Event Details

This is a page from a court transcript of the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim argues that while four accusers will testify, the evidence will not support the charges, and she attempts to humanize Maxwell by highlighting her education and skills. The text also frames Jeffrey Epstein's image in the 1990s as a successful, charismatic philanthropist to explain Maxwell's association with him.

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) where defense attorney Ms. Menninger discusses efforts to subpoena a witness. The defense argues that a victim referred to as 'Jane' previously told the government that a woman named 'Kelly' could corroborate her story. The Judge requests specific details regarding the defense team's attempts to contact this witness.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn regarding her past use of Xanax, alcohol, and alleged cocaine use between 2000 and 2005. The witness admits to Xanax use for anxiety at age 13 and alcohol use in 2005, but denies the document's claim regarding the frequency of alcohol use starting in 2000 and adamantly denies using cocaine or crack in 2002-2003.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer) by Ms. Menninger. The testimony concerns a visit Farmer made to Jeffrey Epstein's home in late 1995 or early 1996, specifically recalling an office area with a desk and noting the home appeared to be under renovation. The witness discusses a journal entry dated January 7th regarding her return from this trip, which lasted about a week over the Christmas period.

This document is a page from the opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text outlines how Maxwell and a 'middle-aged man' (implied Epstein) targeted victims like 'Jane' between 1994 and 2004. It details Maxwell's role in grooming victims through shopping trips and normalizing sexual topics to facilitate their abuse.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Mulligan. The questioning focuses on conversations Mulligan had with an individual named Annie, specifically regarding Annie's media appearances, alleged contact with other Epstein victims, and a withdrawn question about Annie's potential financial motivation ('make a lot of money off of this case'). Ms. Pomerantz raises hearsay objections during the proceeding.

This document is a page from the transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the direct examination of Supervisory Investigator Brown by Mr. Rohrbach regarding Government Exhibit 21. The testimony establishes that a photo was taken and a nondriver ID was issued on April 28, 2004, for an unnamed individual born in 1985, highlighting that this person would have been 11 years old in 1996.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring a voir dire examination of witness Mr. Alessi. Prosecutor Ms. Comey attempts to introduce Government Exhibits 2A through 2W, requesting most be filed under seal. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi to establish that he left his position at the end of 2002 and therefore would not have taken messages or had personal knowledge of events occurring after that date.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The testimony verifies details from a flight log dated November 11, 1996 (Flight 916 from Palm Beach to Teterboro). The text identifies passengers including Jeffrey Epstein ('JE'), Jeff Shantz, Eva, Russ, and specifically identifies Sophie Biddle as one of Epstein's professional masseuses who traveled with him.

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.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a pilot named Rodgers. The testimony focuses on the pilot's practice of maintaining passenger manifests and logbooks (specifically Government's Exhibit 662), distinguishing between FAA requirements versus personal practice, particularly regarding international flights and customs clearance.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the closing summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. She attacks the credibility of a witness named 'Jane' by highlighting discrepancies between Jane's testimony about the Palm Beach house layout (specifically the location of the massage room and master bathroom) and the actual floor plans/photos. Menninger argues that Jane's description of a 'light beachy feel' and a separate massage room off the master bath is factually incorrect, asserting the attached room is merely a closet.

This document is a page from a court transcript (dated August 10, 2022) featuring the direct examination of a witness named McHugh. The testimony details financial transactions from June 18, 2007, specifically an internal JP Morgan transfer of $7.4 million followed immediately by a wire transfer of $7,352,825 to Sikorsky Aircraft. The wire transfer references 'Air Ghislaine Inc.' and is described as the purchase of a green Sikorsky S76C helicopter.

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 Matt by prosecutor Ms. Moe. Matt testifies about conversations he had with 'Jane' regarding her childhood financial hardship, specifically detailing how her family went broke paying for her father's medical treatments before he died. The testimony highlights extreme poverty, noting that Jane, her mother, and two brothers lived in a small place where the three children shared a single bed.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal debate over jurisdiction and conspiracy charges. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony from witnesses Annie, Kate, and Carolyn regarding events in New Mexico, Arizona, or 'an island' does not satisfy the requirement to prove a violation of New York law. The Judge overrules the objection, stating that the defense is conflating substantive counts with conspiracy counts and that a direct violation of NY law is not required to establish the elements of the conspiracy count.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of an expert witness named Loftus (likely Elizabeth Loftus), who is testifying about memory contamination, the difference between open-ended and leading questions, and the impact of stress on memory. The witness advises using neutral questions to avoid contaminating a witness's memory and notes that stress is usually relevant to the time of the event itself rather than the interview environment.

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 page from a court transcript (Summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the witness 'Jane' originally had no memory of abuse in New Mexico in 2019 but fabricated or recovered a memory after being pressured by the government four times, characterizing this as 'suggestion.' The defense also highlights that Jane testified she does not recall ever being alone in a room with both Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein during the abuse.

This document is page 90 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. It features direct examination testimony from a witness named Rocchio regarding forensic psychology practices, specifically concerning the evaluation of adults disclosing childhood sexual abuse and issues surrounding statutes of limitations. The witness describes the process of determining when a patient became aware of the connection between current difficulties and past abuse.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Visoski. The witness provides a detailed walkthrough of the interior of Jeffrey Epstein's private aircraft, describing it as resembling a 'recreational vehicle.' Specific features mentioned include a 'round room' with a circular couch and a 'red room' that served as Mr. Epstein's office.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley. The testimony focuses on the forensic examination of a hard drive, confirming it originated from a desktop computer rather than a laptop, and establishing that the drive examined was a 'clone' of another hard drive. An objection regarding the transport of desktops on airplanes was sustained by the court.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination testimony of a witness named Visoski, who is describing the interior layout of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach property in detail. The testimony covers specific rooms including a Florida room, a butler's pantry, a three-car garage, and a pool cabana that housed Epstein's gym and personal office.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding an alleged 6.5-hour meeting with Dr. Richard Hall on October 21, 2009. The attorney presses the witness on whether she told Dr. Hall she began seeing Jeffrey Epstein in 2002, though the witness claims no recollection of the meeting.

This document is page 85 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio, who confirms they are testifying as a 'blind expert' regarding the topic of grooming and subject matter expertise, without having evaluated any specific parties or witnesses in the case. The questioning explores potential professional disagreements with other experts like Dr. Dietz and Dr. O'Donohue.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) documenting the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely pilot David Rodgers). The testimony confirms specific flight log entries from July 2001, establishing that Virginia Roberts flew with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell from Santa Fe to Teterboro on July 16, and later flew alone with Epstein from St. Thomas to Palm Beach on July 28.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. A. Farmer regarding her memory of a chef preparing a meal for 'all three of you' (implied to be herself, Epstein, and Maxwell). The questioning highlights a discrepancy between her current lack of memory regarding the chef and FBI notes from 2006 which indicate she recalled the chef at that time.

This page is a transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), specifically the direct examination of a witness named Dubin (likely Eva Dubin). Prosecutor Mr. Pagliuca asks the witness if they have seen media reports regarding Jeffrey Epstein's flight records and whether they believed them to be accurate. Defense attorney Ms. Moe objects twice asking for more specificity, and the Judge sustains the objection, asking Pagliuca to define the timeframe and quantity of the records being discussed.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It documents the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger regarding her attorneys from Boies Schiller and their involvement in the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund. Ms. Pomerantz objects to the line of questioning citing hearsay and privilege, while the Court instructs the defense to establish a foundation for the questions.

This document is page 44 of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Chapell is under cross-examination regarding Defense Exhibit TC-1, which consists of approximately 50 shipping invoices from the year 2002. The testimony establishes the authenticity of these documents as business records of Federal Express.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. Espinosa identifies Sarah Kellen in a photograph (Government's Exhibit 327) and testifies that Kellen arrived towards the end of Espinosa's employment, specifically between 2000 and 2002. Espinosa states she did not know Kellen's specific job title but observed that Kellen accompanied Jeffrey Epstein to his properties and was essentially always where he was.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the direct examination of a witness named Alessi regarding his employment for Mr. Epstein between 1990 and 2002. The testimony focuses on internal 'directories' or booklets maintained by the organization, confirming they were updated approximately twice a year to add new employees and remove those who had left. The examiner introduces Government Exhibit 52 at the end of the page.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Hesse by prosecutor Mr. Pagliuca regarding specific evidentiary exhibits (1J, 1K, and 1M). These exhibits are identified as message pads containing messages directed to 'Mr. JE,' 'Jeffrey,' and 'Sarah.'

This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney argues that Maxwell had her own wealth and connections (referencing hunting photos in the U.K.) and did not rely on Epstein for her lifestyle, challenging the prosecution's motive theory. The defense compares Maxwell to Eva Dubin, noting that Dubin dated Epstein for a decade and saw nothing abnormal, implying Maxwell's association should not automatically imply guilt.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey, arguing that witness testimony against Ghislaine Maxwell predating 2019 could not be a 'frame-job' because Jeffrey Epstein was still alive and considered the primary target ('big fish') at that time. The page argues that accusations made years prior invalidate the defense theory of a fabricated narrative against Maxwell.

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 Mr. Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on the authentication of Government Exhibits 421/421B and 422/422B. Specifically, Exhibit 421 is identified as a 'Help wanted' ad for a massage therapist in Palm Beach, and the digital metadata (Exhibit 421B) links the document's creation and saving on September 17, 2001, to a user named 'gmax'.

This document is a page from a court transcript containing the closing argument (summation) by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues that metadata presented by forensic expert Stephen Flatley does not prove Maxwell wrote specific incriminating documents, as flight logs show she was not in the location ('the house') where the desktop computer was located when those documents were created. The defense suggests multiple people had access to the computer.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson by Ms. Comey regarding his role as a Crime Scene Manager for the Palm Beach Police Department in 2005. Parkinson testifies that he participated in a search of the residence at 358 El Brillo (Epstein's Palm Beach home) on October 20, 2005.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct Examination of witness Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony confirms the contents of flight logs (Government Exhibit 662) regarding Flight 1434 on December 14, 2000, from Teterboro, NJ to St. Thomas. The witness confirms that Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Roberts were all passengers on this specific flight.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. A witness named Carolyn is being cross-examined by Mr. Pagliuca regarding a 2007 statement she gave to the FBI. The attorney reads a portion of a report stating Virginia approached Carolyn at a party to offer her $300; Carolyn corrects the record, stating the FBI got it wrong and the interaction actually occurred at Virginia's house, not a party.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) recording the cross-examination of Mr. Rodgers by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony establishes the employment timeline of Rodgers and his friend Larry Visoski as pilots for Jeffrey Epstein. Rodgers began as chief pilot in 1991 with Visoski as co-captain; they swapped roles in late 2004, and Rodgers continued working for Epstein until 2019.

This document is a page from the cross-examination of defense expert witness Elizabeth Loftus during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz questions Loftus about her history of testifying for high-profile defendants, her interactions with the press, the potential business benefits of such testimony, and clarifies that her work is research-based rather than clinical. The text mentions Loftus's book, 'Witness for the Defense'.

A transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number). The defense attorney attempts to refresh Rodgers' recollection using a document regarding Sarah Kellen taking over as Jeffrey Epstein's primary assistant in late 2001. There is some confusion regarding which specific page and paragraph the witness should be reading.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed in 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Chapell. The testimony focuses on Government Exhibit 802, confirming that J. Epstein sent a package from 457 Madison Avenue, NY, to a recipient named Cardine in West Palm Beach, Florida, on December 12, 2002.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio. The testimony focuses on the definition of 'grooming' in abuse cases, with Dr. Rocchio clarifying that grooming is not a single specific behavior but a 'series and a pattern of behavior' used to deceive a child and build trust for abuse. The questioning attorney attempts to establish that individual behaviors within that pattern can appear benign or non-grooming in isolation.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer). The testimony concerns the authentication of a signature on an application submitted on June 26, 2020. The defense attorney (Menninger) moves to admit pages of the document, and the prosecution (Pomerantz) agrees subject to a review for redactions to protect third-party privacy, which the Court grants.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) recording the summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger, likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Menninger argues that the jury should 'hesitate' to convict based on changed stories following the opening of the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund, the credibility of witness Mr. Alessi, and the lack of physical evidence such as photographs, phone records, or proof of payments to Interlochen. She highlights the absence of corroborating testimony from the accusers' family members.

This document is a page from a court transcript in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text captures a legal argument between Mr. Rohrbach and the Court regarding whether the defense has opened the door to the issue of Maxwell's knowledge of the victims' ages. Specific references are made to testimony from Larry Visoski, Kimberly Espinosa, and a victim named Carolyn, who was instructed to lie about her age at 'the house'.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Redirect of A. Farmer) filed on August 10, 2022. During questioning by Ms. Pomerantz, the witness confirms telling the FBI in 2006 that Ghislaine Maxwell demonstrated how to give Jeffrey Epstein a foot massage, after which the witness began doing it on her own. The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, raises objections regarding leading questions and the witness reading from a document.

This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness Swain) filed on August 10, 2022. The witness testifies that while they had phone calls with Jeffrey Epstein, they never discussed Ghislaine Maxwell and have never spoken to Maxwell personally. The questioning also covers discussions with Epstein regarding a trip to New Mexico involving individuals named Annie and Maria.

This document is page 171 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh, focusing on the definitions and distinctions between 'signatory authority' and 'power of attorney' regarding bank accounts. The questioning establishes that an account holder can authorize others to sign checks or hold power of attorney over their finances.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Alessi. Alessi describes the layout of a residence, specifically detailing the staff quarters, an elevator, and multiple staircases (main, back, and external metal winding). The testimony highlights strict protocols, noting that staff were required to use a specific back stairway.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of Mrs. Hesse by Ms. Moe. Hesse identifies a photo of Ghislaine Maxwell and describes the Palm Beach property in detail (white, two-story, on the water, guest house). She testifies that Maxwell gave her work directions and outlines her responsibilities, which included coordinating maintenance and letting the housekeeper in.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Matt. He recounts a conversation with 'Jane' in which she revealed that the 'godfather' helping pay her and her family's bills was Jeffrey Epstein. The testimony is interrupted by an objection from the Court requiring a more specific question regarding when Jane met Epstein.

This 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 Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony reviews documentary evidence identifying 'John and Mary Alessi' as full-time workers and discusses 'Palm Beach House Maintenance' details, including a FedEx account number (114420816). Significantly, the testimony analyzes digital metadata for a document labeled '418B,' revealing that the author and last saver was 'gmax' (referencing Ghislaine Maxwell) and that the document was created and printed on January 29, 2002.

This document is a page from the closing arguments (summation) by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed August 10, 2022. Menninger argues that a witness named Carolyn did not mention Maxwell in sworn testimony or depositions 12 years prior (2009), nor did message pads show calls to Maxwell from Carolyn, only to Epstein. The defense uses this inconsistency to attack the credibility of the witness's current testimony connecting Maxwell to the abuse.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on 08/10/22, documenting proceedings leading up to an adjournment to December 2, 2021. Prosecutor Ms. Comey estimates the government will rest its case in the third week of trial, while defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca anticipates shorter cross-examinations for future witnesses due to less '3500 impeachment material.' The session concludes with the Judge adjourning until the following morning.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the redirect examination of witness Annie Farmer by Ms. Pomerantz. Farmer testifies that she does not need a journal or paper to recall Ghislaine Maxwell touching her breasts during a massage because it was a 'very distressing event.' The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects to the questioning as leading, but the Court allows the line of inquiry to proceed.

This document is a page from the court transcript of the redirect examination of a witness named 'Jane' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Jane testifies about her application to Interlochen, confirming that while she was having severe difficulties at home, her recommendation letters from teachers did not reflect this because she was 'very good at hiding' the abuse. The attorney directs Jane to look at Defendant's Exhibit J-3.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures an argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the admissibility of a 'book' or 'list' (likely an address book) and whether it constitutes hearsay. Pagliuca argues that the government is offering the document to prove the truth of the matter asserted—specifically that the people listed had contact with 'underage females'—rather than for a non-hearsay purpose like notice.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Kane by Ms. Menninger. The questioning concerns a document describing a student as a 'self-employed interior decorator' who is represented by an agent. Defense attorney Mr. Rohrbach objects to the agent's name being read aloud, arguing lack of relevance, and the Court sustains the objection, instructing the jury to look at the document themselves instead.

This document is page 95 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness named 'Sud' regarding the data entry of invoices and billing records into QuickBooks, specifically noting how individual passenger travel was often billed under a single company or group profile name.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi (likely Juan Alessi) by Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Alessi's previous testimony in 2016, conducted in Fort Lauderdale by Brad Edwards (Virginia Roberts' lawyer), regarding a person named 'Jane' and events in 1994 or 1995. Alessi claims in the current testimony that he may have confused 'two girls' during that previous deposition.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Alessi - Direct) filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, Mr. Alessi, describes the layout of a master suite in an Epstein property, detailing a projection TV system and sliding doors to a pool balcony. Crucially, the testimony establishes that Ms. Maxwell had a dedicated, large bathroom ('bath number four') situated at the entrance to the master bedroom.

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.

This document is page 28 of a court transcript from the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz delivers an opening statement describing how Maxwell acted as a predator alongside a 'middle-aged man' (Epstein) between 1994 and 2004. The text details grooming tactics such as shopping trips and normalizing sexual topics to traffic young girls, including a victim named 'Jane,' for sexual abuse.

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 attorney attempts to discredit a witness referred to as 'Jane' by highlighting inconsistencies in her testimony regarding whether Maxwell was present during abuse committed by Jeffrey Epstein. The defense points to a February 2020 interview where Jane allegedly stated she was unsure if Maxwell was present, contrasting it with her trial testimony.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. Espinosa distinguishes her role as an executive assistant from Emmy Taylor, whom she describes as Ghislaine Maxwell's personal assistant responsible for tasks like dog walking and fetching coffee. Espinosa also testifies regarding Jeffrey Epstein's travel habits, stating he used his own private planes (estimating he owned three or four), though she notes she never flew on them herself.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger regarding a journal entry written on January 25, 1996. The questioning focuses on the witness's contemporaneous perception of Jeffrey Epstein's behavior in a movie theater, specifically contrasting her journal descriptions of it being 'normal' or 'not a big deal' versus 'weird'.

This is page 50 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Witness A. Farmer testifies under direct examination by Ms. Pomerantz about a weekend trip to Epstein's ranch (identifiable by the description of a 'western movie set'). Farmer testifies that she believed Epstein and Maxwell were romantic partners based on their intimate behavior and confirms that she stayed in a 'small residence' on the property with only Epstein and Maxwell.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge. The discussion concerns limiting the scope of questioning for a witness (identified in the header as Dubin) regarding 'sexualized massages' and misconduct involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Mr. Pagliuca argues that the witness's lack of knowledge regarding inappropriate activity is relevant to why she continued dating 'him' (Epstein).

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely pilot David Rodgers). The questioning focuses on the role of Sarah Kellen in late 2001, specifically whether she was acting as an assistant to Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or both. The witness confirms Kellen worked for both but expresses uncertainty about whether she was Epstein's 'primary' assistant at that specific time.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer). The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions Farmer about an incident of sexual abuse in a movie theater and introduces exhibit AF-14. The testimony confirms that Farmer signed a release form in October 2020 and received $1.5 million from the Victims Compensation Program.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing legal arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence. Ms. Sternheim objects to documents based on relevance and foundation, arguing there is no tie between Virginia Roberts and Mar-a-Lago or the Trump company. Mr. Rohrbach argues the documents are relevant to connect the Virginia Roberts named on a birth certificate (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the individual present at Mar-a-Lago in the year 2000, corroborating testimony from Juan and Carolyn Alessi.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) documenting the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on Jane's communications regarding the Epstein case, specifically confirming that she spoke with Stan Pottinger, her ex-boyfriend Matt, and some family members. The defense attorney attempts to establish that her knowledge of the Epstein case is influenced by these conversations and press coverage.