SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017376.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Visoski. Mr. Visoski identifies Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Kellen in two photographs (Government Exhibits 334 and 335) which are then admitted into evidence. He also testifies that he first visited Mr. Epstein's ranch in New Mexico in the mid-1990s, around the time it was purchased in approximately 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00017375.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, a witness, Mr. Visoski, is questioned by an attorney, Ms. Comey, about a photograph (Government Exhibit 310). Visoski identifies the photo as being taken at Mr. Epstein's ranch in the mid-to-late 1990s and states it shows himself, Mr. Epstein, Ms. Kellen, and a twin-engine Cessna 421 aircraft that Epstein had purchased.
DOJ-OGR-00017374.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Visoski (likely a pilot). Visoski testifies about knowing Sarah Kellen since the late 1990s and mentions another woman named Kimberly. The prosecution introduces Government Exhibits 327 and 310, which Visoski identifies as photos showing Sarah Kellen, himself at the front of an aircraft, and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00017373.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. The witness describes the organizational hierarchy for Mr. Epstein's employees, stating Epstein was "number 1" and Ms. Maxwell was "number 2." According to the testimony, Ms. Maxwell was responsible for handling finances and office spending, and both she and Mr. Epstein employed their own personal assistants.
DOJ-OGR-00017372.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the beginning of a court session where the direct examination of a witness, Lawrence Visoski, is resumed by an attorney, Ms. Comey. The questioning is focused on continuing a discussion from the previous day about Mr. Epstein's office and his employees.
DOJ-OGR-00017370.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. An unidentified speaker, presumably a judge or attorney, deliberates on the decision to excuse a juror, expressing regret for not keeping an additional juror and outlining a plan for one final discussion before making the dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00017368.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge regarding a juror's scheduling conflict around the Christmas holiday. Mr. Pagliuca argues that his decision on how to proceed depends on whether the juror is from the main or alternate pool, as this information would have affected their initial jury selection strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00017364.jpg
This document is page 121 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text records a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell while the jury is not present. They discuss the placement of folders containing documents under chairs and the Judge's intention to interview a juror regarding a planned trip to ensure it does not conflict with the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00017363.jpg
This document is the title page of a court transcript for the jury trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20 CR 330), dated November 30, 2021. It lists the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, and details the appearances of the prosecution team (U.S. Attorney's Office) and the defense team (Haddon Morgan and Foreman, plus others). It also notes the presence of FBI and NYPD representatives.
DOJ-OGR-00017361.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the moment the judge thanks and discharges the jury following the verdict. Defense counsel Ms. Sternheim requests the court wait on the presentence report and explicitly asks for a court order to ensure Ms. Maxwell receives a COVID-19 booster shot.
DOJ-OGR-00017355.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, the judge confirms the jury's deliberation schedule, which includes holidays, and reads a note from the jury requesting the transcripts of expert witness Elizabeth Loftus. Counsel then raises an issue regarding the transcript of Cimberly Espinosa.
DOJ-OGR-00017351.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a judge addressing a note from the jury. The jury requests transcripts for five witnesses and seeks clarification on their deliberation schedule, specifically regarding holidays. The judge also indicates an intent to hold a sealed sidebar conference with counsel to discuss a private matter concerning a juror's scheduling conflict.
DOJ-OGR-00017346.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. A judge (The Court) instructs the parties that jury deliberations will proceed every day of the week until a verdict is reached. The judge advises that any juror facing a hardship should notify Ms. Williams, and then asks Ms. Williams to bring the jurors out.
DOJ-OGR-00014503.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (summation) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues that a key witness ('she') has a poor and inconsistent memory, noting the absence of her name in flight logs alongside 'famous people.' Menninger highlights discrepancies between the witness's testimony and her statements in December 2019 and February 2020, where she claimed lack of recollection.
