SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00018400.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Kate. Kate testifies that when she was 23 or 24, Ghislaine Maxwell invited her to 'the island' and asked her to massage Jeffrey Epstein, confirming that sexualized massages took place. She also recalls seeing a very young blond girl on the island and states that she initially associated with Maxwell and Epstein because she sought a friendship with Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018398.jpg
This document is a page from the direct examination testimony of a witness named Kate in the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Kate testifies that she found a schoolgirl outfit on her bed in Palm Beach and was told by Ghislaine Maxwell to wear it to serve tea to Jeffrey Epstein. Kate explains she complied because she was isolated in Florida and feared the consequences of refusing.
DOJ-OGR-00018397.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Kate is under direct examination. She describes Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach house, testifying that she saw 'shocking' photographs of 'unclothed' young girls in 'almost every room'. Kate also states that while staying at the house, she was given a 'schoolgirl outfit' to wear, which she describes in detail.
DOJ-OGR-00018392.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named 'Kate'. She testifies that she worked as a musician and model, and that Epstein initiated sexual activity with her starting at age 17 and continuing into her early thirties. She states this occurred 'every time' they were together, including sexualized massages in London, Palm Beach, and on his island.
DOJ-OGR-00018390.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Kate. Kate describes Ghislaine Maxwell's demeanor when discussing sexual topics as oddly youthful and "like a schoolgirl." She also testifies that Maxwell asked about her sex life and that she confided in Maxwell about her family difficulties, and states that her initial understanding was that Jeffrey Epstein was Maxwell's boyfriend.
DOJ-OGR-00018389.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Kate. Kate testifies that Ghislaine Maxwell told her about Jeffrey Epstein's sexual preferences, stating he liked 'cute, young, pretty' girls and that he 'needed to have sex about three times a day'. This testimony suggests Maxwell's role in communicating Epstein's sexual demands and grooming potential victims.
DOJ-OGR-00018385.jpg
This document is a page from the direct examination of a witness named Kate in the trial against Ghislaine Maxwell. Kate testifies that Maxwell closed the door to a room where Kate then gave Epstein a massage that escalated into a sex act initiated by Epstein. Kate further testifies that immediately after the encounter, she went downstairs and Maxwell praised her, asking if she had fun and stating that Epstein liked her.
DOJ-OGR-00018378.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Kate. She testifies about a visit to Ghislaine Maxwell's townhouse where she was introduced to Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell described Kate's talents and small physical size (95 lbs) to Epstein, then instructed Kate to squeeze Epstein's feet to demonstrate her strength.
DOJ-OGR-00018377.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Kate. Kate recounts how she first met Jeffrey Epstein at Ghislaine Maxwell's townhouse, a few weeks after having tea there. Maxwell urgently called Kate, insisting she come over to meet Epstein, who was described as being in his 40s and wearing sweatpants and a hoodie at the time of their meeting.
DOJ-OGR-00018374.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Kate by Ms. Pomerantz regarding a visit to a townhouse in Belgravia owned by Ghislaine Maxwell. The witness describes seeing numerous silver-framed photographs of Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, noting specifically that in many photos, Maxwell was looking at Epstein while he looked at the camera.
DOJ-OGR-00018365.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It portrays the Judge instructing the jury that the current witness is not a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment and that testimony regarding sexual conduct with Jeffrey Epstein should not be used to judge the character or propensity of Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. Additionally, the Judge orders courtroom sketch artists not to draw the exact likeness of witnesses testifying under pseudonyms to protect their anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00016909.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The transcript captures the conclusion of the government's case, as confirmed by Ms. Comey, and the subsequent colloquy between the judge and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge formally advises Ms. Maxwell of her right to testify or not to testify, stressing that the decision is hers alone, despite any advice from her attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00016907.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues that prior testimony from Jeffrey Epstein regarding his move to 9 East 71st Street (which he stated was around 1996) is relevant because a witness named 'Jane' claimed he lived there in 1994. The Court sustains an objection to this line of argument, referencing a prior ruling regarding the 'motive to develop' testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016905.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Ms. Menninger, and the court. The discussion concerns the materiality of when Mr. Epstein moved from his 69th Street home to 71st Street and the subsequent identification of specific documents (Z-7, Z-8, Z-9, Z-10) and their relevant sections for admission into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016904.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning Jeffrey Epstein's lease violations and residency at a specific property in late 1995 and early 1996. She references a witness hired in December 1995 who confirmed Epstein was not living at the property for the first three weeks of his employment.
DOJ-OGR-00016903.jpg
This document is a court transcript where an unidentified speaker argues against the relevance of certain documents concerning a past lawsuit. The speaker explains that a prior litigation between the government and Mr. Epstein centered on an illegal sublet attempt and property abandonment in 1995-1996, asserting these were not material facts to the current case and thus do not warrant judicial notice.
DOJ-OGR-00016901.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a statement about when Mr. Epstein abandoned a property is not a settled fact. She contends that defense witnesses could have testified that Epstein lived on East 71st Street prior to 1996, contradicting the idea he abandoned it then, and references a prior opinion by Judge Chin to support her argument that the facts are disputable. The transcript ends with the presiding judge asking to see the document under discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00016900.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues for the admissibility of a deposition transcript of Mr. Epstein. The deposition, taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, concerns when Epstein moved from a property on East 69th Street to 9 East 71st Street, which he stated was around January 1996. Rohrbach compares this evidentiary issue to a separate matter involving '44 Kinnerton Street'.
DOJ-OGR-00016899.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. A lawyer is arguing for judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 regarding a fact established in a previous case: that Jeffrey Epstein vacated his East 69th Street residence in January 1996 and leased it to a Mr. Fisher. The text references specific docket entries (15, 45, 46) and an opinion by Judge Chin from that prior litigation to establish the timeline of Epstein's residence.
DOJ-OGR-00016898.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Menninger requests the court take judicial notice of a 1996 case (96 CV 8307) involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ivan Fisher to establish facts regarding Epstein's residences. The text reveals that Epstein's residence at East 69th Street was leased from the U.S. Government (who seized it from the government of Iran) starting in 1992, a detail used to challenge the timeline of a witness named 'Jane' regarding which property she visited between 1994 and 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00016897.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the afternoon session of the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey informs the court that stipulations have been reached and the case is nearing conclusion, though one disputed issue remains. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger begins to address the court regarding this disputed fact.
DOJ-OGR-00016896.jpg
This document is page 167 of a court transcript (Document 763) filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page captures the moment a recess is called immediately after Ms. Sternheim acknowledges a statement regarding a 'right to testify or not testify.' The majority of the page is blank as the proceedings continued on the next page.
DOJ-OGR-00016893.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) and government counsel (Ms. Moe). The core issue is the admissibility of a deposition from Ms. Maxwell, which the government wishes to use to rebut a 'last minute' issue raised by the defense concerning Kinnerton Street property records. The defense offers to stipulate to the property records to avoid the deposition being entered and to negate the need for an additional witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016892.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. Mr. Everdell discusses his intent to use newly acquired property records for Stanhope Mews to impeach a witness's deposition testimony about their residence. He argues that despite the government's objection, further factual development, and possibly an additional witness, is necessary to counter the government's claims.
DOJ-OGR-00016891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. Mr. Everdell argues against admitting evidence provided by the government, stating it is new information that his client, Ms. Maxwell, was not shown during her deposition. He suggests that any confusion in her testimony about her past addresses in London could be due to the vagueness of questioning and her having lived in many different places.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity