SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017456.jpg
This is page 94 of a court transcript (Document 743, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, Visoski, confirms during cross-examination that Epstein had an assistant with a specific name and that he had met her. The proceedings are interrupted by attorneys Everdell and Comey to discuss a 'choreography issue' regarding an exhibit that must be submitted under seal rather than displayed on screens.
DOJ-OGR-00017455.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski by Mr. Everdell. The questioning centers on three flights from 1996, 1997, and 1998, and Visoski's inability to confirm whether a woman referred to as 'Jane' was on them. The witness states they cannot distinguish between individuals with the same first name from over 20 years ago, especially without last names, and acknowledges there were other people in 'Epstein's world' with that same first name.
DOJ-OGR-00017454.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Visoski (likely David Visoski, a pilot) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on pre-trial meetings between Visoski and the government (prosecution), specifically regarding flight log entries. Visoski confirms that the government pointed out specific flights where a female passenger was listed only by a first name, which matched the true first name of a person referred to as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00017453.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court cross-examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. The witness is questioned about an encounter with a woman named Jane on a plane in Palm Beach. Visoski recalls meeting Jane in the cockpit and seeing her stand between the pilot seats, but cannot swear that she actually flew on the plane and has a generally vague memory of the event, which they contrast with how clearly they could recall someone like President Clinton.
DOJ-OGR-00017451.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal cross-examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning establishes that Jeffrey Epstein had a home and office in Columbus, Ohio, near Les Wexner's home. The witness confirms being questioned by the government about a woman referred to by the pseudonym 'Jane', whom the witness recalls seeing on Epstein's plane on one occasion in the 1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00017450.jpg
This page is a transcript from the cross-examination of a pilot named Visoski during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The testimony establishes that Visoski flew Jeffrey Epstein multiple times to Columbus, Ohio, the home of billionaire Les Wexner. The witness confirms Wexner's ownership of The Limited (parent company of Victoria's Secret and Abercrombie & Fitch) and states that Epstein considered Wexner both a friend and a client.
DOJ-OGR-00017448.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. The testimony focuses on flight logs showing trips to Interlochen in August and confirms that Epstein owned a cabin there. Visoski mentions a rumor that the cabin was originally bought or built for violinist Itzhak Perlman, or possibly donated to the Interlochen School.
DOJ-OGR-00017447.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony establishes that during the 1990s, Visoski flew Epstein to Traverse City, Michigan, during the summer months. The witness confirms that world-famous violinist Itzhak Perlman was also a passenger on some of these flights and that Epstein frequently visited Interlochen during this period.
DOJ-OGR-00017443.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination) of a pilot named Visoski. The testimony focuses on flight manifest procedures, specifically the requirement to list names if known and the lack of necessity to weigh passengers for the specific large aircraft (Gulf Stream and Boeing) flown for Epstein, as opposed to smaller planes.
DOJ-OGR-00017410.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the direct examination of a witness named Visoski. The proceedings cover the stipulation and admission of Government Exhibits 11 through 16 and 1004, which includes a birth certificate from England and Wales. Ms. Comey notes that these exhibits are sealed to protect witnesses testifying under pseudonyms, and the Court grants permission for jurors to view these sealed binders.
DOJ-OGR-00014542.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for a defense team. Menninger argues that the witness, Juan Alessi, is not credible by pointing out that he reported directly to Epstein, not Ghislaine, and by citing an email between Ghislaine and Sally Markham where Alessi's work was called 'truly awful'. She further undermines his credibility by discussing his inconsistent testimony regarding a household manual and a black address book.
DOJ-OGR-00014540.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney for an associate of Epstein. Menninger argues that Epstein's financial activities, such as paying for employees' children's education and giving away land, were acts of generosity and not for illicit purposes as the prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, suggests. The summation highlights the lack of testimony from key figures like Epstein's accountant, Harry Beller, or bank officials from JPMorgan, urging the jury not to speculate on the purpose of the financial transactions.
DOJ-OGR-00014534.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense of Ghislaine Maxwell. The summation argues against the prosecution's case by citing testimony from pilots who saw no underage activity, a FedEx custodian who found no packages sent to accusers, and law enforcement specialists whose search of a residence and 40,000 photos yielded no incriminating evidence. The defense's narrative aims to demonstrate a lack of evidence for the grooming and sexual activity allegations presented by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00014533.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense in a case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger challenges the prosecution's evidence by questioning a witness's ability to identify accents, discrediting the expert testimony of Dr. Rocchio by framing her as a 'victim apologist' and not a forensic expert, and asserting there is no evidence Maxwell groomed key individuals like Carolyn, Annie, or Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00014532.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, who is attempting to discredit the testimony of a witness named Carolyn. Menninger argues there is no physical evidence, such as phone or FedEx records, to support Carolyn's claim of being contacted by Ghislaine Maxwell. She further uses the testimony of Carolyn's boyfriend, Shawn, to undermine Carolyn's credibility by highlighting his statements about her drug use and his identification of Epstein and Sarah Kellen as the actual callers to their shared phone.