DOJ-OGR-00014500.jpg
This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense argues that flight logs suggest the accuser 'Jane' may have met Epstein and Maxwell in 1996 rather than 1994, noting a specific flight in November 1996 from Palm Beach to New York. The defense attacks Jane's credibility by highlighting a lack of flight records for when she was 14-15 and questioning her testimony regarding a 1997 lawsuit she filed against her school teachers.
DOJ-OGR-00014499.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, outlining inconsistencies in an unnamed female's history. Menninger highlights that the woman, despite claiming poverty, traveled internationally and had a budding acting career, yet failed to mention financial support from Epstein on her 1995 and 1996 applications to Interlochen, directly contradicting her later testimony that he was paying for her.
DOJ-OGR-00014498.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation regarding Ms. Menninger, arguing that she misrepresented her personal circumstances. The speaker contrasts her claims of being 'destitute and homeless' with evidence of her living in increasingly larger homes, including one in a gated community. The summation also highlights inconsistencies, such as a guidance counselor's letter describing a 'supportive family' while Ms. Menninger claimed to have trouble communicating with her mother, to undermine her credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00014495.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely the defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues against the prosecution's proposed motive, suggesting Maxwell had her own luxurious lifestyle and may have been the one with valuable connections, not Jeffrey Epstein. She also points to Eva Dubin, who dated Epstein for a decade without seeing anything abnormal, to cast doubt on the idea that Maxwell must have known about and participated in criminal activity.
DOJ-OGR-00014494.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney for Ghislaine. Menninger challenges the prosecution's case by questioning the testimony of victims like 'Jane' and 'Annie,' specifically disputing the narrative of 'normalizing' abuse and Ghislaine's presence during an assault. She also attacks the government's proposed motive—that Ghislaine facilitated abuse for financial support—and portrays Jeffrey Epstein as a manipulator who deceived everyone, including Ghislaine.
DOJ-OGR-00014492.jpg
This document is a partial legal summation from August 10, 2022, discussing evidence presented or promised in a case, likely related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. It highlights discrepancies between promised evidence (like nude photographs and schoolgirl outfits) and what was actually seen, and notes that law enforcement witnesses failed to deliver on promises and case agents were not called to testify. The document also references FedEx records indicating Ghislaine Maxwell did not send anything to an underage girl.
DOJ-OGR-00014491.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney. She challenges the prosecution's narrative by questioning the credibility of evidence related to Jeffrey Epstein and a young woman named Jane, pointing out inconsistencies in their story about flight logs and Jane's age. Menninger also attacks the credibility of a witness, Juan Alessi, labeling him a burglar with a flawed memory, and argues that the prosecution failed to prove its claim of a "culture of silence" among Epstein's Palm Beach employees.
DOJ-OGR-00014490.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 defense argues that the government failed to provide corroborating witnesses (specifically relatives of accusers Jane, Kate, and Carolyn) or phone records to back up the victims' stories. Additionally, the defense highlights the testimony of pilot Larry Visoski, who stated he never saw women under the age of 20 on the planes, using this to cast doubt on the prosecution's case.
DOJ-OGR-00014489.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney for Ghislaine. Menninger argues that the prosecution has failed to prove its case by highlighting inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness named Jane regarding Ghislaine's presence during Epstein's abuse. She also points out that the government broke its promise to present witnesses, specifically relatives of victims, who would corroborate claims of victims spending time and traveling with Ghislaine and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014488.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger in a criminal case. Menninger argues that the testimony of a witness, "Jane," is unreliable, claiming her memory has been manipulated by "post-event suggestion" and money over 25 years. Menninger highlights inconsistencies in Jane's story, such as her age and how she met Epstein, contrasting her account with testimony from Juan Alessi and Larry Visoski to discredit the prosecution's narrative and absolve "Ghislaine" of targeting Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00014487.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court summation given by Ms. Menninger, likely the defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues that the testimonies of accusers like Carolyn, Jane, and Annie are unreliable because their memories have been manipulated and have changed over time. She suggests this shift is motivated by a desire to hold someone accountable for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein's actions and cites expert testimony from Professor Loftus to support her claim about the nature of memory.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity