Event Details

This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 24, 2022) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the due diligence performed during jury selection (voir dire), specifically admitting that the witness did not launch a full-scale private investigation into every juror and confirming that the investigative entity 'Nardello' did not search for juror Catherine M. Conrad of Bronxville. The witness also discusses the timing of when the government disclosed a letter sent by the juror.

This is a single page (245 of 246) from a court transcript in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures the very end of a session involving the direct examination of a witness named Hyppolite. The presiding judge adjourns the court to December 17, 2021, at 8:45 a.m., noting that the 'charge' (jury instructions) will be given 'tomorrow.'

This document is a page from a court transcript (direct examination of witness Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony concerns a specific flight on July 26, 1991, piloted by Rodgers from Teterboro, NJ to Palm Beach, FL, carrying Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and two other passengers. The witness also describes general procedures for how they were informed of passenger manifests by a secretary.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on a scientific study regarding 'sexual grooming' and 'pre-offense behaviors,' specifically discussing methodology where 18 people were used to narrow a list of 77 items down to 42. The witness validates that the study in question established the content validity of a sexual grooming model.

This document is page 41 of a court ruling (likely denying a motion to dismiss) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal standard for 'pre-indictment delay' and 'lost evidence,' specifically refuting the Defendant's claims that lost government property records and flight manifests (delivered by pilot Larry Visoski to Epstein's NY office) prejudiced her defense. The court argues the Defendant failed to prove these records were unavailable through other means or that their absence was caused by the government's delay.

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 details a discussion between the Judge and Prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding witness conduct, specifically whether witnesses were instructed not to confer with one another. Ms. Moe confirms it is standard practice to instruct witnesses not to speak to each other, and discloses a meeting 'last night' with a witness named Brian, who revealed he had spoken with another witness, Jane.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is addressing the Court regarding the timeline of the defendant's residence at a property on Kinnerton Street in London. Everdell argues that despite a deposition statement where the defendant claimed to be there in 1992 or 1993, she did not own or reside at the property at that time, noting that another couple lived there prior to her purchase.

This document is page 325 of a confidential deposition transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell describes the logistics of scheduling massages for 'him' (implied Epstein) based on availability. The interrogator asks if Maxwell would be surprised to learn that the Federal Government found girls on the 'massage Florida' list were under the age of 18, to which Maxwell responds that she has no knowledge of the government's findings.

This document is page 156 of a court filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues that a jury should decide if the defendant lied, rejecting the defendant's claims that her answers were truthful. It introduces 'Count Six,' which charges the defendant with perjury related to a 'second deposition' that occurred in July 2016, though the specific transcripts of that deposition are redacted on this page.

This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Document 120) from January 25, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines Counts Five and Six of the indictment, which allege perjury stemming from two civil depositions given by Maxwell in 2016. The text primarily discusses 'Applicable Law' regarding the 'Joinder of Offenses' under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, citing various legal precedents to justify joining separate offenses in a single indictment for trial efficiency.