Event Details

This document is a page from a court transcript (dated August 10, 2022) featuring the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Menninger argues that the government failed to record interviews with accusers, preventing the defense from knowing if witnesses were coached. She also attacks witness credibility by highlighting inconsistencies between their testimony and flight logs, and suggesting they added Maxwell to their allegations only after hiring personal injury lawyers.

This document is page 10 of a court transcript from August 2022 (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Mr. Everdell explains to the Court the timeline of a real estate purchase by Ms. Maxwell from a couple named O'Neill. The records show contracts were exchanged in December 1996, the deal closed in January 1997, and the official title transfer was recorded in the Land Registry in March 1997.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding statements she made to the FBI in August 2007. The questioning focuses on whether 'Ms. Roberts' (Virginia) told Carolyn she could make $300 by massaging a man (Epstein) in Palm Beach; Carolyn denies being told this initially, stating she was told only upon arriving at Mr. Epstein's house.

This document is page 237 of a court transcript (filed 08/10/22) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions delivered by the judge, specifically addressing the use of pseudonyms for witness privacy due to media attention, and 'Instruction No. 45' regarding the credibility of witnesses and impeachment by prior inconsistent statements. The judge instructs the jury that prior inconsistent statements should be used to evaluate credibility, not as affirmative evidence of Maxwell's guilt.

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.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring a rebuttal argument by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Comey refutes the defense's suggestion (attributed to Ms. Menninger) that the FBI manipulated witnesses or asked leading questions, citing the ethical testimony of Special Agent Young. She argues that the victims (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) did not misremember the defendant's role in their abuse and that the defense's argument relies on the jury believing all witnesses are liars.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' regarding a specific claim form (Exhibit J-18). The questioning focuses on whether Jane participated in prosecution against Epstein, her confirmation of filing litigation against Epstein or his Estate (Question 11), and begins to address whether she was trafficked (Question 12). Jane admits to signing the form but notes she 'didn't write this.'

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The testimony features witness Young being questioned by Ms. Menninger regarding the timeline of drafting and filing a specific report in late 2019. The Judge intervenes to ensure a specific name is not mentioned in open court, instructing the attorney to use the pseudonym 'Jane' instead.