Event Details

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues against the admissibility or weight of photographs taken during a 2005 walk-through of an Epstein residence, noting that witness Juan Alessi left in 2002 and witness 'Jane' only gave general descriptions of art, not specific identifications of the photos in question. The defense contends there is no testimony placing specific photos on the wall during the time relevant to the case.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on a statement Jane made to the government on February 27, 2020, where she admitted she was 'not sure' if she had ever been alone in a room with just Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, contradicting or challenging her current memory.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) involving the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The testimony centers on Ms. Brune's reasoning for not further investigating an individual (referred to as 'she') who might have been a suspended lawyer, citing reliance on sworn voir dire responses. The questioning attorney challenges this by pointing out that the indictment itself focused on the misconduct of lawyers and that several codefendants were lawyers.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on the financial gains of the witness's lawyers in representing Epstein accusers and establishes that the witness shared legal representation with Virginia Roberts. The defense also questions the witness about preparing to testify in a previous civil case around 2016 or 2017.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Kate regarding her employment history and use of government public assistance. The questioning focuses on a period when she gave birth, was employed by a financial company, yet sought government benefits to stay home with her child.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains defense arguments asserting that Ghislaine Maxwell did not 'entice' a victim known as 'Jane' to travel for illegal purposes, arguing that return trips to Palm Beach do not constitute enticement to commit crimes in New York. The defense emphasizes testimony stating that Jeffrey Epstein's office typically handled travel arrangements, with Maxwell only occasionally assisting.

This page is a transcript from a deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell (filed in court on Dec 9, 2021). Maxwell is being questioned about a specific document bearing the Bates label 'Giuffre 001663' which contains a section titled 'Massage Florida.' Maxwell denies recollection of the document being on her computer, denies creating it, and claims not to know who did create it. Her attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the line of questioning.

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 Maguire. Maguire confirms serving as the leader of the Evidence Collection Team during a search of a residence on July 6th and 7th. The testimony details that multiple warrants were obtained because items seen during an initial protective sweep were not covered by the first warrant, necessitating a broader subsequent warrant.

This document is page 46 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa testifies that Ghislaine Maxwell's role was strictly that of an 'estate manager' who ran Jeffrey Epstein's properties, distinct from the finance staff and attorneys who handled money and business affairs. Espinosa confirms assisting Maxwell with daily tasks, which included making reservations and handling lists of 25 to 50 items per day.

This is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense (Mr. Rohrbach) argues that the recall of witness 'Jane' should be limited to a prior consistent statement. The prosecution (Ms. Menninger) argues that Jane's potential contact with her subpoenaed younger brother violates a sequestration order and should be open for questioning. The Court discusses a lack of a specific order prohibiting witnesses from speaking to each other and references a text message from June 15th.

This page contains a cross-examination transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 15, 2025. A witness named Rocchio is being questioned regarding the definition and implications of 'vulnerable populations,' specifically regarding risks of sexual abuse, physical assault, substance abuse, and school drop-out rates. Rocchio pushes back against the attorney's broad generalization of risk, emphasizing specific research contexts regarding sexual victimization.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Alessi testifies about his duties at Jeffrey Epstein's house, which included answering phones when Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell were unavailable, calling 'girls' or 'women' to schedule massages at the request of Epstein or Maxwell, calling cabs for transportation, and setting up massage tables in specific rooms as directed.

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 a witness named Parkinson (likely a police officer) by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony covers Parkinson's early interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, specifically a burglary investigation in October 2003 and casual encounters seeing Epstein jogging in Palm Beach. It concludes by introducing the topic of a search warrant executed on October 20, 2005.

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a legal argument over the admissibility of photo exhibits dated from 2019. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues the photos demonstrate Jeffrey Epstein's sexual preference for schoolgirls, while the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the Judge question the relevance given the time gap and location discrepancies (New York vs. Palm Beach) relative to the charged conspiracy. The text mentions testimony from a witness named 'Kate' regarding schoolgirl outfits.

This document is page 41 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Meder, focusing on the provenance of specific photographs entered into evidence. The questioning establishes that the witness testified about photos retrieved from CDs, rather than photos physically displayed on the walls of 'the house.'

This document is page 42 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Chapell. The testimony focuses on the witness verifying 'several hundred' invoices provided by the defense against archived business records stored in boxes in a warehouse. The witness confirms that these records pertained to two specific accounts owned by Jeffrey Epstein.

This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Rodgers (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The questioning focuses on establishing that Rodgers does not have an independent memory of meeting 'Jane' on November 11, 1996, but relies solely on flight logs to establish that date. The testimony confirms that the flight logs contain an entry with a first name matching Jane's true first name.

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.

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the direct examination of Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on a legal brief drafted by Ms. Trzaskoma and signed/approved by Brune, which allegedly omitted the fact that the defense had accessed a 'suspension opinion' during the trial. Brune admits to regretting the oversight but argues the investigation mentioned in the brief was genuinely prompted by a letter from Ms. Conrad, disclosed by the government.

This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses on establishing that the witness's memory of meeting 'Jane' on Epstein's plane on November 11, 1996, is derived solely from reviewing flight logs rather than independent recollection. The flight log entry for that date reportedly lists only a first name, which matches 'Jane's' true first name.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mulligan. Mulligan testifies about dating a woman named Annie in high school around the fall/winter of 1996. The testimony focuses on conversations they had regarding a trip Annie took to New Mexico, noting that these discussions often arose when they were becoming physically affectionate.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 312, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) documenting the redirect examination of a witness named Ms. Brune by Mr. Davis. The proceedings involve the identification and admission of 'Government Exhibit 28,' which is described as a July 21st letter written by Ms. Brune to the Court. Following the admission of the letter into evidence without objection from Mr. Shechtman, the questioning turns to a Westlaw report attached as an exhibit.

This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness Chapell) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses on a shipping invoice from 'October' where Ghislaine Maxwell is listed as the sender and Casey Wasserman is the recipient, with Jeffrey Epstein and the address 457 Madison Avenue also listed on the document. The defense specifically establishes that this invoice does not contain any transaction involving a recipient named 'Carolyn'.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named 'Kate' by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on establishing that the witness maintained email correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein in 2008 (regarding pictures) and in 2011, even after he had been in jail.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Aznaran regarding travel records for Annie Farmer. The testimony confirms a flight by Farmer on July 20, 1997, from Düsseldorf to Newark, and notes that there were no border crossing records for her in the TECS system during 1996.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a pilot named Rodgers. The testimony focuses on the pilot's practice of maintaining passenger manifests and keeping track of passenger counts, distinguishing between FAA requirements and his personal practice. It specifically references 'Government's Exhibit 662,' which is identified as the witness's pilot logbook.

This document is page 92 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on Kate's history of 'periodic drug abuse' (cocaine, alcohol, sleeping pills) and her sobriety. It establishes that Kate met Ghislaine Maxwell at a home with a red door on Kinnerton Street around 1994, when Kate was approximately 17 years old.

This page is a transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely a pilot) regarding flight logs from the 1990s. The questioning focuses on a passenger referred to as 'Jane,' confirming her full name appears only once in the logs, and establishing that she was never on a flight with Jeffrey Epstein's brother, Mark Epstein. There is also a brief mention of a female with a British accent at the beginning of the testimony.

This document is a page from a court transcript (filed March 24, 2022) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on the ethical obligations of a female partner at Brune's law firm, establishing that she has independent obligations to the Court despite Brune's supervisory role. The testimony also references the review of email traffic leading up to the submission of a letter on July 21st.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Court that the lack of corroborating documentary evidence, specifically phone records and emails, is due to the age of the allegations (dating back to the 1990s) when such technology was not widely used. The discussion focuses on formulating questions to an agent regarding this absence of evidence.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Court regarding defense attorney Ms. Menninger's closing summation. The prosecution argues that the defense improperly suggested to the jury that the government was using Ms. Maxwell as a substitute for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus). The witness discusses her professional accolades, noting that her CV is 47 pages single-spaced. She highlights her election to the United States National Academy of Sciences in approximately 2004 as her most prestigious award.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the cross-examination regarding a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court about inconsistencies in testimony regarding incidents in July 2002, specifically noting a lack of allegations regarding sexual penetration versus fondling. The Judge clarifies which paragraph of the legal document is being discussed (moving from 33 to 39) before turning to prosecutor Ms. Comey.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a prior deposition from 2009 and an incident involving the alleged ingestion of 'angel trumpets' (a flower) while visiting Jeffrey Epstein's house, which the witness denies ingesting. Ms. Comey objects to a line of questioning regarding prior testimony, which is sustained by the Court.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, likely a psychologist. The testimony focuses on the clinical reality that very few victims of childhood sexual abuse disclose the abuse immediately, with discovery often happening accidentally in younger children. The witness confirms this is consistent with their private practice experience.

This document is page 118 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer), focusing on how she reconstructed her memory of a specific trip occurring in April 1996 by referencing the movie 'Primal Fear' and her prom. The page concludes with an objection from Ms. Pomerantz regarding mischaracterization by the defense.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct Examination of witness Alessi) filed on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The witness identifies a physical exhibit as matching the cover, binding, and layout of directories used while working for Jeffrey Epstein, specifically noting the book contained 'many, many, many, many names' and entries for massages in Palm Beach. The witness clarifies that while the exhibit matches the original books, the font in the exhibit is smaller and the original books were thicker.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the cross-examination related to a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that there are inconsistencies in the testimony regarding incidents in July 2002, specifically noting that the allegations involve 'fondling of breasts and buttocks' rather than 'sexual intrusion or penetration.' The Judge clarifies the record regarding paragraph references (33 vs 39) before turning to Ms. Comey (prosecution) for a response.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer regarding a pair of boots purchased for her by Jeffrey Epstein. The questioning focuses on the wear and tear of the boots, specifically that the witness wore them 'two-stepping' (dancing) after 2006, and whether she had disclosed this usage to the government prosecutors.

This page is a transcript from the direct examination of a witness named Kate in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Kate testifies that she stopped spending time with Maxwell around age 24. She also details her past addiction to alcohol, cocaine, and sleeping pills, stating she achieved sobriety on May 1st, 2003, and affirms that her past substance use has not affected her memories.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) containing jury instructions regarding Count Two of the indictment. The judge instructs the jury on New York Penal Law Section 130.55 (sexual abuse in the third degree) relevant to acts alleged between 1994 and 1997. The text defines 'sexual contact' and explicitly states that individuals under the age of 17 are legally incapable of consenting to such contact.

This page is a transcript from the direct examination of Professor Loftus in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Loftus testifies about her expertise in memory science, specifically false memories, and details her academic career, including her current role at UC-Irvine and past positions at the University of Washington and the New School for Social Research.

This document is page 107 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 15, 2025. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, focusing on the independence of their investigations and the specific instructions given by the lawyers who hire them. The questioning seeks to establish the boundaries of the witness's independence when hired by a specific party in litigation.

Page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. The witness, identified in the header as Rocchio, is undergoing direct examination regarding their professional qualifications in the field of psychology. Rocchio testifies to holding leadership positions with the American Psychological Association (Division of Trauma Psychology and Ethics Committee) and the Rhode Island Psychological Association.