DOJ
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019124.jpg
This document is the final page (Index of Examination) of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the testimony of witnesses Janine Gill Velez, Shawn, Nicole Hesse, and David Rodgers, along with the attorneys conducting the examinations (Rohrbach, Sternheim, Comey, Pagliuca, Moe, Everdell). It also logs the receipt of Government Exhibits 823, 823-R, 105, 1, 2, 3, 662, and 662-R.
DOJ-OGR-00019122.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 records a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), and the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) regarding a briefing schedule that needs to be resolved before the government rests its case. The Judge denies a request for simultaneous briefing and sets a deadline of 7:00 PM for the government and 10:00 PM for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00019119.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell, and Prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding trial scheduling, specifically when the government's case will conclude and when the defense will begin presenting their case. The prosecution requests Rule 26.2 disclosures at the conclusion of their case.
DOJ-OGR-00019118.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. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a delay in starting the defense's case because the government shortened their case unexpectedly, causing witness scheduling issues. The Court agrees to delay the defense case start until the following Thursday and discusses scheduling a charging conference for Friday or the evening of the 16th.
DOJ-OGR-00019116.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. The witness, Mr. Rodgers (likely Epstein's pilot David Rodgers), is being questioned by prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding dates he met specific individuals, including a 'Jane' in November 1996 and another individual in September 2003, referencing his flight logbook for verification. The witness confirms he does not recall meeting anyone else with the same first name on Epstein's planes, after which he is excused and the court breaks for the evening.
DOJ-OGR-00019113.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from the redirect examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers, filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Comey questions Rodgers, who denies letting his daughter massage Jeffrey Epstein and denies receiving an $18.3 million payment from him. Rodgers also testifies about his knowledge of Epstein's properties, estimating the New York residence was acquired around 1996 and acknowledging previous questions about renovations at the Florida residence.
DOJ-OGR-00019105.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers, who began working for Epstein in 1991. The testimony focuses on Rodgers' observations of the evolving relationship between Epstein and an unnamed female (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell) during the early 1990s, confirming it transitioned from friendship to a romantic involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00019094.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding sealed documents labeled LV4 and LV5. The attorney instructs the witness to use the pseudonym 'Kate' for a name appearing on document LV4 and asks the witness if they recall meeting that person on any flights.
DOJ-OGR-00019091.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses first on a photograph of Eva Dubin and whether she appeared pregnant, then shifts to examining Government Exhibit 662 (flight logs). Specifically, the questioning confirms a flight (number 878) that took place on August 18, 1996, traveling from Teterboro to Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00019085.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness Rodgers) detailing flight movements involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in August. It establishes that Maxwell was not on a flight from Aspen to Traverse City on the 18th, but rejoined Epstein on a flight from Traverse City to Teterboro on the 20th, accompanied by Dawn DeVitto.
DOJ-OGR-00019081.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a pilot named Rodgers. The testimony details flight logs involving a trip from Columbus to Traverse City with 'Jeffrey' and two unidentified passengers. It also covers a maintenance trip to Cahokia, Illinois, specifically for an aircraft registration ('N number') change and carpet installation.
DOJ-OGR-00019078.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (implied by case number). The testimony focuses on flight logs, specifically confirming that Mark Epstein does not appear on passenger lists with an individual referred to as 'Jane'. Rodgers admits to writing 'one female' in logs for unknown passengers and acknowledges that while these entries *could* refer to Jane, he cannot confirm it definitively. The testimony establishes Jane first appears in logs in 1996, with no records in 1994 or 1995.
DOJ-OGR-00019071.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The testimony confirms the identities and roles of several Epstein associates: Jeff Shantz as his attorney, Eva Dubin (née Anderson) as his former girlfriend who later married billionaire Glenn Dubin, and Russ Kippus as a relief pilot. The witness confirms Glenn Dubin is a hedge fund manager but is unsure if he was an Epstein client.
DOJ-OGR-00019070.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The testimony verifies details from a flight log dated November 11, 1996 (Flight 916 from Palm Beach to Teterboro). The text identifies passengers including Jeffrey Epstein ('JE'), Jeff Shantz, Eva, Russ, and specifically identifies Sophie Biddle as one of Epstein's professional masseuses who traveled with him.
DOJ-OGR-00019066.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely a pilot). The questioning focuses on discrepancies between Rodgers' memory of when he first met 'Jane' (initially estimated as 2000) and flight logs from 1996, 1997, and 1998 which show a passenger with Jane's first name. Rodgers admits he was 'a couple of years off' in his initial statement to the government because he had not yet reviewed his logbooks.
DOJ-OGR-00019063.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Rodgers (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The questioning focuses on establishing that Rodgers does not have an independent memory of meeting 'Jane' on November 11, 1996, but relies solely on flight logs to establish that date. The testimony confirms that the flight logs contain an entry with a first name matching Jane's true first name.
DOJ-OGR-00017213.jpg
Page 192 of a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) from the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text contains jury instructions defining 'reasonable doubt' and outlining the jury's duty to convict or acquit based on the evidence. It also introduces Instruction No. 9, explaining that an indictment is merely an accusation and not proof of guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00017205.jpg
This document is page 184 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It captures the final moments of prosecutor Ms. Comey's closing argument, where she asks the jury to find the defendant guilty of participating in the sexual abuse of underage girls. Following this, the Court (Judge Nathan) begins reading the jury instructions, starting with Instruction No. 1 regarding the Role of the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00017196.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (rebuttal by Prosecutor Ms. Comey) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecutor argues against the defense theory that victims fabricated stories for financial gain, pointing out that victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie disclosed details about Maxwell to the FBI and personal confidants (Dave Mulligan, Matt, Sean) years before any compensation fund existed (specifically citing 2006 and 2007). The text details specific allegations, including Maxwell touching Annie's breasts during a massage and Carolyn identifying Maxwell by her hair and accent.
DOJ-OGR-00017179.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. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger discuss emails between 'Kate' and Jeffrey Epstein, noting that the physical emails were introduced as redacted exhibits, but their content was established through oral testimony. Ms. Moe raises concerns about mischaracterizations of evidence during closing arguments and discusses a curative instruction for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00017175.jpg
This document is page 154 of a court transcript from the closing summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Menninger attacks the credibility of witnesses Carolyn and Jane, arguing that financial motivation and the passage of time have flawed their memories. She specifically highlights that witnesses Eva and Michelle contradicted Jane's testimony regarding participation in sexual orgies, and notes that Epstein's death prevents him from confronting these accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00017174.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the closing arguments (summation) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger is instructing the jury on the concept of 'reasonable doubt,' emphasizing that the lack of evidence or missing witnesses should be considered when deciding if the government met its burden of proof. She explicitly states that if such doubt exists, it is the jury's duty to acquit Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017170.jpg
This document is page 149 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing the summation by Ms. Menninger. She explains the legal structure of the charges against Ms. Maxwell, specifically distinguishing between conspiracy counts and substantive counts regarding enticement, transportation, and sex trafficking. The page highlights that Counts Two and Four rely entirely on the testimony of an accuser referred to as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00017162.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the closing arguments (summation) by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell was not Epstein's 'right-hand woman' in all matters and that Epstein actively kept secrets from her, including relationships with other women like Frances Jardine, Celina Midelfart, and Sherry Lewis. The text cites testimony from staff (Mr. Alessi, Cim) and flight logs to demonstrate that Epstein often traveled without Maxwell and removed her photos when other women were present.
DOJ-OGR-00017161.jpg
This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Menninger argues that Epstein's spending, including giving land to pilot Larry Visoski and paying employee tuition, appeared generous and educational rather than criminal. She refutes the prosecution's (Ms. Moe) claim that funds were used to buy off sex abuse cases by pointing out that accountant Harry Beller signed the checks and no bank representatives testified to the illicit nature of the funds.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity