This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioner challenges Jane's memory and consistency regarding her prior statements to the government about encounters involving herself, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Epstein. The questioning focuses on whether Jane was ever alone with the two and whether Maxwell ever touched her, with Jane repeatedly stating she does not recall specific details but denying the assertion that she doesn't recall being touched.
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense attorney attempts to impeach the witness's credibility by highlighting inconsistencies between her current testimony, a statement given in December 2019 (where she had no specific memory), and a statement from February 2020 (where she recalled two other girls being present). The witness claims the government's written record of her statement contains a 'typo' or incorrect wording.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' by attorney Ms. Menninger. The defense attorney questions the consistency of Jane's memory regarding her first encounter with Ghislaine Maxwell, suggesting she fabricated a memory recently that she did not possess in December 2019. The dialogue also references a meeting between Jane and the government in February 2020.
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on Jane's prior testimony about seeing Ghislaine Maxwell undressed and an alleged incident where she, Epstein, and Maxwell went upstairs to a room. The transcript includes objections from an attorney, Ms. Moe, and rulings from the court.
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named "Jane," filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on the witness's recollections of incidents involving Epstein and Ghislaine, specifically probing her memory of seeing Ghislaine topless by a pool and an occasion where Epstein demanded she follow him upstairs. The witness's ability to recall specific questions from a previous day's testimony by a "Ms. Moe" is also challenged.
This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on Jane's prior statements to government agents about Jeffrey Epstein's behavior, specifically whether he controlled where people sat in movie theaters. The transcript includes a legal objection by an attorney, Ms. Moe, which is overruled by the court.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural interruption during the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' regarding a missing exhibit in the jurors' binders. The page concludes with Ms. Menninger resuming questioning about a past event where the witness went to the movies with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
This document is page 466 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a brief moment in open court during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, where a speaker identified as Ms. Sternheim says the single word, "Vigorously." The transcript was prepared by Southern District Reporters, P.C.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The discussion, involving attorneys Ms. Menninger, Ms. Moe, and the judge, centers on whether a witness's statement of "I don't remember" can be treated as inconsistent with a prior statement made to an agent concerning an individual named Epstein. The parties debate the proper legal procedure for questioning a witness about such a potential inconsistency.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Menninger, and the judge. The discussion centers on the proper procedure for impeaching a witness who claims not to recall a prior statement made to the FBI. The judge explains that a claim of not recalling is not an inconsistent statement and details the standard process of using a 302 form to refresh the witness's recollection.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between attorney Ms. Moe and the Judge (The Court) regarding the proper procedure for impeaching a witness ('Jane') versus refreshing her recollection using prior statements or documents. Ms. Menninger is mentioned as the attorney questioning the witness.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the correct procedure for questioning a witness, Jane, who repeatedly claims she cannot remember her prior statements to the government. The judge advises the attorneys on how to phrase questions to avoid improperly introducing prior statements when the witness has no recollection.
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a cross-examination. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger debate with the Court about the proper handling of a witness's (Jane Cross's) lack of recollection, specifically concerning whether Epstein directed her seating. The core issue revolves around refreshing a witness's memory versus allowing the jury to consider the witness's current inability to recall as relevant evidence.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on establishing that a person named Epstein would control social situations by directing where Jane and other girls sat in a movie theater. The transcript also captures a procedural discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe, Ms. Menninger) and the judge regarding a prior statement the witness made to the government on February 27, 2020.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on Jane's romantic history (lack of boyfriends in high school versus later years) and social outings with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically mentioning trips to a movie theater near Epstein's Florida home.
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on Jane's relationship with her sister(s), establishing that she traveled to visit the same sister in both Los Angeles and Boston during her middle and high school years. The transcript also confirms that her sisters took her shopping and to the movies.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning attorney confirms Jane's prior statement to the government that Maxwell and Epstein visited her house before an instance of abuse. The transcript also explores Jane's past relationship with Ghislaine, whom she once viewed as a "big sister", and confirms details about her own family, including two older sisters.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioner challenges Jane's testimony regarding the frequency with which she was picked up by an unnamed man and the method by which meetings at Epstein's house were arranged. The questioner points out a discrepancy between her current testimony about Ghislaine arranging meetings and a statement she gave to the government in November 2019.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning attorney, Ms. Menninger, confronts Jane with her alleged prior statements about being at Epstein's house with her mother and brothers, and being driven there by a chauffeur. Jane repeatedly responds that she does not recall making the statements about her family but confirms discussing the chauffeur.
This document is page 44 (internal pagination 450) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). A witness identified as 'Jane' is under cross-examination regarding an initial meeting ('tea') with Jeffrey Epstein attended by Jane and her mother. The questioning highlights that Jane previously told the government (in Oct 2021) that Maxwell was not present at this specific meeting, and that Epstein referred to his philanthropic activities (scholarships/mentoring) using singular pronouns ('he') rather than plural.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on a visit Jane and her mother made to Epstein's house in Palm Beach, confirming they were the only people there for tea by the pool. The witness states she does not recall if Ghislaine Maxwell was present and is also questioned about a conversation she had with the government in October 2021.
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Jane (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The testimony covers Jane's interactions with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, confirming Maxwell's presence during an initial meeting where Epstein offered scholarships and asked for Jane's mother's phone number. The defense also questions inconsistencies regarding whether Jane was alone or with friends on a park bench and establishes that Epstein's office called Jane's mother shortly after she returned to school.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning challenges the witness's testimony by highlighting inconsistencies between her current account and a prior statement she gave to the government on September 19, 2019, concerning an encounter with Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein and a discussion about scholarships. The witness suggests that any discrepancies may be due to transcription errors by the FBI.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity