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-00018643.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Meder by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning establishes that Meder lacks personal knowledge regarding the accuracy of dates, potential alterations, or the origin of photos found on CDs. The questioning specifically raises the possibility that the photos may have been sent to someone named Epstein before being saved to a CD.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018641.jpg

This page is a transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically the cross-examination of Ms. Meder by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on identifying Ms. Meder's handwriting on exhibit 3531-12 and establishing the immense volume of photographs she reviewed during the investigation, totaling tens of thousands across different sets.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018640.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness, Meder, by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning establishes that the witness reviewed hundreds of CDs containing thousands of photographs that were seized during two searches in July 2019.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018636.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the admission of Government Exhibit 332 under seal to protect a third party's privacy, followed by the jury viewing Exhibits 313 and 332. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) rests, and the defense (Ms. Menninger) begins the cross-examination of witness Ms. Meder regarding photographs copied from CDs to a computer.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018634.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Meder. The witness identifies Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein in a photograph, referred to as Government Exhibit 313, which originated from a CD reviewed during the investigation into both individuals. The government attorney, Ms. Comey, then requests that the exhibit be placed under seal to protect a party's privacy, to which there are no objections.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018628.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Meder. The witness identifies a photograph from a CD (logged as 1B63) from the 'Epstein and Maxwell investigation,' confirming the subjects are Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. The court, over an objection from Ms. Menninger, admits the photograph as Plaintiff's Exhibit 342.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018619.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Meder by prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the admission of evidence. Specifically, the witness identifies Government Exhibit 307 as a photograph of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell retrieved from an investigation CD logged as '1B26'.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018615.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge sustains an objection to Exhibit 309 and grants a request by Ms. Moe for a sealed sidebar discussion regarding the cross-examination of an individual named Brian due to privacy concerns. Consequently, pages 1440 to 1443 of the transcript are noted as sealed.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018614.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and counsel for the government (Mr. Rohrbach) and an opposing party (Ms. Menninger). Mr. Rohrbach confirms that the government will not question a witness, Mr. Flatley, about 'CDs' during direct examination, which resolves a procedural issue and satisfies the court and Ms. Menninger. The judge remarks that prior preparation for this line of questioning is now moot but may be saved for future use.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018612.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger before a judge. The primary issue is the scope of testimony for an upcoming witness, Mr. Flatley, concerning whether a file's 'created date' is the same as its 'modified date' on a CD, and whether this constitutes factual testimony or requires an expert opinion.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018610.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. The judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger discuss the timeline for investigating a potential violation of a sequestration order, deciding not to expedite the matter due to a person named Brian's travel plans. Ms. Menninger also raises a new issue, highlighting a discrepancy between a recent letter from the government and information she received in a prior conferral.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018609.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and two counsels, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the scheduling and scope of testimony for a witness named Brian, who has a flight planned for the next day. The court directs the government to first inquire about what Brian learned from another individual, Jane, before he testifies.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018607.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a potential sequestration order violation has occurred. She expresses concern that a witness, Brian, was told information by another person, Jane, about a document shown during testimony. Ms. Menninger requests that the court question Brian under oath, outside the jury's presence, to determine the extent of the communication before he testifies.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018596.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript records a discussion ending an evidentiary session where an attorney argues against humiliating women with naked photographs in the courtroom. The court considers an item labeled '309' before adjourning proceedings until December 7, 2021.

Court transcript (trial proceedings)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018594.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and a judge. The discussion centers on the admissibility of a photograph after a witness has left the stand, with one attorney, Ms. Sternheim, arguing that the government's failure to introduce the photo during testimony precluded her from a relevant line of cross-examination regarding the witness and the topic of nudity.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018593.jpg

This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a legal debate over the admissibility of a photograph. Defense counsel argues the photo is prejudicial, while Ms. Moe contends it is relevant; the judge ultimately overrules the objection. The discussion also references a witness named Kate, who testified earlier that day, and whose connection to the photograph is debated.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018592.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues against admitting a topless photograph of a female subject found in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in 2019, stating the photo dates to 2002 when the subject was of age. Menninger argues that introducing the photo creates a '403 problem' (prejudice) because the prosecution will not call the subject to testify due to her 'credibility problems.'

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018589.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures legal arguments regarding a piece of evidence in a conspiracy trial. The prosecution asserts that a topless photograph of a victim, along with flight logs showing she traveled with Maxwell and Epstein at age 17, proves she was a minor victim of the conspiracy. The defense, represented by Ms. Menninger, counters that photo metadata and testimony from Mr. Alessi establish the victim was not a minor at the relevant times, arguing the prosecution's claim is contrary to its own evidence.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018587.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecution attorney Ms. Moe argues that photographs are relevant evidence because they demonstrate a long-term, close relationship between Maxwell and Epstein, evidenced by their aging and changing hairstyles, countering the defense's narrative that Maxwell was merely a distanced personal assistant. The Judge overrules the defense's objection regarding the lack of date stamps on the photos.

Court transcript (trial proceedings)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018586.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Menninger, and the judge. Ms. Menninger objects to the admission of photographs found in Mr. Epstein's home, arguing they could be altered, lack proper foundation, and are cumulative. The Court repeatedly overrules her objections, stating that the fact they were found in Epstein's home is sufficient for them to be considered.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018585.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument by Ms. Menninger. She contends that certain photographs should be inadmissible as evidence because they are undated, lack a witness for authentication, and there is no proof they haven't been altered, thus failing to meet the legal standard for admissibility.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018584.jpg

This is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about the admissibility of evidence. The court establishes that photographs found during a 2019 search are relevant because they demonstrate a relationship between Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The judge rules that defense arguments concerning metadata are for the jury to consider and do not prevent the evidence from being admitted, as the bars for authentication and relevance are low.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018583.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of a photograph as evidence. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects on the grounds of improper authentication, as there is no witness to testify about the photo's origin or integrity. In response, attorney Ms. Moe argues the photo is authenticated because it is part of a collection seized by the FBI from Jeffrey Epstein's residence, and its relevance is tied to the relationship between Maxwell and Epstein.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018582.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022), likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger is arguing to exclude photographic evidence (Exhibits 332 and 332B), claiming they are manipulated 'PSD files' (Photoshop) rather than original photos. She argues that metadata titles were manually affixed by a person, creating hearsay issues, and that mere possession of a CD found in a home does not authenticate the images.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018581.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues to the Court (outside the presence of the jury) regarding the admissibility of government exhibits (specifically GX304 and GX309), which contain photographs of Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein. Menninger objects to the lack of foundation for these photos, specifically mentioning a photo of Maxwell lying on a boat at an unknown time and location.

Court transcript (united states district court)
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