DOJ-OGR-00014531.jpg
This document is a page from the summation transcript of Ms. Menninger (defense) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense attacks the credibility of a witness named Carolyn, arguing that she did not mention Maxwell for 17 years, even to her therapist Susan Pope, and only implicated Maxwell after filing lawsuits and receiving $2.8 million from a victims' compensation fund. The defense also disputes Carolyn's claim of seeing a photograph of Maxwell pregnant, stating there is no evidence Maxwell was ever pregnant.
DOJ-OGR-00014530.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, arguing that a witness named Carolyn's testimony is financially motivated. Menninger claims Carolyn, after receiving a settlement from Mr. Epstein and remaining silent for 12 years, only came forward through her lawyer in 2019 after Epstein's death and the opening of a victims' compensation fund, suggesting her cooperation is tied to a potential claim.
DOJ-OGR-00014528.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 attorney argues that a witness named Carolyn did not mention Maxwell in her original 2007 statements to the FBI or in her 2008 civil lawsuits. The text details Carolyn's interactions with Epstein, Roberts, and Sarah Kellen, specifically noting that Roberts instructed the massage and engaged in sex acts with Epstein, while Kellen took photos and arranged logistics.
DOJ-OGR-00014527.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) containing the defense summation by Ms. Menninger. The attorney challenges the credibility of a witness named Kate using property records and discusses another witness, Carolyn, who was interviewed by FBI agents in 2007. The text highlights that Carolyn told the FBI she was recruited by Virginia Roberts, who discussed money with her and brought her inside a property where she saw a woman with an unknown accent.
DOJ-OGR-00014526.jpg
This document is page 126 of a court transcript from the summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Menninger argues that the witness 'Kate' is unreliable because she claimed to meet Maxwell at a specific house (44 Kinnerton Street) in 1994, but property records show Maxwell did not purchase that home until March 1997. The defense dismisses a 2019 deposition where Maxwell claimed to live there earlier as an 'offhand remark' made without documentation.
DOJ-OGR-00014525.jpg
Defense attorney Ms. Menninger delivers a closing argument attacking the credibility of a witness named Kate. Menninger highlights that Kate received $3.25 million from the victims' fund, sought a U visa claiming to be 'exceptional,' and admitted to emailing Epstein for decades while having no proof of contact with Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues Kate's memory is flawed due to substance abuse and suggestiveness, specifically challenging her claim of meeting Maxwell at 44 Kinnerton Street in 1994 to qualify for victim compensation.
DOJ-OGR-00014524.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely an attorney, arguing against the credibility of a woman named Kate as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. Menninger details Kate's decades-long, consensual relationship with Epstein, including sending him emails in prison, and points to her history of drug abuse and manipulative behavior to suggest she was a willing participant, not a victim. The argument aims to persuade the audience to question Kate's testimony by using her own life and actions against her.
DOJ-OGR-00014523.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a lawyer, Ms. Menninger, is delivering a summation. She attempts to discredit a witness named Kate by highlighting inconsistencies in her background and motives, such as her immediate application to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund. Menninger also reminds the jury of the judge's instruction not to convict Ms. Maxwell based on Kate's testimony about non-illegal sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014520.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for a defense team. Menninger argues against a previously established timeline concerning Annie Farmer, using flight logs and border patrol records to assert that Farmer's trips with Jeffrey and Ghislaine to New Mexico, and her subsequent trip to Thailand, occurred in 1997 when she was 17, not in 1996. The core of the argument is to discredit a narrative by highlighting discrepancies in dates and travel details.
DOJ-OGR-00014518.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Summation by Ms. Menninger) filed on August 10, 2022. The defense attorney argues that the accuser (Ms. Moe) changed her story between the victims' compensation fund claim (where she received $1.5 million) and her trial testimony regarding sexual abuse by Epstein and Maxwell. The defense also argues Maxwell was in Santa Fe for architectural meetings and had no role in planning the trip involving the accuser, noting that a person named Maria was originally supposed to go.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity