Skip to content
Ghislaine Maxwell- Case Archive
personpersonJaneJanePublic-record pseudonym for a woman who described interactions with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in her teens.← All People
Witness

Jane

Public-record pseudonym for a woman who described interactions with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in her teens.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
1,301 lines·72 proceedings·64 mentions

About

Jane testified for the prosecution on direct examination on Day 2. Her cross-examination began later that day and continued through multiple Day 3 proceedings, followed by redirect examination on Day 3.

During cross-examination, defense counsel used Interlochen applications and prior accounts to question Jane's recollection of early interactions with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Jane disputed that an FBI account accurately described her first meeting and said Maxwell was present. She also explained that memory is not linear when asked about recalling appointment calls.

The court later sustained an objection to a photograph proposed as impeachment because a direct contradiction of Jane's testimony had not been established, while allowing the defense to pursue an appropriate foundation. It admitted selected structural and massage-room photographs of Epstein's New York apartment to corroborate Jane's earlier testimony, subject to redactions and exclusions.

Later proceedings also addressed a narrowly limited inquiry into whether cooperation and testimony could help Jane's civil claims or compensation-fund claim. During deliberations, the jury requested Jane's testimony transcript, which the court arranged to provide with agreed-upon redactions.

Trial Record (72)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialNov 29, 2021 – Dec 29, 2021Called by prosecution

Testified on direct examination on Day 2, faced cross-examination across Days 2 and 3, and returned for redirect on Day 3.

Day 1

OpeningGovernment Opening StatementMentioned

Summary

The government previewed allegations that Maxwell and Epstein recruited and groomed teenage girls for sexual abuse and identified the testimony and records it expected to offer.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

OpeningDefense Opening StatementMentioned

Summary

Sternheim previewed a defense centered on memory, witness motives, and reasonable doubt, while Judge Nathan set limits on arguments about the prosecution and sustained one objection.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

OpeningDefense Opening Statement ResumesMentioned

Summary

Sternheim previewed defense challenges to hindsight bias, compensation-fund claims, and the anticipated accounts of Jane and Annie before the prosecution objected.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 2

DirectJaneAlison Moe255lines spoken

Summary

Jane testified about alleged sexual contact beginning at age 14, Maxwell's presence during some encounters, and travel with Epstein and Maxwell.

DirectJaneAlison Moe99lines spoken

Summary

Jane described delayed disclosure, Maxwell's presence during encounters involving her and Epstein, and later reporting and compensation-fund proceedings.

CrossJaneLaura A. MenningerMentioned

Summary

After a sealed cross-examination interval, the court addressed a defense exhibit, Rule 16 briefing, witness privacy, and anticipated testimony from Matt.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 3

ProceduralRule 16 Impeachment-Evidence Hearing2highlightsMentioned

Summary

Judge Nathan clarified the Rule 16 framework for impeachment evidence and sustained an objection to a photograph that had not been shown to contradict Jane's testimony.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

Quote“That is pure impeachment material.”— Christian R. EverdellDefense counsel stated the defense position that materials concerning Jane's recollection were intended for impeachment rather than as affirmative proof.Open in transcript →
rulingJudge Nathan left the general principles for application as issues arose and sustained the objection to admission of the photograph because it had not been shown to impeach Jane's testimony directly.Open in transcript →
CrossJaneLaura A. Menninger4highlights198lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel used school records and prior accounts to test Jane's recollection of Epstein and Maxwell's early involvement.

Highlights (4)

impeachmentDefense counsel challenged Jane's account of Maxwell's presence and role during her first meeting with Epstein by comparing it with prior accounts; Jane disputed that an FBI account was accurate and said Maxwell was present.Open in transcript →
Quote“Maybe they typed it up wrong.”— JaneJane disputed the accuracy of the FBI account used during cross-examination.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightJane said she could not give a precise count of rides to Epstein's house and responded to questioning about recalled appointment calls by saying that memory is not linear.Open in transcript →
Quote“Well, memory is not linear.”— JaneJane offered this explanation when asked why she now recalled Maxwell making appointment calls.Open in transcript →
CrossJaneLaura A. Menninger427lines spoken

Summary

Defense challenged Jane's prior accounts and recall; Jane disputed interview notes, acknowledged a corrected Lion King timeline, and testified about compensation-related records.

RedirectJaneAlison Moe117lines spoken

Summary

Jane addressed prior interview notes, financial assistance, memory, and compensation, and said she had no financial stake in the trial's outcome.

DirectMattAlison MoeMentioned

Summary

Matt's identity exhibit was admitted under seal, and he described his past and current relationship with Jane.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectMattAlison MoeMentioned

Summary

Matt recounted Jane's later disclosures about financial help from Jeffrey Epstein and her limited account of what happened; the Court sustained objections to parts of his testimony.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectMattAlison MoeMentioned

Summary

Matt recounted Jane's 2011 confrontation with her mother and her later identification of Ghislaine Maxwell.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 4

DirectJuan Patricio AlessiMaurene ComeyMentioned

Summary

Alessi described Palm Beach household instructions, transportation and travel involving Jane and Virginia Roberts, massage scheduling, and a directory associated with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 5

CrossJuan Patricio AlessiJeffrey S. PagliucaMentioned

Summary

Alessi attributed differences between his current and earlier testimony about Jane to confusion; Judge Nathan sustained an objection, and Alessi identified his signature on a 2020 declaration.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralSealed Exhibit ProceedingsMentioned

Summary

Judge Nathan required a public redacted video version and sustained a foundation objection to later interior photographs, while allowing further briefing.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 6

Procedural900-Series Photograph Admissibility Ruling1highlightMentioned

Summary

Judge Nathan admitted selected 2019 apartment photographs with limits and redactions, excluded several movable-item photographs, and set a procedure for publicly displaying redacted exhibits.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (1)

rulingThe court excluded photographs of back massagers, a bathroom drawer, and stuffed animals because the movable items did not sufficiently corroborate what Jane had seen years earlier and could confuse the jury.Open in transcript →

Day 7

CrossCarolynJeffrey S. PagliucaMentioned

Summary

Defense challenged Carolyn with earlier statements and filings, while the court limited some impeachment evidence and allowed selected complaint and interrogatory excerpts.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RecrossCarolynJeffrey S. PagliucaMentioned

Summary

Carolyn denied losing all of the money referenced on recross before the government withdrew Brian as a planned witness and the court addressed scheduling and objections.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 8

DirectDavid RodgersMaurene ComeyMentioned

Summary

David Rodgers used flight-log entries to identify travel involving Epstein, Maxwell, Jane, and Virginia Roberts; the jury also viewed Government Exhibit 14.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossDavid RodgersChristian R. EverdellMentioned

Summary

David Rodgers acknowledged that key flight-date testimony rested on his logbook, whose earlier entries listed only Jane's true first name, while describing his observations and Maxwell's work role.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectDavid RodgersMaurene ComeyMentioned

Summary

David Rodgers tied his recollection of meeting Jane to his logbook; the court then addressed defense-case timing, a charge conference, and briefing on 52.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 9

CrossTracy ChapellChristian R. EverdellMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel used FedEx invoice entries to distinguish listed senders, and the court admitted a defense set of additional verified invoices under temporary seal.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 10

Day 11

ProceduralDefense Attorney-Witness Ruling2highlightsMentioned

Summary

Judge Nathan barred most proposed defense attorney-witness testimony but allowed one narrow question to Robert Glassman concerning Jane's possible motive to testify.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

rulingJudge Nathan permitted one narrow question to Robert Glassman about whether he told the government that he had told Jane cooperation and testimony could help her civil claims; the court identified possible impeachment relevance if he answered yes.Open in transcript →
Quote“With this inference, the jury could find that Mr. Glassman's testimony tends to impeach Jane either as to motive to testify or impeachment by contradiction or both.”— Alison J. NathanJudge Nathan explained the limited impeachment purpose for the sole attorney-witness question she allowed.Open in transcript →
DirectCimberly EspinosaChristian R. EverdellMentioned

Summary

Ms. Espinosa described Maxwell's estate-management work, Jane's contacts with the office, and defense exhibits involving mailed headshots, while saying she never observed inappropriate conduct with underage girls.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 12

CrossAmanda YoungMaurene ComeyMentioned

Summary

Young described Jane's disclosures as occurring over time and confirmed the reports were summaries; the court sustained scope objections.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectEva Andersson DubinJeffrey S. PagliucaMentioned

Summary

Dr. Dubin said she had not observed inappropriate conduct by Jeffrey Epstein with teenage females from roughly 1994 through 2004 as the court limited media-coverage questioning and admitted redacted flight records.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectMichelle HealyLaura A. MenningerMentioned

Summary

Ms. Healy described her work at J. Epstein and Company, gave a favorable account of Maxwell as a supervisor, and denied involvement in alleged group sexualized massages.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossMichelle HealyMaurene ComeyMentioned

Summary

Ms. Healy's cross-examination established the limits of her firsthand access to Epstein's homes and travel as the parties resolved evidence issues, rested, and moved the case toward closing arguments.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 13

Charge ConferenceCharging ConferenceMentioned

Summary

Judge Nathan resolved major jury-charge and verdict-sheet edits, retained several contested instructions, and set procedures for closings and jury materials.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 14

ClosingGovernment closing argumentMentioned

Summary

The government urged conviction, arguing that witness testimony and records showed a repeated alleged grooming scheme and rebutted defense credibility and memory challenges.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ClosingDefense closing argumentMentioned

Summary

Menninger urged acquittal, arguing that the government had not proved Maxwell's participation in the charged conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 15

Day 16

Day 17

Day 18