SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017648.jpg
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 inconsistencies between her testimony and prior statements made to her younger brother and a journalist regarding an 'initial meeting' with Epstein. Specifically, the questioner probes whether Jane initially omitted mentioning the presence of a woman or Ghislaine.
DOJ-OGR-00017647.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The defense questions Jane about conversations she had with her older brother, Brian, shortly after a meeting with Epstein in 1994, specifically asking if she mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell's presence or Epstein's comments about her father (Jane claims not to recall these specific details). Jane does confirm speaking to her younger brother about the events over the last 20 years.
DOJ-OGR-00017646.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' by attorney Ms. Menninger regarding Jane's first meeting with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in 1994. The testimony details that Jane was 14 years old, eating ice cream at a picnic table during a break from classes, when she was approached by Maxwell (described as a tall, thin woman with a dog) and subsequently Epstein, who claimed to know Jane's mother.
DOJ-OGR-00017645.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on her activities in 1996, including performances and applications to programs like a School of the Arts and Interlochen. The central point of this excerpt is to establish that on three of her applications from that time, there was no mention of Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00017644.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning, likely led by defense attorney Ms. Menninger, focuses on an application (Exhibit J-5) Jane submitted to the Interlochen Arts Camp. Specifically, the defense establishes that Jane checked 'no' on the application regarding whether she was applying for financial aid or expecting any outside funds, scholarships, or grants for her attendance.
DOJ-OGR-00017643.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Moe, who is testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane'. Attorney Ms. Menninger questions the witness about an application she made in the summer of 1996, focusing on a new address in the Bear Lake Estates gated community. The questioning relates to Defendant's Exhibit J-5, which the court admits into evidence under seal to protect the witness's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017642.jpg
This page contains a transcript from the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on confirming the witness's address and validating applications for the summers of 1994, 1995, and 1996. Two exhibits, J-5 and J-6, are discussed, with the defense moving to admit J-6 under seal without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017641.jpg
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 her past entertainment career in 1994, including her participation in a touring production of 'Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat' in Florida, and confronts her with a prior statement she made: "Nothing has been very difficult for me." The transcript also records a brief pause where an attorney, Ms. Moe, confers with defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00017637.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning covers her educational background, including an application to Interlochen at age 13 that was supported by a director from the Professional Children's School. The witness is instructed to read a paragraph from an exhibit, which describes the artistic and charitable activities of a family later identified as the von Trapp family.
DOJ-OGR-00017636.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of a cross-examination from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Menninger questions a witness named Jane about a letter of recommendation included in her application, specifically inquiring about its content, the qualifications of the unnamed recommender who was on the board of the Palm Beach School of the Arts, and whether Jane solicited the letter. The Court oversees the exchange, which also references government exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00017635.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, who confirms the authenticity of exhibits including her signature, photographs taken before she was 14, and a letter of recommendation. The transcript also captures a procedural exchange between the judge and an attorney, Ms. Menninger, regarding a binder of government exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00017634.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning concerns an application or form Jane filled out at age 13, her involvement in a school of the arts, and letters of recommendation she received at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00017633.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on establishing Jane's age (16) during a specific summer and reviewing Exhibit J-3, which is identified as an application where Jane answered a question regarding scholarship or financial aid.
DOJ-OGR-00017632.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' (testifying under a pseudonym) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Ms. Menninger questions Jane regarding her applications to Interlochen, specifically asking about her knowledge of financial aid and scholarships, and clarifying her age (13 to 17) during the three summers she attended. The Judge interrupts at the end to clarify if a statement made by the attorney was a question.
DOJ-OGR-00017631.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the start of a court session. The judge addresses the jury, announces the continuation of Ms. Menninger's cross-examination of a witness using the pseudonym "Jane," and reminds the witness she is under oath. The judge also instructs the courtroom sketch artists not to draw an exact likeness of the witness, indicating measures are being taken to protect her identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017630.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger) and the Court regarding the admissibility of internet materials, specifically Wikipedia pages and tabloid articles, as evidence before a jury. Ms. Menninger argues she is providing materials in advance to expedite proceedings, while Ms. Moe objects to their nature.
DOJ-OGR-00017628.jpg
This page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details a discussion between the judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. Ms. Moe updates the court on resolving prior disagreements, requests a sidebar regarding a witness issue, and flags anticipated Rule 408 objections regarding defense exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00017627.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, about how to handle 18 binders of sealed exhibits for the jury and the witness stand. After agreeing on the procedure, the judge thanks the counsel for their work on anonymity issues and calls for a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00017626.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding whether to discuss certain topics at a sidebar or to confer with a witness's attorney first. The Judge instructs the counsel to confer with the witness's attorney before bringing the matters to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017625.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. The parties are debating the timing and method for resolving two or three outstanding issues, weighing the efficiency of handling them immediately against the preference for a sidebar and the dependency of one issue on upcoming witness testimony. The conversation occurs while they are waiting for the jurors to be brought in.
DOJ-OGR-00017623.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on August 10, 2022, discussing a witness's statements regarding her past residences and applications. The conversation involves attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, and the Court, focusing on discrepancies or clarifications needed about the witness's timeline, particularly her living situation before and after meeting Epstein and moving to New York. The nature of a '302' document, described as a type-up of agents' notes, is also clarified.
DOJ-OGR-00017622.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a dispute over a witness's credibility ('impeaching') regarding where she lived at age 14. Ms. Moe argues the witness lived in a pool house due to financial issues, while Mr. Everdell argues that her 1994 Interlochen application lists a different address, contradicting her claim of being homeless or in a pool house.
DOJ-OGR-00017621.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Moe, regarding a witness's testimony. The discussion centers on clarifying the witness's past residences in Palm Beach as a teenager, specifically distinguishing between a 'first address' identified as a pool house and a 'second address'.
DOJ-OGR-00017617.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that a photograph of a witness's house was not disclosed earlier because it was intended solely as impeachment material to contradict the witness's testimony, rather than evidence for the case-in-chief. The Judge and Mr. Everdell discuss Rule 16 discovery obligations, with the Judge noting that prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach likely agrees with the procedural distinction.
DOJ-OGR-00017615.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, is arguing a procedural point to the judge about the defense's ability to introduce its own evidence through a witness called by the government. He provides two examples: a real one involving FedEx records and a hypothetical one involving a witness named Larry Visoski who recently testified about pictures of Little St. James Island.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity