SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00014576.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, showing a rebuttal by Ms. Comey. She argues against the defense's claim that their client, Maxwell, was framed by witnesses. Comey's reasoning is that before Epstein's death in 2019, he was the 'big fish' and the logical target for any fabricated stories, meaning there was no motive for witnesses to invent Maxwell's involvement years ago.
DOJ-OGR-00014575.jpg
This document is a transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in a criminal case against a defendant named Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues against the defense's theory that lawyers fabricated stories about Maxwell for financial gain. She presents evidence that three victims—Jane, Carolyn, and Annie—had reported Maxwell's involvement to friends, boyfriends, and the FBI years prior (in 2006 and 2007), long before any compensation fund or financial incentive existed, thus making the defense's theory untenable.
DOJ-OGR-00014574.jpg
This document is page 174 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey is delivering a rebuttal argument, refuting the defense's theory that witnesses (Kate, Carolyn, Annie, Jane) had false memories implanted by the media, the FBI, or greedy lawyers seeking money from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Comey argues there is no evidence the witnesses consumed each other's media interviews or that their lawyers conspired to fabricate stories, noting specifically that Annie's lawyer worked pro bono.
DOJ-OGR-00014573.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal rebuttal by Ms. Comey, filed on August 10, 2022. Comey argues that the defense is focusing on 'peripheral details' to distract the jury from the core fact that a witness, Carolyn, has consistently and without prompting identified Maxwell as a key figure involved in scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein, citing Carolyn's 2009 deposition. The argument aims to reinforce the credibility of Carolyn's memory against defense suggestions that it was contaminated or implanted.
DOJ-OGR-00014572.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey. She counters the defense's focus on inconsistencies in the testimony of a victim named Carolyn, specifically regarding her age at the time of abuse (16 vs. 14) and her memory of a photo of a pregnant Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues these are minor details, asserts the act was still a crime, and directs the jury to government exhibits that support the presence of such photos in the Palm Beach house.
DOJ-OGR-00014567.jpg
This document is page 167 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), featuring a rebuttal argument by prosecutor Ms. Comey. She argues that flight records from March and April 1996 corroborate the prosecution's timeline regarding Epstein and Maxwell traveling to Santa Fe. Additionally, Comey attempts to discredit defense attorney Ms. Menninger's cross-examination of a witness named Jane, characterizing the defense's questioning as misleading 'riddles' and 'nonsense.'
DOJ-OGR-00014566.jpg
This document is a page from the rebuttal argument by prosecutor Ms. Comey during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number). Comey argues that the testimony of four key witnesses (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) is sufficient for a guilty verdict and refutes defense attorney Ms. Menninger's claims regarding age limits at the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Comey also details witness testimony corroborating that the victim 'Annie' was 16, not 17, during a trip to Santa Fe.
DOJ-OGR-00014565.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey's) rebuttal in a criminal trial, likely against Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues that the jury should rely on the powerful and consistent testimony of multiple victims, as sexual abuse crimes rarely produce documentary evidence. She highlights that three separate victims gave similar accounts of the defendant touching their breasts and using massage as a prelude to sexual abuse, which serves as strong corroboration of guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014564.jpg
This document is a page from a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey) rebuttal in a criminal trial, filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor argues that the defendant was knowingly complicit in a sexual abuse scheme, citing a list of masseuses, a Palm Beach house, and a $30 million payment characterized as 'we-molested-kids-together money'. The prosecutor urges the jury to focus on the powerful testimony of victims like Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie, and dismisses the defense's arguments about missing evidence as a distraction.
DOJ-OGR-00014562.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically the beginning of the government's rebuttal argument delivered by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Comey refocuses the jury on Maxwell's specific alleged crimes, mentioning victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie by name, and argues that the defense is attempting to distract from the evidence presented by her colleague, Ms. Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00014561.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and several attorneys regarding the final preparations for trial exhibits. The counsel confirms that the exhibits have been reviewed by both the defense and the government and are ready for the jury. The judge provides instructions to mark the finalized list as a Court Exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00014560.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In the transcript, a government attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues that opposing counsel's (Ms. Menninger's) comments about how witness interviews were conducted have an evidentiary basis from prior testimony. The judge overrules the government's request, stating that the basis for those comments was the cross-examination of the witnesses themselves, not the testimony Mr. Rohrbach cited.
