SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00013389.jpg
This document is a transcript of testimony from a witness named Rodgers, filed on August 10, 2022. Rodgers describes a large townhouse in Manhattan where Ms. Maxwell lived and discusses the relationship between Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein between 1991 and 2004, stating it was initially romantic but later ceased to be. The witness also explains that Ms. Maxwell would provide notice of Mr. Epstein's upcoming flights via beeper and later cell phone, typically 24 hours to three days in advance.
DOJ-OGR-00013388.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers by an attorney, Ms. Comey. The questioning centers on Rodgers' recollection of conversations with Ms. Maxwell regarding the timeline of her residential moves after her father's death in November 1991. The transcript includes legal objections by another attorney, Mr. Everdell, on the grounds of foundation and hearsay, and subsequent rulings by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013387.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. During the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers, attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to a line of questioning, arguing that moving to a smaller apartment does not prove a lack of money. The Court overrules the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00013386.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript featuring a sidebar discussion during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) argues that evidence of Maxwell's father's death and her subsequent financial decline—followed by Epstein buying her a townhouse—establishes a financial motive for her participation in Epstein's crimes. The defense (Mr. Everdell) objects, claiming the events occurred three years before the alleged conspiracy and are irrelevant.
DOJ-OGR-00013385.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers describes a large apartment in Manhattan, located at 59th Street near Columbus Circle, and testifies that Ms. Maxwell moved from there to a studio apartment in late 1991 or early 1992. The testimony is interrupted by an objection from an attorney, Mr. Everdell, regarding the relevance of the questioning, which is then debated in court.
DOJ-OGR-00013384.jpg
Court transcript of witness Rodgers testifying about interactions with Ghislaine Maxwell between 1991 and 2004. Rodgers details visiting four specific residences of Maxwell's (59th St, Upper East Side studio, 84th St, and 65th St townhouse) primarily to maintain and refurbish first aid kits identical to those kept on Epstein's aircraft. Communications evolved from beepers to cell phones during this period.
DOJ-OGR-00013383.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The witness testifies about first meeting Ms. Maxwell in July 1991, describes her physical appearance and personality at the time, and states she was 'number two' below Jeffrey Epstein. The witness then positively identifies Ms. Maxwell, the defendant, in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00013382.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers, who flew planes for Jeffrey Epstein. The testimony focuses on the period between 1994 and 2004, describing how Rodgers received information about upcoming flights from Epstein, his secretary, or Ghislaine Maxwell. Rodgers also details Maxwell's significant role in Epstein's operations, describing her as a property manager, office manager, and purchaser for his homes and aircraft.
DOJ-OGR-00013379.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Rodgers regarding his employment with Jeffrey Epstein. Rodgers explains he was hired in July 1991 as a pilot after being recruited from his previous job flying a Hawker for a real estate developer in Columbus, Ohio. He served as Epstein's chief pilot, captain, and flight engineer for the period between 1991 and 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00013377.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse. The questioning focuses on messages written for Mr. Epstein, establishing that Mrs. Hesse can only vouch for the accuracy of messages she personally wrote and that she took these messages at his residence only when he was absent.
DOJ-OGR-00013376.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 features the cross-examination of a witness named Hesse by prosecutor Mr. Pagliuca regarding specific evidentiary exhibits (1J, 1K, and 1M). These exhibits are identified as message pads containing messages directed to 'Mr. JE,' 'Jeffrey,' and 'Sarah.'
DOJ-OGR-00013375.jpg
This document is page 97 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Hesse is being cross-examined regarding her precision in taking phone messages compared to other messages found on an exhibit labeled '1C'. The questioning highlights specific messages on the exhibit directed to 'Mr. Epstein' and 'Sarah'.
DOJ-OGR-00013374.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding messages she recorded. The messages, part of exhibit GX-1B, were for individuals named Mr. Epstein (initials JE) and Sarah.
DOJ-OGR-00013373.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Ms. Hesse testifies that she knew women came to a residence to give massages, even when Maxwell was absent, and that she took messages for them. She also confirms knowing about Maxwell's home in New York but denies any knowledge of a residence in Miami.
DOJ-OGR-00013371.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Hesse. Hesse confirms they worked as a part-time manager/caretaker at Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house around 2003, handling maintenance when Epstein was not present. The witness also states that Ms. Maxwell was sometimes at the property during their employment.
DOJ-OGR-00013370.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Hesse by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. Hesse testifies that she worked part-time for Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein starting roughly in September 2003 and ending around 2004. The testimony confirms that Hesse was interviewed by Maxwell and subsequently hired by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013369.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, documenting the direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse. The questioning, led by Ms. Moe, first confirms the name 'Carolyn' on an exhibit and then establishes that Mrs. Hesse's job was to work at the Palm Beach house specifically when Maxwell and Epstein were not there.
DOJ-OGR-00013368.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Mrs. Hesse by Ms. Moe. The testimony concerns a message left by a person named Carolyn on March 11, 2003, and involves the introduction of Government Exhibit 3E after a correction from Exhibit 4B.
DOJ-OGR-00013367.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Witness Mrs. Carolyn Hesse is under direct examination by Ms. Moe regarding 'Government Exhibit 2T.' The testimony focuses on identifying a message on the upper right-hand corner of the exhibit that is addressed 'for Mr. Epstein.'
DOJ-OGR-00013366.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Ms. Moe, questions a witness named Hesse about two written messages. The witness confirms their signature on a message dated 8/12/04 and is then questioned about another message from 'Government Exhibit 1B', dated 7/30 and addressed to 'Mr. Epstein', to determine if it was left by someone named Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00013364.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, focusing on a discussion about 'Government Exhibit 1B'. Ms. Moe requests the jury to access the exhibit and clarifies its location in binders, then proceeds to question Mrs. Hesse about it. A key point is Ms. Moe's caution about not reading names aloud from the exhibit, suggesting sensitive information.
DOJ-OGR-00013363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. Attorney Ms. Moe continues her direct examination of witness Mrs. Hesse. During this segment, the court overrules an objection from Mr. Pagliuca and admits Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of witnesses and parties.
DOJ-OGR-00013362.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and a government lawyer (Ms. Moe) about admitting evidence, specifically 'message books' and 'Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3'. The judge overrules an objection and agrees to admit the evidence, after which the witness, Mrs. Hesse, is dismissed from the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00013360.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues against the admissibility of certain phone records/notes (specifically mentioning one labeled 'JE Natasha'), claiming they lack reliability, dates, and signatures, and do not meet the business record exception. Prosecutor Ms. Moe counters that the records are valid to show who called 'the house' and when, noting that witnesses have corroborated names found in these records.
DOJ-OGR-00013359.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from a direct examination of a witness named Hesse. The transcript captures a legal discussion between an attorney (Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge (The Court) about the admissibility of hearsay evidence, specifically statements contained within business records like police reports. The core issue is that such statements are generally not admissible to prove their content is true unless a specific legal foundation, like business trustworthiness, is established.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity