninger) discuss the late discovery of text messages involving 'Jane' and her brother. As a result, the parties agree to delay the testimony of a witness named Brian until the following morning to allow time to review the new evidence.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018751.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records a brief exchange where the court confirms with attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger that a defense question involves privacy issues, after which the court calls for a 30-minute recess.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018750.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion where a new piece of evidence, referred to as 'the notes', is introduced. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, states she has not had time to review them, so the Court calls for a 30-minute recess at 12:55 PM. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, outlines a plan to provide a stamped and emailed copy of the notes to the judge's chambers during the break.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018679.jpg

This is a transcript page from the trial USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz questions witness Mr. Flatley confirming that all emails in 'Government Exhibit 54' came from the account 'gmax1@mindspring.com'. Subsequently, Defense attorney Ms. Menninger begins recross-examination, asking technical questions about how email clients (like Outlook) automatically refresh data from servers when connected to the internet.

Court transcript (redirect and recross examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018678.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley by attorney Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on a specific computer, establishing that Ghislaine Maxwell held the only non-default user account on the device. The defense attorney attempts to establish doubt about who physically accessed the computer, suggesting it could have been in a common area (like a kitchen) and used by others via Maxwell's logged-in account.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018668.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (filed 08/10/22) featuring the testimony of a Mr. Flatley. Ms. Pomerantz concludes her questioning after Flatley reads a statement describing Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as 'great partners' and 'best of friends' who complement each other well. Ms. Menninger then begins cross-examination, establishing that a hard drive (Exhibit GX54) was found in Mr. Epstein's New York home.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018662.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Flatley. Flatley confirms that specific government exhibits, identified as Microsoft Word documents, were saved within the documents folder of a Windows computer user account named 'Ghislaine'. The testimony includes a legal objection from Ms. Menninger regarding the scope of the questioning, which was overruled by the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018660.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Flatley, who identifies and authenticates Government Exhibits 420, 421, and 422. Following his testimony and with no objection from the opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger, the court admits the exhibits into evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018659.jpg

This document is page 61 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz regarding the review of evidence using forensic software. During the proceedings, Government Exhibit 418B is admitted without objection from Ms. Menninger, and Exhibits 420, 421, and 422 are presented for identification.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018658.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) is questioning a witness named Mr. Flatley regarding Government Exhibit 418B, which contains the metadata properties for Exhibit 418. The court also admits Exhibit 418 under seal due to the presence of third-party telephone numbers.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018653.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz, focusing on the authentication and admission of Government Exhibit 424, which is described as an email. The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, offers no objection, and the Judge admits the exhibit into evidence.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018644.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Ms. Meder, by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger, successfully objects to questions about initials on binders and dates on CDs on the grounds of hearsay. The court sustains the objections, leading Ms. Comey to conclude her questioning and the witness to be excused.

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