DOJ-OGR-00014559.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe, regarding the permissible scope of closing arguments made by the defense attorney, Ms. Menninger. The core issue is whether Ms. Menninger improperly argued that the government was substituting the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein, potentially violating the court's prior rulings on how Epstein could be mentioned in relation to witness credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00014558.jpg
This legal document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, and the presiding judge. The discussion centers on redacted emails between individuals named Kate and Epstein, clarifying that while the emails were redacted, their content was introduced via testimony. Ms. Moe raises concerns about mischaracterizations and references to items not in evidence during closing arguments, and the Court assures her that the jury will receive proper instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00014557.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where the jury is not present. A lawyer, Ms. Moe, makes an application to the court, objecting to the defense counsel's summation, arguing that they referred to facts not in evidence. As a specific example, she states that Ms. Menninger read an email from someone named Kate that the court had previously ruled inadmissible.
DOJ-OGR-00014555.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) recording the summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger, likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Menninger argues that the jury should 'hesitate' to convict based on changed stories following the opening of the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund, the credibility of witness Mr. Alessi, and the lack of physical evidence such as photographs, phone records, or proof of payments to Interlochen. She highlights the absence of corroborating testimony from the accusers' family members.
DOJ-OGR-00014554.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation given by Ms. Menninger, filed on August 10, 2022. Menninger argues that the jury should doubt the credibility of witnesses Carolyn and Jane, citing their changed stories, the passage of time, and potential financial motivation. She contrasts their testimony with that of witnesses Eva and Michelle, who she claims directly contradicted Jane's allegations of sexual orgies.
DOJ-OGR-00014553.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a portion of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely the defense attorney for a Ms. Maxwell. Menninger explains the legal standard of "reasonable doubt" to the jury, urging them to consider not just the evidence presented but also the lack of evidence, and to acquit her client if they would hesitate to make an important personal decision based on the quality of information provided by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00014552.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding, specifically a summation by an attorney, Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense. She is instructing the jury that the burden of proof lies entirely with the government to prove every element of the charges against her client, Ms. Maxwell, beyond a reasonable doubt. Ms. Menninger emphasizes that if the government fails to meet this high standard on any part of any charge, the jury must acquit.
DOJ-OGR-00014551.jpg
This document is page 151 of a court transcript containing the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Menninger argues that Maxwell was not involved with the accuser 'Kate' in New York and that regarding 'Carolyn' and the Palm Beach property, mere presence or management duties do not constitute conspiracy or sex trafficking. The defense emphasizes the lack of physical evidence (message pads, phone records) linking Maxwell to orchestrating massages and notes that Sarah Kellen was present at the property.
DOJ-OGR-00014550.jpg
This document is a transcript of a closing argument by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues for Maxwell's acquittal on 'Count Six', which relates to an accuser named Carolyn, by attacking Carolyn's credibility and claiming she never traveled to New York as alleged. The attorney also distances Maxwell from any involvement in the travel of another individual, Annie Farmer, to undermine the government's broader conspiracy theory involving Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014548.jpg
This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorney argues against the reliability of accuser memories, citing expert Dr. Loftus and discrediting Dr. Rocchio, while asserting that 'money is a powerful manipulator.' The text transitions to discussing the six counts against Maxwell, specifically defining conspiracy as an agreement to violate the law.
DOJ-OGR-00014547.jpg
This document is a page from a legal summation in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The speaker, likely Ms. Menninger, argues about the unreliability and malleability of memory, using Annie Farmer's incorrect recollection of an April 1996 date as an example and citing expert testimony from Dr. Loftus. The speaker also asserts that Dr. Loftus is not just a defense witness, as she has previously consulted for the Department of Justice, FBI, and Secret Service, the same agencies involved in the prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00014546.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation given by Ms. Menninger on August 10, 2022. She discusses the fallibility of memory, arguing that the accusers' memories could have been influenced by external factors such as talking to lawyers, media, and each other, as well as by the psychological process of autosuggestion. Menninger explains that post-event information and the passage of time can contaminate or distort memories, especially when there is a financial motive like recovering money from lawsuits or a compensation fund.
DOJ-OGR-00014545.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing a summation that references the expert testimony of Ms. Menninger. The speaker argues that memory is unreliable and can be corrupted by post-event information, citing Menninger's book 'Witness for the Defense' and a study on suggestive language (the word 'smashed'). This is used to cast doubt on the testimony of accusers, whose interviews were reportedly not recorded or transcribed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity