Jane — Cross/Redirect (Continued)
2,733 linesJUDGE NATHAN: Do we have issues to take up around specific identifying information?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Just to provide the Court with an update on the status of our conferral with defense counsel, defense counsel provided the government with a list of certain topics this morning, which we appreciated; and we had a productive conversation this morning about a number of those topics, and I think I've narrowed the scope of any disagreement. There are two remaining topics. And I think we've agreed that before those topics are raised at a break or before the jury comes out, we're going to confer with the witness's counsel just to confirm what issues might be identifying as to those two particular issues. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to resolve any disagreement there, but we want to just work that out before that comes out before the jury. And I think there are one or two issues that we've agreed that won't be raised without a sidebar in advance to discuss them.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Is there no way to do that now while we're waiting for our jurors or --
JUDGE NATHAN: It's here.
JUDGE NATHAN: I just meant I'm happy to do it at the sidebar, to the extent we're referencing the specific identifying information. I just meant as a time saver can we do it now.
MS. MENNINGER: I think there are two of the three that we can do now; but the third one depends on what the witness says, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Let me just get a check on our juror numbers.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Just to be clear, I think two of those topics were ones that we wanted to just confer with the witness's attorney about, because there may not be any disagreement; we just wanted to confer with him to ensure we have that right. I think there was one remaining topic that defense counsel preferred to raise as it arises during the course of cross-examination. That's what I meant by at sidebar. Apologies.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So is there anything we can discuss now at the sidebar or no?
MS. MENNINGER: There's two of the three we can discuss at sidebar. I'm happy -- if the witness's counsel wants to join us at the sidebar and weigh in on what counsel thinks is identifying or not as we discuss it.
JUDGE NATHAN: My preference would be for you to confer first and then let me know.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Anything else we can take up now?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. I conferred with the government. We have prepared, similar to the government and similar to what Mr. Everdell did yesterday, 18 binders that have potentially admissible sealed exhibits in them we would like to place under the jurors' chairs, consistent with the practice on prior witnesses, to only have them directed to a particular tab when and if the Court admits a particular document that has identifying information contained in it, if that's okay with your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Moe, is that fine with you?
(Counsel conferred)
JUDGE NATHAN: Fine. Okay. So you can place the binders. Anything else we can take up now, Ms. Menninger?
MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor. I'm just going to approach the witness stand at some point and re-place the binder on the witness stand.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may do that. Ms. Moe, anything we can take up now?
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. I will step down. I appreciate counsel conferring on the anonymity issues and working through as much as you could. I greatly appreciate that. I will see you in a few minutes.
(Recess)
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. We have our jury. Anything to take up?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I just wanted to report to the Court, we had a chance to confer about those two issues. We've narrowed the scope of disagreement to just one issue after conferring with the witness's counsel, which we'd like to raise at sidebar. I don't know how soon that will come up, so I defer to defense counsel whether to do that now or whether it would be more efficient to bring the jury out and deal with that at a break. There's a second issue to flag, but let me just pause there on that to see.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sure. Is it anytime soon, Ms. Menninger?
MS. MENNINGER: I don't think so, but I don't have it all memorized.
JUDGE NATHAN: Understand. Let's hope we get to the break and then we'll take it. What else?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Defense counsel provided the government with a number of exhibits, and we appreciated the chance to review those in order to raise issues in advance. We just wanted to flag that for two of those we anticipate there being a Rule 408 objection. Again, I don't know how quickly that will arise, so I just wanted to alert that to the Court. We can take that up as it arises, but wanted to bring that to the Court's attention. In addition, defense counsel has notified the government that they've provided binders of defense materials for the jurors. It appears that -- we have not had a chance to review those materials, but based on a sampling that defense counsel has provided to the government, it appears a large number of them are things like printouts from the internet and otherwise. So we have concerns about jurors flipping through a binder that would appear to contain a wide array of materials that would not be admissible. And because we haven't examined that binder, we have concerns about that. I don't want to delay bringing the jury out, and so I would just ask for an opportunity to be heard about that before the jurors bring out any binders and begin flipping through them.
MS. MENNINGER: I'm going to be asking them to look at the binders at the outset at the beginning exhibits. I think we've all come to believe --
JUDGE NATHAN: We're going to keep doing what we've been doing, which is before the jury turns to it, the defense will tell us what it is. If you have an objection before they turn to it, you'll raise it and we'll deal with it.
JUDGE NATHAN: Is there any general set of objections in that regard that we can --
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I think materials like printouts from the internet, things like tabloid articles, Wikipedia pages, we don't think are appropriate as exhibits before the jury, and so we would object to exhibits of that nature. In addition, the samples that we've been provided include --
JUDGE NATHAN: Doesn't it depend what it's being used -- you have an internet objection, is that the -- what's the grounds for a blanket objection to internet material?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I agree that we'll have to take these as they come. Thinking ahead, we can't conceive of a basis for offering things like Wikipedia articles with this witness or tabloid articles with this witness, but we recognize the Court will have to address that as it comes because we're not quite sure what the defense argument would be. We mostly just wanted to give the Court a preview of those issues that we anticipate arising.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I feel like I'm trying to give them stuff in advance so they can be prepared and we can move this proceeding more quickly, but it will only come up when and if it comes up.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Then we'll take it -- I'm going to try to minimize sidebars, so we have to keep moving. My request always is if there are things that you think are likely to require a discussion to address admissibility, that you do raise them in advance. Confer. If you disagree, raise them. I think at this point we'll bring out the jury. I'll ask you to keep trying to do that as we go, so we use our time efficiently. But it makes no sense to have the jury sitting idly now.
JUDGE NATHAN: We'll bring in the jury. Can we bring in the witness.
(Witness present)
(Jury present)
JUDGE NATHAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Nice to see you. Thank you so much for your punctuality and attention and diligence. I greatly appreciate it. I hope you had a good evening. We will continue with Ms. Menninger's cross-examination of the witness who's testifying under the pseudonym "Jane." I remind Jane that you are under oath. I do remind the sketch artists that pursuant to my order, please don't sketch exact likeness of the witness who is testifying under a pseudonym. With that, Ms. Menninger, you may continue.
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor. JANE, called as a witness by the Government, having been previously duly sworn, testified as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION (continued)
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: Good morning, Jane.
MS. MENNINGER: I'd like to pick up again with your Interlochen applications, all right? You don't need to open the binder until we let you know. Thank you. You are aware that Interlochen awards financial aid; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You are aware that Interlochen awards scholarships; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You went there for three years in the summers?
MS. MENNINGER: Ages 13 to 17 -- 16?
MS. MENNINGER: No, 17; I think you turned 17 in your final summer.
JUDGE NATHAN: Is that a question?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Did you turn 17 in your final summer?
MS. MENNINGER: Your brothers went there as well?
MS. MENNINGER: If we could turn to J-3, which has already been admitted. And there is a little green flag for you to get to the J exhibits more quickly. And your Honor, because J-3 has been admitted, I would ask at this time that the jurors be permitted to access the smaller binder under their chairs which has J-3 in it.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just one moment. Without objection?
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Jurors, you may pick up the smaller binder please and turn to J-3. Thank you.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: Have you found J-3?
MS. MENNINGER: I think as we discussed yesterday, that's your name on this application; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And at the top line above your name, the question was asked: Are you applying for scholarship/financial aid; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you checked off no; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: I want to ask you to turn to the second page of that exhibit. And on the second page, you described what kind of classes you wanted to apply for; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You wrote that: When asked about something difficult, nothing has been difficult for me; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You were involved in the school of the arts as we discussed, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Costuming, acting, improvisation, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Plays, performances, movies, right?
MS. MENNINGER: This was at the age of 13, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And then just below that, it has the names of some individuals who offered letters of recommendation for you, right?
MS. MENNINGER: When you were 13; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And then your signature is on that page, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And then the next page in this exhibit are some photographs of yourself, right --
MS. MENNINGER: -- that you submitted?
MS. MENNINGER: These were all taken before you had turned 14, right?
MS. MENNINGER: All of them on the page?
MS. MENNINGER: All right. If we could turn to page -- well, actually, yes, the next page, 4. That also has your address at the time; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And one more page, page 6. That is one of the letters of recommendation for you; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Menninger, could I have a binder? I don't think I have it. That's the government exhibits.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor --
JUDGE NATHAN: If you don't, that's okay.
MS. MENNINGER: No, no. I believe for this one we gave you one yesterday, but I could be wrong about that. If I could just check with Ms. Lundberg.
JUDGE NATHAN: I thought you did, too. I have just the government exhibits.
MS. MENNINGER: Can she put it on the screen, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: That would be fine. That is, I think, what we were doing in part yesterday.
MS. MENNINGER: My apologies. J-3, and we're on page 6.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead, Ms. Menninger.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: On page 6, we have a letter of recommendation for you. Do you see that?
MS. MENNINGER: Glowing letter of recommendation, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And the person that is referred to who performed or wrote that letter of recommendation gave her qualifications, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Her credentials, right?
MS. MENNINGER: She was then on the board of the Palm Beach School of the Arts, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, it's in your application, right? You solicited this letter of recommendation from her; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And she was presently on the -- formerly, I'm sorry, a director of the Professional Children's School; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And that's the school that you ultimately went to in New York for senior year, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And she was glowing in her support of your application to go to Interlochen when you were 13 years old; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: I want to direct your attention to the last page in that exhibit, page 11. If I could have you read the third full paragraph; but, of course, omit your family name from that reading. If you could read it out loud.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, that begins with "Each."
JANE: Each child has their own individual personality and talent, but all three reflect the qualities of a strong, loving family background. The arts have always been a common interest with music as a binding love. The family organized and underwrote an annual charity performance for our school. After attending their Feastival of Lights, our school community has always felt we had witnessed the rebirth of the von Trapp family.
MS. MENNINGER: The von Trapp family, is that right?
MS. MENNINGER: And this was a reference to you and your two brothers, right?
MS. MENNINGER: I also believe, just in case it wasn't audible, it said that you and your two brothers came from a strong and loving family background; is that right?
MS. MENNINGER: I want to turn to -- and we could show for the Court -- what's been marked for identification as J-4. But you're certainly welcome, Jane, to turn to that in paper form.
JUDGE NATHAN: Not the jurors.
MS. MENNINGER: Not the jurors.
JUDGE NATHAN: Please wait till I direct you. Please wait till I direct you. You can close your binders. Thank you.
MS. MENNINGER: It's going to come out again, I hope soon.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recognize this document?
MS. MENNINGER: J-4?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. Do you believe that this is your application?
MS. MENNINGER: And to the same Interlochen Arts Camp?
MS. MENNINGER: And do you see the date on the upper right-hand corner?
MS. MENNINGER: And that would have been an application for the next year, for the next summer, is that fair?
MS. MENNINGER: All right.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, at this time I'm moving for the admission of J-4, which I previously discussed with the government.
MS. MOE: No objection, your Honor. We would just ask that it be under seal and that any identifying information not be read into the record.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. J-4 is admitted. It's admitted under seal consistent with my ruling that this witness may testify under pseudonym. And if any reference -- if any reading of the document occurs, everyone is admonished not to use the identifying information.
(Defendant's Exhibit J-4 received in evidence)
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: So if you need to turn on the second page, I think it has your signature, just for reference sake. Do you see that?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you believe this is your application?
MS. MENNINGER: That was submitted in October of 1994?
MS. MENNINGER: And that would be for the summer of 1995?
MS. MENNINGER: Up again on the top line above your name there is a question: Are you applying for financial aid?
MS. MENNINGER: Oh, the jurors can look at J-4 now, if that's okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: Without objection?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may open your binder to J-4, please. Thank you.
MS. MENNINGER: So we see your name in the top portion of the application, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And then above that, are you applying for financial aid, and you checked no; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: If you want to turn to page 2 of that exhibit, up on the top line there are some references and one is your father's name; is that right?
MS. MENNINGER: And then next to that was your teacher from Palm Beach School of the Arts, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And then below that, again, it gave a little summary of where you were in your career in October of '94; correct? It talked about you had done commercials, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Many performances singing, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Plays, skits, etc., right?
MS. MENNINGER: You had been in the New York Broadway production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: It was a local production?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
(Counsel conferred)
MS. MENNINGER: And again, you said: Nothing has been very difficult for me. Correct?
MS. MENNINGER: On the next page you had submitted a letter asking to take extra classes the next summer, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And your address on this application for the summer of '95 is the same address as the one that was on your application for the summer of '94; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: All right. And then if we could -- not the jurors, if the jurors could wait a minute, could we have the witness identify what's been marked as J-5, which is the next exhibit?
JUDGE NATHAN: Jurors, close your binders please. And keep them on your laps, but close them. Thank you.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you see the exhibit at J-5?
MS. MENNINGER: And that has your signature as well, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And there's a date on the upper left-hand corner, do you see that date?
MS. MENNINGER: And do you believe this to be your application for the summer of 1996?
MS. MENNINGER: All right.
MS. MENNINGER: At this time I would move for the admission of J-6.
MS. MOE: No objection, your Honor. We'd ask that this exhibit be received under seal for the same reasons.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. J-6 is admitted. It's admitted under seal, consistent with my ruling --
MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry, J-5 for 1996.
JUDGE NATHAN: Oh, I apologize, J-5. J-5 is admitted under seal consistent with my ruling that this witness may testify under a pseudonym, and without objection from the government.
(Defendant's Exhibit J-5 received in evidence)
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll direct, Ms. Moe, the jury to look at the binder, J-5.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Jurors, you may look at J-5 please.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: So on J-5 we have your signature there again; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you were applying for the high school level, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you had a new address for this application for the summer of 1996; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: That address is the one we talked about yesterday that was in the Bear Lake Estates gated community, right?
MS. MENNINGER: I want to show you, at the bottom of that page, it's the same teacher who had supported you from the prior year's application; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And then if we could turn the page to the next page, on page 2 of J-5, in the second box down from the top, there's a label "Financial Information." Do you see that box?
MS. MENNINGER: And in that box it asks: Are you applying for financial aid? And you said no. Correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And then the next line says: Does the student applying expect to be the recipient of any funds, scholarship, grant, award, or prize from any country, state, organization, or individual specifically for attendance at the Interlochen Arts Camp. And you checked no. Correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And then on that same page there is a little newspaper clip; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And I won't say the names of any performances, but it's talking about some performances that you and your brothers had performed in the area, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And if I may have one second, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
(Counsel conferred)
MS. MENNINGER: And that you and your brothers had performed the last week for a School of the Arts performance locally; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And then you were going to be performing in another city in Florida in the upcoming days; is that right?
MS. MENNINGER: And then it said in April that you would be traveling to Italy for a vocal competition; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And so this was in -- this was dated in 1996, right?
MS. MENNINGER: All right. And then if we could go to the last -- I'm sorry, page 5 of that exhibit we touched on briefly yesterday. On page 5 of that exhibit, it gives the camp fee structure for Interlochen for you for that summer, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And it's $4,025 for the summer; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you signed under that as well as your mother, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And on none of these three applications is there any mention of Jeffrey Epstein; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And there's no mention of Ghislaine Maxwell; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: All right. At this point, if we could ask the jurors to close the binders, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Please do. Thank you.
MS. MENNINGER: I want to talk about the first time that you say you met Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, okay?
MS. MENNINGER: And you claim that was in 1994 when you were 14, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You testified yesterday on direct examination that you were sitting with friends at a picnic table, and a tall, thin woman approached you with a dog. And you chitchatted with her, and then a man came and joined her, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You recalled a lot of details about that incident in 1994, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You remember that the man had a newspaper under his arm which he put down on the table, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You remember that you were on a break from classes, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You were eating an ice cream cone and the man said, I think I know your mom. That's what you testified to yesterday; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: All right. You gave some statements about that meeting to several people over the course of the last 20 years, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You spoke to your brother, your older brother Brian within a few days of that meeting, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Right.
MS. MENNINGER: Well, isn't it true that you told your brother Brian that you had been approached by Epstein?
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true that you told your brother Brian that Epstein said he knew your dad and admired him?
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true you told Brian nothing about Ghislaine Maxwell being there at all; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you remember talking to your younger brother about it over the last 20 years?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: And when you spoke to your younger brother about this initial meeting, you also told him that you only met Epstein; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You didn't tell him anything about meeting a woman; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you also gave an interview to a news source about this initial meeting; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And when you spoke to that news source, you told the news person, journalist, that you were approached by Epstein; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You said nothing about Ghislaine being there?
MS. MENNINGER: All right. Could I have you -- and only you and not the jurors -- take a look at J-13.
MS. MENNINGER: And for the Court and the witness we could put it on the screen. If I could direct the witness's attention to page 2 of that document.
MS. MENNINGER: Are you at page 2?
MS. MENNINGER: And on the fourth paragraph, you told the reporter that Epstein approached you; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You didn't say anything to the reporter about Ghislaine being there; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You spoke to the government for the first time, as we discussed yesterday, in September of 2019; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, you were there in California with your lawyers and Ms. Moe and some others; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And what happened when you spoke to them then is you were asked about the first time that you met Ghislaine, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And what you told the government on that day with your attorneys there is that Ghislaine walked by with her dog; correct?
(Continued on next page) BY MS. MENNINGER: (Continued)
MS. MENNINGER: And you told the government that only Epstein came up to meet you, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: 3509-002, page 1.
JUDGE NATHAN: Can I have it on the screen?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. 3509-002.
MS. MENNINGER: What you told the government on September 19 of 2019 is that Ghislaine walked by with her dog and Jeffrey Epstein came up to meet you, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: So, the (inaudible) again.
(Reporter inquired)
JUDGE NATHAN: You cut out. I think I heard the question, but can you repeat the question?
MS. MENNINGER: So the FBI got it wrong again?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. You may answer.
MS. MENNINGER: What you told the government is that -- well, what you testified to yesterday is that both Ghislaine and Jeffrey told you that they give scholarships, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And that's right. Ghislaine didn't walk by?
MS. MENNINGER: And Jeffrey said, can I give scholarships?
MS. MENNINGER: And Jeffrey said, can I have your mom's phone number?
MS. MENNINGER: Not Ghislaine asking for your mom's phone number?
MS. MENNINGER: You testified yesterday that you were sitting on a park bench with your friends, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And when you filed your civil lawsuit in January of 2020 you said you were sitting alone on a bench between classes, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: I want to talk about the second meeting that you had with Mr. Epstein. You went back home after camp that summer?
MS. MENNINGER: And you started school for the school year, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You testified yesterday that a few days after you got back to school, someone from Epstein's office called your mom, right?
MS. MENNINGER: That someone from Epstein's office was not Ghislaine Maxwell, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, did the person invite you to Maxwell's house?
MS. MENNINGER: Invited you to Epstein's house, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: With your mother, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And when you got to Epstein's house with your mother, it was 15 or 20 minutes away from your house, right?
MS. MENNINGER: It was in -- your house was in West Palm Beach, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You didn't cross any state lines, did you?
MS. MENNINGER: When you got to Epstein's house for tea, you and your mother sat by the pool?
MS. MENNINGER: You were the only people there?
MS. MENNINGER: Ghislaine was not there?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, you spoke to the government in October of 2021, so two months ago. Do you recall speaking with them two months ago?
JANE: Yes. So I was sitting -- it was only the three of us having tea, yes. I don't recall if Ghislaine was in the house.
MS. MENNINGER: Well, what you said to the government in October of 2021 at 3509-28 in the handwritten notes is, it was just Epstein, mom and you present, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: That statement is not inconsistent, so I'll sustain the objection with respect to that statement.
MS. MENNINGER: At the first tea, the only people there were you and your mom and Epstein, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You never reported to the government that Ms. Maxwell was present for the tea, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: During the conversation, Epstein told you he gives scholarships and mentors people, right?
MS. MENNINGER: He said he does that; not we do that, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And he did not refer to Ms. Maxwell at all during your initial meeting with him, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Wasn't a part of the conversation?
MS. MENNINGER: After this tea with your mother, you went back to Epstein's house, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday you testified that for the first few months when you spent time with Epstein in Palm Beach, you were there by yourself. Do you remember that testimony?
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday you testified that for the first few months when you spent time with Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach, you were there by yourself?
MS. MENNINGER: Right. You said --
MS. MENNINGER: You were --
MS. MENNINGER: And then you clarified that your mother did not go back to his house with you for meetings because she was "not invited." That was your testimony yesterday, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: That is not what you told the government when you met with them in September of 2019, is it?
MS. MENNINGER: What you told the government in September of 2019, including Ms. Moe, is "In the beginning, I would be with my mother and brother"?
JUDGE NATHAN: Let me see it. Let me see it before you read, I'll see it, okay? And then you can make your objection, Ms. Moe, and I'll rule.
JUDGE NATHAN: Let me have the passage first.
MS. MENNINGER: It's going to be in 3509-001 on the second page, in the fourth paragraph beginning in the middle of the paragraph.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Moe?
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead.
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you.
MS. MENNINGER: What you said to Ms. Moe and the agents was, "In the beginning, I would be with my mother and brothers at Epstein's house," correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government nothing about your mother wasn't invited back to Epstein's house, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you talked thereafter about being driven repeatedly to Epstein's house by a chauffeur who was a sweet Latin American man, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you said that that sweet Latin American man picked you up every week or two while you were 14, 15 and 16 years old?
MS. MENNINGER: So approximately a hundred times he picked you up over three years every week or two. That's your testimony, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, you testified under oath yesterday --
MS. MENNINGER: -- that it was every week or two for three years, right?
MS. MENNINGER: All right. You were asked yesterday by the government how these meetings at Epstein's house were typically arranged. Do you remember that question?
MS. MENNINGER: And you said yesterday it was Ghislaine calling the house or Jeffrey's office calling the house like an assistant or something. Do you remember that testimony?
MS. MENNINGER: That's not what you told the government in November of 2019 when you met with them then. And if we could turn to 3509-003 at page 1, fourth paragraph?
MS. MENNINGER: 3509-003, first page, fourth paragraph.
MS. MENNINGER: What you told the government on that occasion is you were not sure if Maxwell ever called you to make appointments, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And then on the next page in the same interview in the first paragraph, same document, next page, you said, "When in Florida, Epstein or his office would call your house," right?
MS. MENNINGER: You didn't say Maxwell would call your house, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And so two years later, now you remember that Ghislaine called your home to make appointments, right?
MS. MENNINGER: That memory has come back to you in the last two years?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you remember that Mr. Epstein came to your house for dinner?
MS. MENNINGER: In Bear Lakes Estate?
MS. MENNINGER: Right? And he came to your house with your mother and your brothers there, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Ghislaine was not there?
MS. MENNINGER: You recall that that did not happen right at the beginning of your meeting with Mr. Epstein, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And it was a year or two after meeting Epstein that he came to your house for dinner, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, in February of 2020, you told the government -- this is at 3509-008, page 12.
JUDGE NATHAN: What paragraph?
MS. MENNINGER: The fourth full paragraph beginning with the word "this." At the end of that paragraph -- I'm sorry -- the middle of that paragraph is that you said to the government, "They visited you one to two times at your house in Florida. This was about a year or two after meeting him," correct?
MS. MENNINGER: So then you remembered it was a year or two, but you don't remember it today. Is that right?
MS. MENNINGER: And the dinner that you had at your house was prior to any abuse?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, in the same interview in February of 2020, at page 11 --
JUDGE NATHAN: We're going to keep doing -- point to the passage. You'll read it, Ms. Moe. You'll let me know if there's an objection, okay?
JUDGE NATHAN: So where are we reading?
MS. MENNINGER: On page 11 of that same document in the last full paragraph, second sentence.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. No objection. You may proceed, Ms. Menninger.
MS. MENNINGER: What you told the government on that occasion is that at some point Maxwell and Epstein came to your house prior to the abuse, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You mentioned on direct examination that you felt Ghislaine had kind of become your big sister, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you have two older sisters as we discussed yesterday, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: One is approximately ten years older than you, right?
MS. MENNINGER: One is approximately 15 years older than you, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: During the time you were in high school, you traveled to see your sisters?
MS. MENNINGER: You traveled to Los Angeles to visit and stay with one of them there, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You remember staying with her in Los Angeles, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Before you lived in Los Angeles?
MS. MENNINGER: So it was while you were still in high school, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you traveled to Boston to visit the other sister, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Same sister, a different time?
MS. MENNINGER: In high school, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And your own sisters took you shopping on occasion, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: They took you to the movies, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Over the years, they've talked to you about your boyfriends, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You have not talked to your sisters about your boyfriends?
MS. MENNINGER: You've never had a boyfriend?
MS. MENNINGER: Sorry. My question was had you ever over the years spoken to your sisters about boyfriends?
MS. MENNINGER: Because yesterday you suggested that you hadn't had normal relationships, right?
MS. MENNINGER: But you have had boyfriends for multiple years at a time, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You talked a little bit about Ghislaine and Epstein taking you to see the movies; you said that's something that you guys did together, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You went to a movie theater in the area of Epstein's house in Florida, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Which is a nice area, right?
MS. MENNINGER: They were normal movie theaters?
MS. MENNINGER: Sometimes other girls went with you, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And Epstein would direct who was supposed to sit where in the movie theater, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And he did not sit next to you in the movie theater, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, let's turn -- well, not you, but we'll look at February 27 of 2020 when you spoke with the government, 3509-008 on page 3.
JUDGE NATHAN: Can you tell me what paragraph I'm reading? And then yes.
MS. MENNINGER: It's going to be on page 4 at the end of the paragraph that began on the page 3, the last sentence.
(Continued on next page)
(At the sidebar)
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. And I apologize for asking for a sidebar, but I'm hoping this will streamline things. The issue is at a number of times the witness has testified that she doesn't recall, and instead of showing the witness the document and asking if that refreshes her recollection, which is the only thing that would be proper at that juncture, I believe counsel is now just reading reports into the record, which is not proper.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, the question was yesterday you testified --
(Pause)
JUDGE NATHAN: So, yes, she said she didn't remember if Epstein directed where they sat.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, under 613, I'm not obligated to show the witness a prior statement before I ask her about it. I have to give her an opportunity --
JUDGE NATHAN: She said she didn't remember. What's the inconsistency?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, your Honor, her not remembering I don't have to refresh her recollection. Her memory is at issue in this case. If she can't remember what she said a month ago or two months ago or a year ago, that's relevant to the jury's determination. Then we can put on evidence through other witnesses that that is in fact what she said to the government on that date.
JUDGE NATHAN: Your theory is everything that she -- when you ask her, "What did you say on this date to the government," she says, "I don't remember."
MS. MENNINGER: Her story has changed like a hundred thousand times, and that is exactly what the problem is here, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, here's the problem: There is a way you can get in her story has changed, but what you're doing and what -- I don't know what the limits to this would be. You're asking her very specific questions about multiple instances of reporting, and when she said "I don't remember what I said in that moment," you're then introducing the statements of what she said.
MS. MENNINGER: I can say, isn't it true that you said this? That's the other way to phrase it.
JUDGE NATHAN: You could say "do you recall saying this to the government"? If she says no, then you move on.
MS. MENNINGER: Right. That's all I've been doing.
JUDGE NATHAN: Is that right?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I think we're talking about two different scenarios. The first is, for example, if Ms. Menninger asked the witness, "Did this meeting happen on a particular date" or you know "were you living in the blue house" for example. If the witness says, "I don't remember," then we're talking about refreshing her recollection with a document. If the witness says something that Ms. Menninger believes to be inconsistent with a prior statement, the question then is instead, not a document, but do you recall -- like isn't it true that you told the government X? And if the witness says, "I don't remember that," then that's the record. If the witness says, "Yes, I said that," then that's the impeachment. The documents themselves are impeachment by collateral material. The proper way to do this is to ask the witness whether she said something or not. If she denies it, then the way to do that is through the witnesses to that meeting, and not by asking the witness to read a document that she didn't prepare into the record, which is what's happening.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, what I understand you to be saying is you want first her to show it to her and see if it refreshes her recollection.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, if she says she doesn't recall. If she denies the fact and the point is to impeach her with a fact of a prior inconsistent statement --
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, I think the window of disagreement is not just an inconsistent statement but that she doesn't recall -- no, I think you're right. So if she doesn't recall what she said in a meeting, you can refresh her recollection as to what she said. If she says, "I didn't say that" or "I don't recall," you can say, "Didn't you say the following to the FBI agent," and then --
MS. MENNINGER: So I believe that I do not have to refresh for impeachment, but I can ask her --
JUDGE NATHAN: You're claiming that because she doesn't recall what she said, it's an inconsistent statement. There's not an inconsistency there.
MS. MENNINGER: So, I can ask her, "Did you say this?" She can say, "I don't recall." And then I can say, "Isn't it true you said it on this date?" And she can say, "No, I didn't" or "I still don't recall."
JUDGE NATHAN: Every trial I've been to with these materials I've presided over -- and there's been a lot in ten years -- this precise thing happens. You testified X. Didn't you tell the agent some variation of x or Y. I don't remember way said to the agent. You show them the 302. Does that refresh your recollection, or didn't you -- and didn't you say if it doesn't refresh your recollection and then you get to do precisely what you're doing.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, may I get the statute book because it says right in 613.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sure.
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday I tried to show the witness an exhibit and I was directing her to when the exhibit was made and what the date of the interview was, and nobody liked that. So today I tried --
JUDGE NATHAN: I don't think I sustained an objection to that.
MS. MENNINGER: Well, I said here's the date and then there was an objection at the time. But in Rule 613(a), it says: When showing or disposing the statement during examination. When examining a witness about the witness' prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must on request show it or disclose its contents to an adversary party's attorney. And so because I don't believe I have to show it to her. If I want to prove it later with extrinsic evidence, she has to be given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and the adversary party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it. That's the way I read that rule.
JUDGE NATHAN: So the extrinsic evidence of a witness' prior inconsistent statement. My point is if she says she doesn't remember, it's not an inconsistent statement. You have to get to a point of inconsistency.
MS. MENNINGER: Here is the inconsistency.
JUDGE NATHAN: When you're doing it based on what she testified to yesterday, if there's a difference, yes.
MS. MENNINGER: That's what I've been trying to do.
JUDGE NATHAN: Here you're saying on this date you said Epstein told you where to sit. She says, "I don't remember." It's not an inconsistent statement. That's the difference. Then you can refresh her on what she said. But if what you're doing is -- right? What's inconsistent about you saying, "You said X to the agent," and she says, "I don't remember." Is that an inconsistency?
MS. MENNINGER: The statement that she gave yesterday versus what her statement to the agent that's what I'm trying.
JUDGE NATHAN: I let you do that. I let you do that. Just now the example that drew the objection you said Epstein didn't -- you told the agent you didn't sit next to Epstein and she said "I don't remember."
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. So I will show her for that type of example --
JUDGE NATHAN: But I agree with you if you have a prior statement that is inconsistent with testimony, that's when we're there.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor and in that scenario, it's a question: Did you say that to the agent on this date? If not, showing the witness the document and asking her to read it into the record. The question is, did you make that statement?
MS. MENNINGER: I just asked.
JUDGE NATHAN: I agree. I think you did it right up until this moment when we didn't have and inconsistent statement? We're in vigorous disagreement.
MS. STERNHEIM: Vigorously.
(In open court)
(Continued on next page)
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Menninger, you can take off your mask. I want to pause. Counsel, one of the exhibits referenced was not in one of the jurors' binders, so I want to just correct that. Ms. Williams, can you let counsel know what exhibit it was?
MS. MENNINGER: My apologies, your Honor. We'll get that fixed.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. And thank you to the juror for alerting us.
MS. MENNINGER: If there is anyone else that has a problem. Thank you, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: I apologize for that. I'm grateful to the jurors. If anything like that happens, feel free to kind of raise your hand in the moment and we'll have Ms. Williams as she always does, make things right.
(Pause)
JUDGE NATHAN: I think we're not in the binders at the moment, so while Mr. Everdell is working on that, you'll proceed.
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: I believe we were talking about you going to the movies with Epstein and Ghislaine. Do you remember that?
MS. MENNINGER: And isn't it true that you told the government that you did not sit next to Epstein in the movie theaters?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. If I could have you look at 3509-008, page 4, in the binder sorry. Just you.
MS. MENNINGER: It's in the first set.
MS. MENNINGER: She'll show it to you, I apologize.
JUDGE NATHAN: It's on the screen.
MS. MENNINGER: 004 -- I'm sorry, page 4 of 008, and the top paragraph and the last line of that top paragraph.
MS. MENNINGER: You told the agents that Epstein would decide where everyone sat?
MS. MENNINGER: Correct?
MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor. Same issue. The question is whether that refreshes her recollection.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead.
MS. MENNINGER: Does it refresh your recollection what you told the government?
MS. MENNINGER: And what you told the government is that Epstein would decide where everyone sat, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you told them that you did not sit next to Epstein, right?
MS. MENNINGER: But when you were in the movie theater, nothing sexual was happening; you weren't sitting next to him, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday you spoke about the first time that you saw Ghislaine without her clothes on, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You said that happened shortly after the first incident in the pool house, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you described that you were just hanging out and all of a sudden Epstein demanded that you follow him upstairs, right?
MS. MENNINGER: The first time that you saw Ghislaine without her clothes on is what you claimed. Do you remember that?
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday Ms. Moe asked you about the first time you saw Ghislaine without her clothes on. Do you recall that?
MS. MENNINGER: You don't recall the first time you saw Ghislaine without her clothes on?
MS. MENNINGER: The question from Ms. Moe was the first time you saw Ghislaine with her clothes off, and you didn't have any question about what she meant.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday you were asked: "Q. Did there ever come a time when you saw Ghislaine Maxwell without her clothes on?" Do you recall that question?
MS. MENNINGER: And you said yes?
MS. MENNINGER: You didn't say her top or not her top?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: Right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you described a whole scenario where you claim you and Epstein and Ghislaine went upstairs and there was fondling in a room. Do you recall relating that to this jury yesterday?
MS. MENNINGER: When you spoke with the government in December of 2019, you told them that you do not have a specific memory of the first time with Ghislaine?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday did you give a specific memory of the first time that you recall being in a massage scenario with Ghislaine?
MS. MENNINGER: All right. And when you spoke with the government in December of 2019, you told them you do not have a specific memory of the first time with Ghislaine.
JUDGE NATHAN: That's not a question.
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true that you told the government in December of 2019 that you do not have a specific memory of the first time with Ghislaine?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: You did not tell the government in December of 2019 about a scenario of you following Ghislaine and Jeffrey upstairs and the three of you were alone, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: In fact, there was a period of time that you claim that it was just you and Jeffrey alone, and you had not been present with Ghislaine?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained. I don't understand the time frame of that question.
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday you testified that it was shortly after the pool house that you had this incident with Epstein and Ghislaine, right?
MS. MENNINGER: When you spoke with the government before, you said that some period of time, months went by before you ever had an incident with Ghislaine, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: I will sustain it. You've drawn on different meetings with the government. You have to specify which one you're talking about so that the witness can answer whether she recalls or not.
MS. MENNINGER: Previously you told the government you do not have a specific memory of your first time with Ghislaine.
MS. MENNINGER: This is just foundational to the next question.
JUDGE NATHAN: But give a -- give what you are asking about, give the date that you're asking about.
MS. MENNINGER: In December of 2019, you told the government you do not have a specific memory of your first time with Ghislaine. Moving on from that, because you do not have a specific --
MS. MENNINGER: That was just admitted. I'm just laying the foundation for the next question. That was the last thing.
JUDGE NATHAN: You don't have a question yet. Go ahead.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: Because you have no specific memory of your first time with Ghislaine in December of 2019, you have come up with that memory in the last two years, the one you gave yesterday, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: Well, you gave a memory to the jury yesterday that you didn't have in December of 2019, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You then later met with the government in February of 2020, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And what you told the government in February of 2020 is that the first time you were involved with Ghislaine, there were two other girls there as well, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: At 3509-008, page 4, first full paragraph, beginning in the middle of the paragraph.
JUDGE NATHAN: That will be the question. Go ahead.
MS. MENNINGER: Does it refresh your recollection to read the sentence beginning with the first time? Yes or no.
MS. MENNINGER: It refreshes your recollection, it's true that you told the government that the first time with Maxwell, there were two other girls there as well, correct?
JANE: Correct, but the wording that was typed up on this isn't correct, so I don't know how to --
MS. MENNINGER: Another typo by the government?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: It's another typo?
MS. MENNINGER: So, yesterday you gave a story that is different from December 2019 when you had no specific memory and is different from February 2020 when there were two other girls there as well, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday you testified that there were times when Ghislaine was in the room with you and Epstein, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you remember those times, right?
MS. MENNINGER: When you spoke with the government at the February 2020 meeting, they asked you if there were times where it was just you, Epstein and Ghislaine in the room, and you said you were not sure, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You said you were not sure that ever happened, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You were not sure where it happened, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You only remembered being solely with Epstein and going back to the group setting, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: It is true that you do not recall Ghislaine ever touching you?
MS. MENNINGER: When you spoke to the government in December of 2019 with your lawyers there, and you told the government at that time you are not sure whether Maxwell ever touched you during these encounters, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government that you're not sure that Maxwell ever kissed you, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government that Ghislaine never used sex toys or vibrators on you, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government that you don't recall Ghislaine ever giving you a talk about how to massage Epstein, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government that Ghislaine never saw you perform oral sex on Epstein, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government that Ghislaine never saw you perform hand jobs on Epstein, to use your words, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government that Ghislaine never saw you involved in any masturbation with Epstein, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government that Ghislaine never saw you engaged in sexual intercourse with Epstein, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government you have no memory of Ghislaine being present when you claim Epstein engaged in any sexual contact with you, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government you have no memory of Ghislaine being present when you claim Epstein engaged in any sexual contact with you, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government that Ghislaine never discussed any sexual abuse with you, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Right.
MS. MENNINGER: It was very compartmentalized. It was never discussed.
MS. MENNINGER: No one gave you any feedback afterwards. It was never mentioned, right?
MS. MENNINGER: No one asked you if Epstein had fun, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Can I have one moment, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
(Pause)
MS. MENNINGER: So if we could go back to your conversations with the government in February of 2020, and if I could direct your attention to 3509-008 at page 5, in the second paragraph, I'm going to ask you if this refreshes your recollection?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: Something that she earlier said she doesn't recall.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, you will have to ask it again.
MS. MENNINGER: I will.
JUDGE NATHAN: You will ask the question again.
MS. MENNINGER: Before she does it, okay. You said you don't recall whether or not you ever told the government that you and Ghislaine and Jeffrey were alone together in the room. You were not sure that ever happened. Do you recall that testimony?
MS. MENNINGER: If I could have you look at 3509-008, page five, the last paragraph, the first sentence in that paragraph, if you could read that to yourself, tell me whether that refreshes your recollection?
MS. MENNINGER: So, what you told the government on February 27, 2020 --
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: -- is that when asked if there were times when it was only you, Epstein and Ghislaine in the room, you said you were not sure, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You were not sure that ever happened in February of 2020, right?
MS. MOE: Your Honor, objection. Is the question whether she made the statement, whether she remembers it, whether she's reading it from a document it's very unclear.
JUDGE NATHAN: You will rephrase, please.
MS. MENNINGER: As you sit here today, you're not sure whether you were ever in the room alone with Ghislaine and Epstein, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: I asked you if you recall telling the government that Ghislaine never touched you?
MS. MENNINGER: If I could have you take a look at 3509-005. That's going to be difficult. On page 3 of 3509-005, in the second full paragraph in the middle of the paragraph there's a sentence that begins with your name, and I would like you to read that and tell me if that refreshes your recollection that you said that to the government in December of 2019?
MS. MENNINGER: The second full paragraph in the middle of the paragraph beginning with your name.
(Continued on next page)
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: Does that refresh your recollection that you told the government you do not have a recollection and are not sure if Ghislaine touched you during these encounters; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true that's what you told the government on that date?
MS. MENNINGER: I want to turn back to your statement that you don't recall whether you ever told the government that Ghislaine did not see you performing oral sex on Epstein. Is that what you told the government?
MS. MENNINGER: If I could have you look at 3509-008 at page 10. And I ask you to look at the first full paragraph and the last sentence of that paragraph. Does that refresh your recollection of whether Ghislaine was ever present for instances of oral sex between you and Epstein?
MS. MENNINGER: It's true that you don't know whether Ghislaine was ever present for you having oral sex in any way with Epstein; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: That's what you told the government, didn't you?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, is now an appropriate time for a break? I was about to start another area.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. We can take our morning break. Members of the jury, we'll take about a ten-minute break. Thank you.
(Jury not present)
JUDGE NATHAN: Matters to take up, counsel? Just a moment. You may step out, Jane. Thank you. Everyone may be seated.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment. Go ahead.
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. Two issues to raise. The first is the issue that we raised earlier this morning about the remaining anonymity issue. Happy to raise that at this time, if it's appropriate. I don't know if it's coming up soon in cross-examination.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MOE: But we would prefer to raise that at sidebar because it relates to anonymity. The second issue is the Rule 408 issue I flagged this morning relating to documents we received a few minutes before the beginning of the court day. Happy to front that issue now while we have a break if the Court would like to hear that issue.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. MOE: So with respect to the Rule 408 issue, defense counsel has provided the government this morning just before the Court day with a few documents they've marked as exhibits.
JUDGE NATHAN: One moment. Go ahead.
MS. MOE: Those two documents are correspondence between Jane's attorney and the victim compensation fund, as well as correspondence from Jane's attorney and Ms. Menninger's law firm. To the extent defense counsel intends to offer these as exhibits, there's a Rule 408 issue here.
MS. MENNINGER: I don't, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MOE: I just want to ensure any questions about this are framed as Jane's knowledge about the litigation and not asking for her to testify about documents that aren't in evidence, that she may not have seen, that are prepared by attorneys. In order to avoid confusion, we want to make sure that any questions about civil litigation are about what she knows or doesn't know. I want to avoid a scenario in which a lay witness is shown legal documents and asked to read them into the record or testify to them beyond the scope of her knowledge.
JUDGE NATHAN: So that's not a 408 issue, it's a scope of knowledge issue.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. It's a 408 issue to the extent the questions are about negotiations related to settlements which would only be admissible in order to show bias under the second prong of the rule. And that's where the scope of knowledge issue comes into play, because facts along those lines would only be relevant under Rule 408 if this witness were aware of them. So we just wanted to make sure any examination was cabined along those lines.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Menninger?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, in those two documents, the attorney in a civil matter for this witness demanded sums of money. And there was one in the civil case. He was acting in his capacity, and she was a party in that case, and he was her lawyer. So his statements are adoptive admissions by the party from that case that she was demanding the money that's claimed in that letter. That's the first one.
JUDGE NATHAN: And so what do you expect to do? You expect to ask what?
MS. MENNINGER: You were demanding $25 million to settle your civil law claim while Ms. Maxwell was pending in this criminal case, I might add. That's the first one.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So the question is, Were you demanding $25 million in civil litigation while this criminal case was pending?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. As long as it's framed in terms of her knowledge; we have no objection to what she knows about or was involved in. What we want to avoid is a scenario where following a question like that, a legal document exchanged between attorneys was then shown to the witness to refresh her recollection, and this witness was asked to read into the record comments her attorney made, which would not be admissible under Rule 408 if she doesn't know about them because they can't speak to her bias if she is not aware of those communications.
JUDGE NATHAN: So just to spin out the question, Were you demanding $25 million during -- in a civil lawsuit while this criminal investigation was pending? I suppose one response would be I don't know, one response is yes, and one response is no. So if the response is yes, you move on?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: If the response is I don't know, what do you do?
MS. MENNINGER: Refresh her recollection with her own attorney's letter to my law firm in which he's demanding that and the date of the letter. If she wants to say she doesn't know what her civil attorney is doing acting on her behalf, I guess she could say that.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So if it doesn't refresh her recollection, we move on. And then if the answer is no, what then?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, your Honor, that leads to a potential scenario with her attorney being a witness. But I think we would cross that bridge on another day.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. The question remains about her knowledge. And again, if we're refreshing this witness's recollection with a document she hasn't seen, I just want to make sure that the question is very precisely framed. Because there have been a number of times already this morning where the witness has been asked to just read the document and has given answers like, I don't know, but I guess that's what this says, which is beyond the scope of refreshing a recollection. So I just want to ensure we're not asking this witness to read into the record hearsay statements of her attorney which she doesn't have knowledge.
JUDGE NATHAN: If she says, I don't know, you can try to refresh her recollection. The question is, Does this refresh your recollection? If the answer is no, we move on. And then you do --
MS. MENNINGER: We cross bridges that --
JUDGE NATHAN: Right. And if the answer is -- so she says no. And you show it to her and ask if that refreshes her recollection. And if the answer is no, we move on.
MS. MENNINGER: The second one, your Honor, is in the victims' compensation program. As your Honor may have seen, she was offered an award. And after that award was offered, her lawyer -- the same lawyer in that proceeding -- wrote basically a motion for reconsideration and said that the award was not appropriate; that it should at least be an eight-figure award. So that delayed the whole -- you know, her decision to join in the -- or to accept the award. And I believe that is, again, an adoptive admission or a statement because he was acting in her capacity as her lawyer in a civil case while this criminal case was pending.
JUDGE NATHAN: So what's the question you'll ask.
MS. MENNINGER: They are the same, your Honor. It's essentially, Didn't you get offered an award of $5 million and felt that that was not sufficient? And your attorney, on your behalf, went back to the claims program and asked for an eight-figure settlement instead.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Again, the substance of that testimony would only be relevant under Rule 408. If this witness knows about it and, thus, it's offered about her particular bias --
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, you heard the question.
JUDGE NATHAN: Do you object to the question?
MS. MOE: We do object to the question. If the question is, Did you seek an increased amount in the settlement award, I have no objection to that. If the question is, Isn't it true your attorney made the following statement, that question is objectionable.
JUDGE NATHAN: Under 408.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, it goes to bias, her motive to testify in this case, and her bias against my client.
JUDGE NATHAN: Let's start with a more basic issue which no one has briefed, but Manko v. United States, are you familiar?
JUDGE NATHAN: 87 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1996). I'll quote: "the policy that underlies Rule 408 does not apply to criminal prosecutions. The policy favoring the encouragement of civil settlements sufficient to bar their admission in civil actions is insufficient, in our view, to outweigh the need for accurate determinations in criminal cases where the stakes are higher." Is that good law?
JUDGE NATHAN: I mean, that's what it says. I'll admit there may be some complications, but I'd like to know the government's position on that.
JUDGE NATHAN: It will probably take more than a quick look. It's complicated. That case is in the context of the defense seeking to introduce civil litigation settlement. Is defense aware of this case? Anybody have knowledge? No. Who reads Second Circuit cases? In the context of the defense seeking to introduce, the rule was subsequently amended, there's been no intervening Second Circuit interpretation. The rule is amended because the government wanted some ability to introduce in some context civil settlement matters. So the rule has been changed now, by its terms, at least, not in the case of motive and bias, it does appear to apply in criminal settings. But I don't think that the amendment, which was not -- I don't think that amendment is sufficiently overruling of the Second Circuit decision for me not to be bound by that Second Circuit decision. But you'll, I'm sure, take a look at that issue.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. And just to widen the aperture of the issue, what we're talking about is impeachment. And so a statement or an issue of bias that's being offered for impeachment, whether we're talking about a Rule 408 issue or otherwise, is only relevant and permissible if this witness knows about it.
JUDGE NATHAN: I agree there are personal knowledge questions in issue. I did ask you specifically if it was a 408 issue, and you said yes. You're on your feet, of course, now, and have to respond to me quoting a Second Circuit decision at you. And, of course, district courts are required to follow Second Circuit precedent even if its intention was subsequent changes in the law, unless and until the case is reconsidered by the Second Circuit sitting en banc or its equivalent or is rejected by a later Supreme Court decision. So I do think there may be a question of the change in the rule and what the scope of that was and whether it overturns the Second Circuit decision such that I'm not bound by it. I doubt it. Separate and apart from that is the question of whether she has personal knowledge of what her attorneys did, right.
JUDGE NATHAN: It's not a 408 issue, it's a foundation question, personal knowledge question. Ms. Menninger made an argument that in the civil litigation context, she could be assumed to have adopted the position of her attorneys. I think we do get to that bridge, if we need to cross it, so let's see if there's a memory -- if there's an awareness or not. And if she doesn't know and the answer is no, I think we'll move on until I hear from you as to how it might come in.
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. And we'll look into the Rule 408 issue. If we have that wrong, we'll certainly withdraw that objection. And I appreciate the Court flagging that.
JUDGE NATHAN: I assume that's why you hadn't raised 408 in your motion to quash. In any event, one of the parties raised 408, so we looked at it and that was as far as we got. Anything else?
JUDGE NATHAN: Oh, yes. Let's do that at sidebar.
(Pages 491 to 495 SEALED)
(Continued on next page)
(In open court)
JUDGE NATHAN: Five minutes.
(Recess)
JUDGE NATHAN: Matters to take up?
MS. MENNINGER: No. Thank you, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: We can bring the witness. And Ms. Williams can bring in the jury. Mr. Everdell, did you get the binders squared away for the jurors?
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I did look, and the one juror referenced the letter of recommendation. And those, I think, would have been with the Interlochen applications. And I looked at all of those in both binders, and they look to be complete. I just think that he or she may have missed the page.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. All right. So maybe we'll take -- really make sure we're taking time to direct them --
(Jury present)
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. We will resume, Ms. Menninger, with your cross-examination of witness Jane. And Jane, I remind you, you are under oath. Go ahead, Ms. Menninger.
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday you testified about the first time you were abused, you claim, by Epstein. Do you recall that testimony?
MS. MENNINGER: You said that it occurred in a pool house in Florida; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: His Palm Beach home; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: The Palm Beach home that you went to, you say, for all three years; correct? Fourteen through 16.
MS. MENNINGER: And the very first time that you were abused would be a very important part of your story, you would agree; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: But when you talked to the government in December of 2019, isn't it true that you told them that the first time you were abused was in New York?
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true that you said you were in New York and you were abused when you went up there to take headshots?
MS. MENNINGER: If I could direct your attention to 3509-005 on the second page. It's going to be the second paragraph up from the bottom.
JANE: Yes. And with all due respect, I didn't write any of this and I've never read this document because this is incorrect.
MS. MENNINGER: So you're denying that you made the statement your first experience of abuse was when you were 14 years old in New York, you met Epstein to take headshots, and that is when he masturbated?
MS. MENNINGER: When you first talked to the government in December of 2019 about traveling to New York, you told them that on your first trip nothing inappropriate happened; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government that your first trip was to just go and have fun; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: If I could direct your attention to your statement from September of 2019, which is 001, at the second page.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry, what? I didn't hear it.
MS. MOE: I'd object to characterizing this as her statement. I think the witness has been very clear these are not her statements.
MS. MENNINGER: I didn't hear it. I apologize, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: I sustain.
MS. MENNINGER: You spoke with the government in September of 2019; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: I apologize. I may be on the wrong page. I'll find that in a minute. And I apologize.
MS. MENNINGER: If I can direct your attention to a discussion you had with the government in February of 2020, where you told them that the first trip to New York was just to go and have fun. Is that true?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. If I could have you take a look at 008 on page 8. And it's going to be in the fourth full paragraph. Does that refresh your recollection about what you told the government in February 2020 about your first trip to New York?
JANE: Like I said, with all due respect, I didn't write any of this. I've never read this before. And I was never recorded. This was just somebody jotting down notes, and so a lot of this is out of sequence and incorrect.
MS. MENNINGER: Does that refresh your recollection about what you told the government about your first trip to New York?
JUDGE NATHAN: The answer is no. You may proceed.
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true you told the government on that occasion that your first trip to New York was just to go and have fun?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
JUDGE NATHAN: I sustained. If I sustain, pause. And then if I overrule, you can answer. Go ahead, Ms. Menninger.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: And it was later when you were talking to the government in April of 2020 that you said you only specifically recalled one incident in New York where Ghislaine was present; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: If I could have you take a look at 3509-004. Okay. I'm sorry, 3509-003. Excuse me. And it's on the second page in the second full paragraph. If you could look at that second sentence in the second paragraph regarding how many incidents in New York.
MS. MENNINGER: Right. I'm having her take a look at it.
MS. MENNINGER: And does that refresh your recollection?
MS. MENNINGER: On page 2. 3509-03, page 2.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recall -- does this refresh your recollection about how many incidents in New York you recall with Ghislaine present?
JUDGE NATHAN: You're directing to the second full paragraph, second sentence?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor, the second full paragraph on page 2. The paragraph begins with "Maxwell." The second sentence of that paragraph.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Did you tell the government that you recall one incident in New York where Maxwell was present?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a second. Go ahead.
MS. MENNINGER: Did you tell the government you recalled at least one incident in New York where Maxwell was present?
MS. MENNINGER: And that's what you relayed to them on that day; correct?
MS. MOE: Your Honor, again, I'd object to mischaracterizing these documents. It's very confusing for the witness.
JUDGE NATHAN: You've asked already do you recall having made that statement and the answer, I think, is yes?
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: You recall at least one incident in New York?
JUDGE NATHAN: Are you asking that as a question of her memory now or are you asking her if she remembers relaying that to the FBI?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, do you remember that now?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: It was rephrased as about her memory now. Next question, Ms. Menninger.
MS. MENNINGER: That was a conversation you had in November of 2019 with the government; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And then by April of 2020, you reported to the government that you were abused 90 percent of the time you traveled with Epstein and Maxwell; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: So you went from nothing inappropriate happened to being abused 90 percent of the time; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Has your story changed about how many times you remember abuse over the course of your discussions with the government?
MS. MENNINGER: In September of 2019, when you first met with the government, you told them that you flew with Ghislaine and Epstein to New York to see The Lion King; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told them that you flew to New York for the first time with them to see The Lion King; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You said that happened when you were 14, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And that's the trip where you said nothing inappropriate happened; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you were, as we've seen, a student of theater and the arts at the time; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. You may answer. A. Correct.
MS. MENNINGER: A student of the arts would be pretty excited about their first trip to see a Broadway show; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Especially The Lion King when it came out; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And it would also be memorable to a young person to have their first trip on a private jet; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, you told them that in September of 2019, right, when you first met with them?
MS. MENNINGER: You repeated that same story in December of 2019; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You repeated that story in February of 2020; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: All right. I'll have you take a look at 3509-005 at 6 to 7. I apologize. 001 at page 2.
JUDGE NATHAN: What paragraph?
MS. MENNINGER: I'm having a little trouble with my glasses. Just a moment, your Honor. I apologize.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: Third paragraph, your Honor. Sorry.
JUDGE NATHAN: Third full paragraph?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, I apologize. I'm confused. I think the question was about a number of different meetings, but we're now looking at the same notes. I think there's a confusing suggestion that we're talking about --
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: The first time that you met with the government, you told them that you were flown to New York by Epstein and Maxwell to see The Lion King, right?
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment. Do you need a break? THE DEPUTY CLERK: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead.
(Jury not present)
JUDGE NATHAN: You can be seated. Let me find out what's happening.
(Recess)
JUDGE NATHAN: Just to be clear, it looked like a witness was having a coughing issue or sickness or something. That a juror, apologize.
(Pause)
JUDGE NATHAN: Happy to report she's fine. She felt like something was stuck in her throat. She's getting some water and a cough drop and we'll resume. The juror, to be clear.
MS. MENNINGER: I've been provided a light by Ms. Sternheim to see.
JUDGE NATHAN: Oh, great. These courtrooms are dark.
(Jury present)
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Everyone please be seated. Okay. Everybody is okay. I know it's always alarming to know you have to travel in a group always, but do let us know if you need anything. Thank you, everyone. Ms. Menninger, you may continue with your cross.
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: So I think we were talking about in September of 2019 you agreed that you had told the government about flying to New York with Maxwell and Epstein to see The Lion King; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. If I can show you 3509-001, page 2, third paragraph.
JANE: Yes, I see that. And it's incorrect. This is not a transcript of mine. Nobody ever recorded me saying any of my statements. And I'm reading it right now and a lot of these are not correct.
MS. MENNINGER: So you did not tell the government in September of 2019 that when you were 14 years old, you flew with Epstein and Maxwell to New York City to see The Lion King?
JANE: I flew with them to New York City and I had mistaken that we were going to see The Lion King, but that was a different trip.
MS. MENNINGER: But you did say it, but you learned later you were wrong; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: All right. So let's turn to when you learned that you were wrong. Your attorney -- you repeated it a few times though, I guess that's my point?
MS. MENNINGER: That was the only time you told the government that you flew to New York to see The Lion King with Epstein and Maxwell?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: You told it to them a couple times before you found out you were wrong, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. Well, let's go to your conversation in February of 2020, 008, page 8. And at that time you told the government your first trip to New York was to just go and have fun. It may have been the trip that you went to see The Lion King, right?
JUDGE NATHAN: You can --
MS. MENNINGER: Refresh?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes, you can ask if it refreshes.
MS. MENNINGER: Does reading the second sentence of the fourth paragraph refresh your recollection about what you told the government in February of 2020?
MS. MENNINGER: You don't remember saying it then?
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true what you said to the government in February 2020 is that your first trip to New York was to just go and have fun, this may have been the trip to see The Lion King?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: After this meeting in February 2020, your email -- your lawyer was Mr. Glassman at the time; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Mr. Glassman got an email from a prosecutor, Mr. Rossmiller; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: I'm not asking the contents.
JUDGE NATHAN: Do you know?
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: At some point did your attorney, Mr. Glassman, come to you with a question?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, it was communicated to the government, so the privilege had been waived.
JUDGE NATHAN: He didn't ask -- I sustained.
JUDGE NATHAN: The question as phrased, sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you know whether your attorney ever communicated to the government an answer regarding The Lion King and Broadway?
JUDGE NATHAN: Good.
MS. MENNINGER: I know Ms. Moe would like to come do this for me, but --
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Everybody calm down. The question is not objected to nor objectionable. You may state it again, Ms. Menninger.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: Do you know whether your attorney communicated to the government -- communicated with the government about your experience with The Lion King and going to New York?
MS. MENNINGER: Could looking at 3509-10 refresh your recollection?
MS. MOE: Your Honor, I object. The witness testified that she doesn't know, not that she doesn't remember.
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. You can ask if this refreshes. This is precisely what we talked through. You can ask if it refreshes her recollection.
MS. MENNINGER: Does this refresh your recollection about your attorney communicating with the government about The Lion King and Broadway?
JANE: Yes, but it doesn't reference the timeline, if that was the original question. I'm sorry. I'm confused.
MS. MENNINGER: Is it true that your lawyer communicated to the government your recollection that, in fact, you had seen The Lion King Broadway show and not the movie?
MS. MENNINGER: And you recalled seeing the Broadway show; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you recalled sitting in the mezzanine seats; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you recalled that Epstein bragged about getting those seats because he knew the director; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And your attorney communicated all of that to the government; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And that was in response to a question from the government to you through your attorney; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: That's because the government communicated to you through your attorney that The Lion King didn't come out until 1997; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: So although you had told the government twice previously that you flew to New York with Maxwell and Epstein when you were 14, you learned that the Broadway show didn't come out until you were 17; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: The government suggested to you that perhaps you meant to say The Lion King movie through your attorney to you; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Did Mr. Glassman share with you the email that he got from the government?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: You knew at the time you communicated the information to Mr. Glassman that he intended to share it with the government; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, that's how we establish a waiver of the privilege.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: When you first talked to the government about traveling to New Mexico, you told them that you were ignored on that trip; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You recall telling the government that the first time you went on a private plane to New Mexico, you were not doing much and just sitting around; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. Look at 3509-008 at page 6, and the second full paragraph, in the middle of the paragraph. Do you recall telling the government that the first time you went to New Mexico on Epstein's plane you were somewhat ignored?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recall that you were told to go hiking?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recall saying you were not impressed?
JUDGE NATHAN: I need you to clarify. You're again switching between asking if it's a memory now or whether she remembers having said that to the government.
MS. MENNINGER: As you sit here today, do you remember not being impressed when you went to New Mexico for the first time on the private plane?
MS. MENNINGER: No. Do you recall as you sit here today that you were not impressed when you first went to New Mexico on a private plane?
MS. MENNINGER: You do not recall any abuse happening when you first went to New Mexico; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: That's what you told the government in February of 2020; correct?
JANE: No, that's not correct. Like I said, this is not a transcript of mine. This is the first time I'm reading it and it's not correct.
MS. MENNINGER: All right. I'm going to direct your attention to 3509-008, page 7, the last full paragraph. Does that refresh your recollection about what you told the government about your first trip to New Mexico?
MS. MENNINGER: And isn't it true you told the government in February of 2020 that on your first trip to New Mexico, you recalled going hiking, remembered not doing too much, just sitting around mostly, and did not recall specific abuse that may have occurred?
MS. MENNINGER: Then I would like to direct your attention to the last sentence on that same page, where you were asked again if you recalled any specific abuse that occurred in New Mexico, and then turning to the next page, you stated you were not sure.
JUDGE NATHAN: Do you have a question?
MS. MENNINGER: Does that refresh your recollection now that you've seen that on the page?
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true that's what you said to the government?
MS. MENNINGER: And you also told the government that your memory of the details of that location were not good; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. If you could look at the top of the second page -- I'm sorry, of page 8. Does that refresh your recollection?
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true you told the government regarding New Mexico the place was dark and you do not recall many of the details of this location? If there was abuse that occurred there, it wouldn't have been a group thing, but she cannot recall -- you cannot recall anything specific?
JUDGE NATHAN: What's the question?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, I asked her if it refreshed her recollection, she said it did not. Now I'm asking her if she made the statement, and we haven't heard her answer yet.
JUDGE NATHAN: So the question is did you make the statement?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. You may answer that.
MS. MENNINGER: Then you were asked the same question by the government in the same interview a third time; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: I'm going to ask you to take a look at page 11, the top paragraph, the first sentence. Does that refresh your recollection about you being asked a third time in the same interview about abuse occurring in New Mexico?
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true what you told the government a third time was that you were asked about the New Mexico trips you took and if you recalled any specific abuse that occurred there, to which you answered you did not remember; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: It didn't refresh your recollection --
JUDGE NATHAN: You said isn't it true that you told the government a third time that you were asked about the New Mexico trips. I think you lost the thread.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true you told the government you do not remember any specific abuse that occurred in New Mexico on the trips that you took there?
MS. MENNINGER: And yesterday you testified about an incident in New Mexico that you now specifically remember two years later.
MS. MENNINGER: Today you remember it; in 2020 you did not.
MS. MENNINGER: I'm going to ask you about the homes that you testified you visited for Epstein in the mid 1990s, okay, between the ages of 14 and 16. You recall in Palm Beach that you went to a pool house; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you only went to one house for Epstein in Palm Beach ever; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You remember the whole house in Florida was light-colored and beachy; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You remember a winding staircase with pictures on the wall; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You recall a massage room that was attached to the bathroom; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And that's the description that you gave the government; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: In New York, you described an eight-story mansion on the Upper East Side; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You started staying there when you were 14; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: That's the only home in New York that you visited of Epstein's; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You stayed in some apartments where he did not live; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you stayed in this eight-story mansion beginning at the age of 14; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you stayed on the eighth floor of this mansion, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And Ghislaine didn't live in that mansion, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You didn't see her living there; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you started staying there at the age of 14, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You recall a massage table being black in that home; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And then you remember going to New Mexico where there was a giant ranch; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: An impressive, huge house, right?
MS. MENNINGER: What's that?
MS. MENNINGER: Right. And there were other guests around in New Mexico; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you remember telling the government that Jeffrey's brother Mark Epstein went with you on a trip to New Mexico?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you remember telling the government that Chef Adam Perry Ling went on a trip to New Mexico with you?
MS. MENNINGER: And you don't remember a massage room in the New Mexico home; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: In your time with Epstein, you never saw any other underage girls around him; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, you told the government in 2019 that you thought you were the only one; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you only learned otherwise, you said, when you saw the news about Mr. Epstein's arrest in 2007 or 8; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: So none of the other participants in these orgies, I think you called them, were underage; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: That you thought you were the only one, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you were never asked to go recruit other girls for Epstein; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You were not asked to have sexual contact with any of Epstein's friends?
MS. MENNINGER: Epstein did introduce you to a number of people associated with the arts, right?
MS. MENNINGER: He introduced you to the dean of Interlochen at a cocktail party, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, in December of 2019, you told the government that he had introduced you to the dean of Interlochen at a cocktail party.
JUDGE NATHAN: Having a hard time hearing you, Ms. Menninger.
MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry.
MS. MENNINGER: In 2019 December, you told the government that you had been introduced to the dean of Interlochen by Epstein at a cocktail party.
MS. MENNINGER: If I could have you look at 3509-005, page 5, the second full paragraph. Does that refresh your recollection?
JANE: I remember the dean of admissions for Julliard. I don't remember saying the first sentence.
MS. MENNINGER: Isn't it true you told the government that on one occasion the dean of Interlochen was there for a cocktail party, you met him through Epstein?
MS. MENNINGER: You don't remember if you did meet the dean of Interlochen through Epstein?
MS. MENNINGER: And you do remember meeting the dean of admissions for Julliard; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Through Epstein, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you applied to Julliard; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You were referred to the Professional Children's School by the dean of Julliard -- or, excuse me, the dean of admissions for Julliard; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Mr. Epstein introduced you to Donald Trump; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: He took you to Mar-a-Lago, right?
MS. MENNINGER: When you were 14, you claim?
MS. MENNINGER: He took you in a dark green car?
MS. MENNINGER: And you met Donald Trump there; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: That was before the pool house incident; correct?
(Continued on next page)
MS. MENNINGER: If I could direct your attention to your conversation to the statement 3509-001?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Page 3 of 001, in the second full paragraph, does that refresh your recollection that you described a period in the beginning before the pool house incident?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recall telling the government that Epstein took you -- that Epstein told you that he had famous friends that he would call and put on speaker phone?
MS. MENNINGER: And you told them that he took you in a dark green car to. Mar-a-Lago to meet Donald Trump, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And that was in the beginning before the pool house incident?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. I'll allow it.
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday you talked about group sexualized massages, right?
MS. MENNINGER: I think you called them orgies, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You talked about how those would happen almost every visit with him, which would have been every two weeks, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: Your testimony yesterday --
JUDGE NATHAN: Where am I looking?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the transcript from yesterday's testimony began on page 314 and the specific statement about frequency is at the top of 315.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. I need one too. Can I get the page again, please.
MS. MENNINGER: Sure. Your Honor, it began -- the description of the topic was on 314, and then the specific question about frequency occurred at the top of 315.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: What's the question?
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: I asked, you testified yesterday that these group massages would happen almost every visit with him which would have been every two weeks. That was your testimony yesterday?
MS. MENNINGER: In these group massages, there were other participants, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You distinctly remembered the names of some of these other women participants, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You told those names to the government, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You recalled a woman named Sophie who participated in these group sexualized massages, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: She was an actual massage therapist, right?
MS. MENNINGER: She had blond hair?
MS. MENNINGER: Tall and thin, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Nice legs?
MS. MENNINGER: Was pretty?
MS. MENNINGER: Had a tan?
MS. MENNINGER: Right?
MS. MENNINGER: Lived in Florida?
MS. MENNINGER: Married a racecar driver?
MS. MENNINGER: She joined in the sexual massages, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You said she knew the routine, right?
MS. MENNINGER: She would make out with other girls during these encounters?
MS. MENNINGER: And you remember being on flights with Sophie?
MS. MENNINGER: Sophie would be someone who could corroborate your recollection about these group massages, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government about a woman named Eva who joined in, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You said she joined in with Sophie, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Those were your words.
MS. MENNINGER: You said she joined in with Sophie?
MS. MENNINGER: She knew the routine?
MS. MENNINGER: So she could also confirm your story, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You talked about a third woman named Emmy, who was a participant in the abuse, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You said that Emmy was British?
MS. MENNINGER: And she was nice and cool, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And she was involved in the sexual contact, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And she was in these group sexualized massages with you, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: There was a fourth woman you remembered named Michelle?
MS. MENNINGER: Michelle was short?
MS. MENNINGER: You hung out with her and Emmy?
MS. MENNINGER: And you sometimes went out with them, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you claimed that Michelle was also involved in the sexual contact, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And the group massages?
MS. MENNINGER: And then another person you remembered was named Kelly, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you remembered her last name, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you thought she was a model who was older than you, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you told the government she could back up what you were talking about, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You also told the agents and the prosecutors you were meeting with, you thought you could recognize these people if you saw pictures, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you said that at your very first meeting in September of 2019, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And between September of 2019 and today, you've never been shown pictures of Sophie, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Lack of evidence your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: What are the grounds? One word grounds for the objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
(Continued on next page)
(At the sidebar)
JUDGE NATHAN: What are the grounds?
MS. MOE: Your Honor, in connection with our motions in limine, the Court granted a motion in limine from the government about efforts to put at issue particular investigative techniques of whether we're showing photographs or steps that the government is taking. That's the objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, can I make a record about the number of objections because it's --
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, the record is clear about the number of objections.
(Continued on next page)
(In open court)
JUDGE NATHAN: Do you need the question repeated? Repeat the question.
MS. MENNINGER: Between September of 2019 and today, have you ever been shown photographs of Sophie by the government?
MS. MENNINGER: Of Emmy?
MS. MENNINGER: Michelle?
MS. MENNINGER: Eva?
MS. MENNINGER: Kelly?
MS. MENNINGER: Any of the other model-types that you said you saw in these group massages?
MS. MENNINGER: You remembered being on flights with a number of individuals, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You remember Prince Andrew being on a flight, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You remember Mark Epstein, Jeffrey's brother, being on a flight?
MS. MENNINGER: You recall Adam Perry Lang being on a flight with you?
MS. MENNINGER: You remember Epstein's mom being on a flight with you?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the government you remembered all these people being on flights with you?
MS. MENNINGER: Were you aware of whether the flight logs reflect any flights by you with those individuals?
MS. MENNINGER: You also had some recollections about flying on the private plane with Epstein, right? You recall being on the plane?
MS. MENNINGER: And you said that you were asked your weight when you were boarding the plane, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you also remember this Latin American driver for Mr. Epstein driving you up to the airport, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: So he could back up that story too, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you remember someone from Epstein's office named Lesley who called to set up travel arrangements for you, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you recall Lesley calling your home phone in Florida, right?
MS. MENNINGER: When you were 14, 15 and 16, right?
MS. MENNINGER: When you were in Florida?
MS. MENNINGER: Between the ages of 14 to 16. And you remember Emmy calling your house when you were age 14, 15 and 16 to make arrangements, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, you told the government that you do recall Emmy calling your home phone in Florida, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Let's look at 3509-001 at page 2, in the second full paragraph.
MS. MENNINGER: So it says that you recall Emmy calling your house phone, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment. Just a moment. Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Did you tell the -- you're saying that it says it, but it's not correct. Can you just tell us what's not correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. You may answer.
JANE: This timeline is not correct. I did not know Emmy or Michelle while living in Florida. I knew them in New York.
MS. MENNINGER: You did not live in a house in New York, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You lived in an apartment, right?
MS. MENNINGER: So you didn't have a house phone in New York?
MS. MENNINGER: There was staff present at Mr. Epstein's eight-story mansion, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And the staff included a chef, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And a house manager?
MS. MENNINGER: And a driver?
MS. MENNINGER: And so all of those people saw you staying in this mansion by yourself as a 14 year old, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You said that Epstein gave you money almost every time that you saw him, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Hundreds of dollars at a time?
MS. MENNINGER: $2- or $300 at a time?
MS. MENNINGER: And that happened regardless of whether or not you were in what you claim was a sexually abusive relationship at that time, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And your brothers never mentioned anything weird about you having hundreds of dollars of cash, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And your mother as well didn't know you had hundreds of dollars?
MS. MENNINGER: You gave the hundreds of dollars to your mother?
MS. MENNINGER: Every time?
MS. MENNINGER: And Epstein only gave you gifts. He didn't give any gifts to your brothers?
MS. MENNINGER: Nothing major?
MS. MENNINGER: Anything else?
MS. MENNINGER: You don't have any photographs of yourself with Epstein, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Or Ghislaine?
MS. MENNINGER: You don't have any photographs of you wearing the clothes that you claim they bought you?
MS. MENNINGER: The plaid pants and the Ralph Lauren sweater, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You claimed that there was a photo of you that Epstein kept on his desk, and you were wearing a bathing suit, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You don't know whether that photograph was ever found, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you have any records of when you went to the Lion King, like a program?
MS. MENNINGER: You said that Epstein paid for your acting lessons, right?
MS. MENNINGER: At a particular studio?
MS. MENNINGER: And you said that he paid a particular voice coach for you?
MS. MENNINGER: Have you got records of any of those payments?
MS. MENNINGER: You've met with the government quite a few times in person, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You've had a number of trial preparation sessions?
MS. MENNINGER: What's that?
MS. MENNINGER: Trial prep sessions?
MS. MENNINGER: Where they were talking about your testifying here?
MS. MENNINGER: And there was a mock cross-exam that you engaged in with the government, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Where you practiced answering questions like we are now?
MS. MENNINGER: Did you rehearse your direct testimony?
MS. MENNINGER: You continued to travel on Mr. Epstein's dime after you escaped in 1999, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, you took flights on his private jet after 1999, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you remember taking commercial flights that he paid for?
MS. MENNINGER: I will have you look at Exhibit J-37 and see if this refreshes your recollection. And the J numbers are behind the green flag.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I think it's going to make more sense for me to come back to this.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: You do recall sending a photograph of yourself to Epstein after you moved to LA, right?
MS. MENNINGER: That was Government Exhibit 245, right? Where you wrote "Thanks for rocking my world"?
MS. MENNINGER: And you wrote that when you were 19?
MS. MENNINGER: You testified yesterday that your mom made you send that to him, right?
MS. MENNINGER: So your mom could clearly corroborate that, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And there were no dates on those photographs, right?
MS. MENNINGER: So it's your recollection about the age you were in those photographs, right?
MS. MENNINGER: There's nothing on the photographs themselves?
MS. MENNINGER: And you testified yesterday that Epstein just kept calling you and calling you in the 2000s until you stopped answering his phone calls, right?
MS. MENNINGER: So there would be phone records of all those calls, right?
MS. MENNINGER: It took you quite some time to report this to law enforcement, right? We talked about that at the beginning yesterday?
MS. MENNINGER: In the meantime, you got a job on a soap opera, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You received an income from that job?
MS. MENNINGER: You had an agent?
MS. MENNINGER: You had a number of family members that lived nearby in the 2000s, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And once you had established yourself as an actress with income, you didn't call up the police to let them know what you claimed had happened to you, right?
MS. MENNINGER: In the late 2000s, 2007, 2008, you saw on the news that Epstein had been arrested, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And charged, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And so you knew the authorities were investigating Mr. Epstein in 2007, 2008, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You didn't pick up the phone then and call the people that you knew were investigating him then, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You knew how do that, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You knew how to get a lawyer?
MS. MENNINGER: You chose not do that?
MS. MENNINGER: And you started to see some press that mentioned yourself?
MS. MENNINGER: And so you did hire a lawyer, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And a lot of the press that you saw mentioned about yourself was false, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Were there allegations that you were a Yugoslavian sex slave that you saw on the internet?
MS. MENNINGER: I'm asking if she saw the press?
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll allow it.
MS. MENNINGER: You wanted to stop the press about you, right?
MS. MENNINGER: So you hired an attorney?
MS. MENNINGER: And that was around 2015?
MS. MENNINGER: You hired a litigator, a tough litigator, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You paid her a lot of money?
MS. MENNINGER: Quarter of a million dollars?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recall speaking with the government in December of 2019?
MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry, got that date wrong. September 2 of 2021, so a few months ago?
MS. MENNINGER: At that time, you said you gave this litigator a quarter of a million dollars?
MS. MENNINGER: Why?
JANE: First of all, I don't have that much money to give away, and it was $25,000. So maybe it's a typo?
MS. MENNINGER: I'm going to have you look at 3509-023.
MS. MENNINGER: In the last full paragraph in the middle of the paragraph.
MS. MENNINGER: Does that refresh your recollection that you told the government you did not know you would need a $250,000 retainer?
JANE: That's not correct because I never said that. I would not be able to afford to pay anybody that much money for anything.
MS. MENNINGER: Well, you paid her some amount of money?
MS. MENNINGER: $25,000?
MS. MENNINGER: And you did that to help her stop the media about you?
JANE: Stop people from harassing me and bullying me into trying to give some sort of interview or statement.
MS. MENNINGER: Well, you were being approached by lawyers?
MS. MENNINGER: Lawyers for Virginia Roberts, for example?
MS. MENNINGER: You spoke to them?
MS. MENNINGER: You were being approached by the media, right?
MS. MENNINGER: The media was wanting you to give statements, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you could have directed your lawyer to call the government and report this crime you're claiming now, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You didn't hire her for that purpose, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You could have, right?
MS. MENNINGER: In 2019, before Epstein was arrested, you were contacted by Agent Amanda Young, right?
MS. MENNINGER: She gave you a call?
MS. MENNINGER: She asked to speak with you, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you said you were just not interested in getting involved, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And then thereafter, you hired a different attorney, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You hired Mr. Glassman?
MS. MENNINGER: Mr. Glassman is a personal injury lawyer, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Mr. Glassman, touts the very large verdicts that he has received on his web page, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Grounds.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Are you aware of Mr. Glassman's advertising?
MS. MENNINGER: Did you ever look at his website?
MS. MENNINGER: You hired him on September 3 of 2019, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. Let's take a look at J-14. Do you recognize that document?
MS. MENNINGER: And what is that document?
MS. MENNINGER: That's between you and Mr. Glassman, right?
MS. MENNINGER: If you could look at the last page, does that refresh your recollection about when you hired Mr. Glassman?
MS. MENNINGER: When did you hire Mr. Glassman?
MS. MENNINGER: That was two weeks before you met with the government for the first time, right?
MS. MENNINGER: I want to look back at 3509-001, at the date. Does looking at the left-hand corner of 001 refresh your recollection about the date that you first met with the government?
MS. MENNINGER: September 19, 2019 seems about right, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You hired Mr. Glassman before this meeting with the government, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Mr. Glassman was at the first meeting with the government, right?
MS. MENNINGER: As well as Mr. Werksman, the second lawyer, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And those were both personal injury lawyers that you had selected?
MS. MENNINGER: You didn't hire a lawyer that specializes in victims' rights, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: He's not a specialist in criminal law, for example?
MS. MENNINGER: And you had Mr. Glassman and Mr. Werksman in the first meeting with the government, right?
MS. MENNINGER: May I have one moment, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
(Pause)
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, would this be a good stopping point?
JUDGE NATHAN: We were having a little issue with the jurors' lunch, so not quite yet.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. I'm just trying to find something I can do on a short notice -- a short section.
JUDGE NATHAN: You can just start another section and we'll break, that's fine.
MS. MENNINGER: I appreciate that.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: In the period of time between '99 and 2019, there has been a lot of things that have happened, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You have read the press, including stories about yourself, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You've read the press about Epstein?
MS. MENNINGER: You've talked about the press about Epstein with other people?
MS. MENNINGER: You've talked about the press about Epstein with other people?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, you had discussions --
MS. MENNINGER: I'll rephrase, your Honor. Maybe that will help.
MS. MENNINGER: You've spoken with your ex-boyfriend you were calling Matt about Epstein, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you and he watched news reports together, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you pieced some things together, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You and Matt pieced things together based on your review of press about Epstein, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: You talked to Virginia Roberts' lawyer, Brad Edwards, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You talked to Stan Pottinger?
MS. MENNINGER: You know they represent other Epstein accusers, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Your lawyer has spoken to other lawyers?
JUDGE NATHAN: I suppose you can ask if she knows that.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you know whether your lawyer has spoken to other lawyers who represent Epstein accusers?
MS. MENNINGER: You've talked to your family members, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You've talked to your ex-boyfriend, Matt, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And during that period of time, all of the pieces of information and conversations that you've had are part of what you now know about the Epstein case, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment. One word. Grounds.
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. You can state the question again.
MS. MENNINGER: All of the conversations that you've had and the press that you've read and the people that you've talked to, all of those pieces of information go into what you know about the Epstein case as you sit here today, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You don't remember all of the things that you've talked about, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You don't remember all the things that you read, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You don't know all of the websites that you've seen, right?
MS. MENNINGER: But you've read them enough to hire a lawyer to stop some, right?
JANE: No, that's based more on people calling me, harassing me, calling my husband, harassing him, calling my work, calling my friends. And I wanted these people to stop calling me and go away. It's not based on tabloids. I've been in enough online tabloids. Being an actor, you read all kinds of stuff about yourself.
MS. MENNINGER: You're aware of the media out there about yourself, right?
MS. MENNINGER: During your teenage years, you traveled quite frequently, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You traveled back and forth to a country in northern Europe?
MS. MENNINGER: You did that over the holidays?
MS. MENNINGER: With your family?
MS. MENNINGER: You were 15 when you went on one of those trips?
MS. MENNINGER: I will have you take a look at J-6. I assume you have not seen this document before?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recognize your name on it?
MS. MENNINGER: And do you see certain dates and --
MS. MENNINGER: I thought you did. I'm really sorry.
MS. MENNINGER: You recognize your name and date of birth on this document?
MS. MENNINGER: And does -- I realize that some of these dates are old, but does looking at this, particularly page 2 towards the bottom, refresh your recollection about trips that you may have taken outside of the country?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, do you remember taking these trips?
MS. MENNINGER: Let me direct your attention to the second from the bottom one.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recognize those airport codes or the dates of travel indicated there?
MS. MENNINGER: Let me ask you this: In April of 1996, did you take a trip abroad?
MS. MENNINGER: How old were you in April of 1996?
MS. MENNINGER: And do you remember going abroad when you were 15?
MS. MENNINGER: Did you ever attend a vocal competition in Italy?
MS. MENNINGER: And that was in April of 1996?
MS. MENNINGER: Was it? I'm asking you.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. And then there was another trip that you took, maybe you'll recall, in June of 1997. How old were you in June of 1997?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you remember a trip that you took in June of 1997?
MS. MENNINGER: None of these trips involved Ghislaine Maxwell, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You didn't travel abroad with her?
MS. MENNINGER: And Epstein as well, you didn't travel abroad with him?
MS. MENNINGER: So, you may have taken a trip related to a sibling in June of 1997 --
MS. MENNINGER: -- when you were 16?
MS. MENNINGER: And then in January of 1998, how old were you?
MS. MENNINGER: And you took a trip perhaps abroad then. Do you recall that?
MS. MENNINGER: And then the last one I'll ask about is April of 1998. Do you remember taking a trip then?
MS. MENNINGER: And how old were you in April of 1998?
MS. MENNINGER: You continued to travel throughout the 2000s abroad. Is that right?
MS. MENNINGER: When you were in your -- in the mid-1990s, you participated in a beauty pageant, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: A Miss Teen pageant?
MS. MENNINGER: The big one, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And it was associated with Mr. Trump, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And that was in a state that you were in in that time frame, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You were given $2,000 by Epstein for a dress?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recall being devastated that Epstein only gave you $2,000 for a dress?
MS. MENNINGER: Or crying because he only gave you $2,000 for a dress?
MS. MENNINGER: You performed on a reality show, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: In the 2000s?
MS. MENNINGER: With your ex-boyfriend, Matt?
MS. MENNINGER: And you had cameras in your home, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You had some conflict with your mother during that?
MS. MENNINGER: And you had other friends who were also on the show?
MS. MENNINGER: And the cameras followed you around, right?
MS. MENNINGER: In that show, you talked about roughing it for you would be going to the Four Seasons, something like that?
MS. MENNINGER: And you were paid for that reality show, right?
MS. MENNINGER: In the last few decades, you have supported your family, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You have had some of your brothers that have had to live with you?
MS. MENNINGER: Your sister?
MS. MENNINGER: Has never needed financial support from you?
MS. MENNINGER: You had your mother living with you, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And she had some financial difficulties, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you needed to help her with her finances, right?
MS. MENNINGER: I think at one point you claim that you were putting a roof over your family's head, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You told that to Matt?
MS. MENNINGER: Right?
MS. MENNINGER: And once you hired Mr. Glassman in September of 2019, he talked to you about your decision to cooperate in the criminal case, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, he shared this with the government. May we have a sidebar?
JUDGE NATHAN: No. If you want to try to get around privilege, you'll raise it in advance, as I've made clear. Sustained.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: When you decided finally to file a civil lawsuit, that was in January of 2020, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you filed that under a pseudonym?
MS. MENNINGER: Jane, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you did that with the help of Mr. Glassman?
MS. MENNINGER: And you sued Ghislaine, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You sued Epstein's estate, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You also made a claim in the Virgin Islands against Epstein's estate, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: At some point you made a demand for Ghislaine to pay you money, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, your lawyer sent a letter demanding that she pay you money?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you know whether your lawyer sent Ghislaine a letter demanding money?
MS. MENNINGER: You knew at the time you had that civil complaint going, that Ghislaine was charged in this case, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You also participated in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And with your lawyer's assistance, you filled out the claim form for that, right?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Did you fill out the claim form?
MS. MENNINGER: Did you sign the claim form?
MS. MENNINGER: Did you notarize your signature for the claim form?
MS. MENNINGER: Did you attest that everything in the claim form that you submitted was true and accurate?
MS. MENNINGER: In that claim form that you attested was accurate, you were asked whether or not you were participating in the prosecution of any case related to Epstein, right?
MS. MENNINGER: If I could have you look at Exhibit J-18 on page 6. And if you need to look at the last page to see your signature, just let us know.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you see question 11?
MS. MENNINGER: And it asks you: Have you filed litigation against Epstein or the Estate of Epstein, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Or any related entities or individuals, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You said yes?
MS. MENNINGER: And you listed your civil case, correct?
MS. MENNINGER: But you also said "refer to the attachment"?
MS. MENNINGER: You signed it?
MS. MENNINGER: And then the next question, question 12, you were asked whether or not you'd ever been trafficked to and sexually abused by any individuals other than Epstein, correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recall answering or telling the claims program that you were making a claim against Ms. Maxwell?
MS. MENNINGER: And you were ultimately made an offer by the claims program, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you were told what that offer was?
MS. MENNINGER: What was that initial offer?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you know whether your attorney went back and asked for more money?
MS. MENNINGER: This year you were wired the money, right, $5 million?
MS. MENNINGER: I would like to ask you to take a look at Exhibit J-40. Do you recognize this document?
MS. MENNINGER: And do you recognize the date of the document?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recognize your name on the document?
MS. MENNINGER: And on the last page, do you recognize your signature?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, at this time I would move for the admission of this under seal because it has identifying information as Exhibit J-40.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. We'll break for lunch, members of the jury. We almost have all your lunches in hand. I'm hoping by the time you get back, everything will be set. So we'll break about 45 minutes for lunch. Enjoy your lunch. Thank you.
(Jurors not present)
JUDGE NATHAN: Everyone may be seated. Can I have J-40 back up so we can discuss? Grounds.
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. We have a 401 and 403 objection to this document. This is a multipage document containing legal terms relating to a civil settlement. To the extent the defense intends to impeach this witness about the fact that she settled a claim and received a sum of money, that's already in the record. This document contains additional and, frankly, complicated legal terms about a settlement agreement between this witness and an estate that's not a party to this case. We think this document is confusing to the jury and don't understand any potential impeachment relevance of the particular terms of the settlement.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, it's a representative -- it's a documentary representative of the amount of money that she received in the settlement. I don't know what's confusing about that. I am not going to spend a lot of time arguing some legal clauses or anything like that, but I think our jury is sophisticated enough to know what a settlement agreement looks like and the amount of money that she received. She's contesting that that's the amount of money she received, but I don't think that precluding us from putting in a document because it has legal language in it is an appropriate --
JUDGE NATHAN: That's the 403 argument, that it's legal language?
JUDGE NATHAN: The government puts in cooperation agreements all the time. Those are not the models of clarity.
JUDGE NATHAN: This is comparable legal language, isn't it?
MS. MOE: No, your Honor. I think the difference here, and it's an important one is, as a proponent of the evidence, the defense has the burden of establishing its relevance. At this point what they've articulated is that they want the exact figure that was disbursed, which this witness has already testified to and --
JUDGE NATHAN: It's just a document of that agreement. I'm going to overrule this objection. Anything else?
MS. MOE: Your Honor, in our view, this sort of opens the door to a lot of legal issues related to the settlement funds that are not proper before the jury. It's cumulative of the testimony about this particular figure and would be confusing about its particular terms.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes, that's what I just overruled.
JUDGE NATHAN: Anything else to take up? We'll break for lunch for 45 minutes. Thank you. And, Ms. Menninger, if you have an argument that you're going to pierce attorney-client privilege --
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. Can we take that up right after lunch in a sidebar? I believe I have grounds.
JUDGE NATHAN: You have to speak into the microphone. It should have been briefed. I think that would be clear, but, yes, I'll meet with you in 40 minutes. You'll confer in advance.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: As to what the contention is, what the proffer is, and then I'll hear from you. 40 minutes.
(Luncheon recess)
(Continued on next page) A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 1:50 P.M.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Matters to take up?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. May I approach?
JUDGE NATHAN: Microphone.
MS. MENNINGER: I have one exhibit that relates to the testimony I'd like to --
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor --
JUDGE NATHAN: Would you come to the --
MS. MENNINGER: Oh, yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Take your mask off, if you'd like.
MS. MENNINGER: As with some of the evidence, your Honor, I understand that, when questioned, the witness might deny knowledge about this communication to the government by her attorney, but I would like to ask her if she has knowledge of this communication.
JUDGE NATHAN: What exact question would you ask?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I would ask her did she have a communication from her attorney about why she should cooperate and testify at this criminal trial.
JUDGE NATHAN: Did she have a communication from her attorney about why she should cooperate and testify at this trial.
MS. MENNINGER: I mean, I could start with the question of does she know whether her attorney shared that with someone else, which is the waiver question, in my mind, anyway. But the ultimate question I would like to get to is her attorney told her that.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right. So you want to get to a communication between attorney and client. It's privileged, right? And you're arguing that it's been waived or what are you arguing?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, I'm arguing that it's been waived because it was communicated to the government.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Moe.
JUDGE NATHAN: Could you pull up the microphone, please.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I think there would be no issue with a question about this witness's understanding of whether the outcome of this case would help in a civil case or whether at the time she decided to cooperate with the government and be interviewed she thought that would help her get money in a civil case. That would be just a question about whether she had bias and motive; that wouldn't go to issues of attorney-client privilege about her general understanding. I think the question becomes, if she says no, if a privileged communication with her attorney would be a proper basis for impeachment. On that score, if we get to that scenario, this witness's counsel is in the courtroom. I've conferred with him about the privilege issue. My understanding is his view is this is privileged and he'd like to confer with his client about that. But I think he'd like to be heard on the question of privilege and waiver. It's not the government's privilege to hold or waive or speak to; and so we'd ask for him to be heard on that question.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, I guess it still depends what we're talking about. What is the "this" in that sentence?
MS. MOE: It sounds like, your Honor, if defense counsel plans to impeach this witness about bias by offering a statement of her attorney to the government, that that implicates a privilege question. If separately defense counsel plans to ask this witness just generally --
JUDGE NATHAN: The statement from the attorney to the government is not privileged. This is not privileged. The question goes to her communication with her attorney, that's where the privilege is.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm not yet seeing the connection between what I -- I don't know what the basis of admissibility would be with respect to this email that's been handed up, which is a nonprivileged communication, right, between the attorney and the witness's attorney and the government.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. That is my note to file about a conversation with Mr. Glassman. In our view, my notes about a conversation with someone who's not this witness can't be an exhibit at the trial. There are separate questions about her conversations with her attorneys that implicates other privilege issues.
JUDGE NATHAN: You don't have any objection to Ms. Menninger asking the witness if she has any awareness of her participation in this criminal proceeding impacting -- what is the underlying question? Let me just get the underlying question before we get -- Ms. Menninger.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the underlying question is she expected to get a higher payout in her civil case if she testified in and cooperated in this criminal case. That's the ultimate underlying issue.
JUDGE NATHAN: Did she have any basis to believe that by testifying in this criminal case, it would aid the payment she would get in the -- with respect to the fund or the civil case?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, they ultimately became as one. But at the time her initial advice from Mr. Glassman came in, there was not a victims' compensation fund. That arose during the course of her civil case. And so --
JUDGE NATHAN: And the line you're interested in is that he mentioned he told her it would help her case?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. Because prior to that line, he's disclosing that he discussed whether cooperating with the case and then ultimately gets to the question of testifying in the case, he says, were the morally right thing to do. And they had discussed how testifying at trial was the right thing to do. He also mentioned that he had told her it would help her case. It is slightly ambiguous. I don't know if it refers back to the entirety of the things said before it, but that's what the email or the note says.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So you want to ask her if she had any basis to conclude that her participation as a witness here would help her civil litigation recovery prospects.
MS. MENNINGER: Right, your Honor. If it were a cooperation agreement and a witness had cooperated and someone had promised that they would get a lesser sentence if they cooperated, I can see that also being admissible. So maybe just the --
JUDGE NATHAN: The attorney's advice to the client about whether they should take a plea and what assistance that might get them and all of that obviously is privileged.
MS. MENNINGER: It is, until you disclose it to the government. I totally agree with that, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So then the question is if she answers yes to that question, I had some reason to believe that it would -- it might have some impact -- my participating would have some impact on the civil litigation, do you have additional questions?
MS. MENNINGER: May I confer, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
(Counsel conferred)
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I suppose that there might be additional question -- you know that your lawyer told the government that.
JUDGE NATHAN: So however she answers that, I suppose you want to ask, Do you know that your lawyer told the government that?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Do you have an objection to the "Do you know that your lawyer told the government that"?
MS. MOE: I'm sorry, your Honor. I'm trying to follow the logic of trying to impeach a witness by her knowledge of an attorney's statement to the government about a client's intention. I don't think that tracks the logic of impeachment by bias or by a prior inconsistent statement. I'm not sure how that establishes impeachment under the rule.
JUDGE NATHAN: The fact that she knows her lawyer told the government that.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, that appears to be an end-run around getting in her conversations with her attorney. Because the question is, Are you aware that your attorney made a statement to the government about his conversation with you about your expected outcome in the case.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, okay. At the first step, you agree they can ask if she had any basis to believe that her participation as a witness here would have any impact on her potential compensation in civil litigation. You don't object to that question?
JUDGE NATHAN: So then we have what if she says yes and what if she says no. So if she says yes, their follow-up question is, Are you aware that your attorney told the government that? I think I agree with you. I don't know what the relevance of that is. And it is an attorney-client communication. What's the relevance of whether she knows her attorney told the government that?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I think it gets into her expectations that she -- that the government knows that she knows. And so at that point she's testifying with an expectation that -- you know, if the government doesn't -- is unaware of her attorney's advice, then it's just a secret between her and her attorney. But if the government who is calling her to testify is aware of her plan, intent to get more money by testifying in the criminal case, that can affect, you know, whether or not it's an appropriate -- you know, whether the witness has an expectation that is somewhat colored by the government's plan or putting them on the stand, you know, knowing that. It's an issue of whether the witness is coming and testifying knowing that the person who's calling them to the stand is aware of this whole plan to get more money from the civil case by testifying here.
JUDGE NATHAN: What does that tell us at all about her motivation? The two pieces aren't linking up. There's does she have in her mind that testifying might help her in the civil case. The answer to that is yes. I don't see -- it seems to me it's potentially -- it's attorney-client privilege issues because it's about what her attorney communicated to her. And it's hard to see any additional relevance that comes from whether the fact -- whether the government knew -- whether she knew that the government knew that she believed that -- or testifying would help her civil case, because it doesn't link up to the benefit part. So I think the first question would be fine. If the answer is yes, my inclination is not to allow the second question on both privilege, 401/403 grounds. So then the question is if the answer is no, then what do you propose?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, as with some of the other issues in this case, if she says no, I think that there is evidence that could be put on extrinsically, specifically, her attorney's testimony.
JUDGE NATHAN: So you want to then call her attorney and ask her attorney if he told her, advised her that if she participated in this case, she would -- it would help her in the civil case.
MS. MENNINGER: Right. Because that is the only portion that was waived. That's what he -- whatever he communicated to the government is what was waived. I don't think he's waived -- I'm not arguing for subject matter waiver, for example.
JUDGE NATHAN: So, first of all, as I've said before, you have to brief that. This is not enough. I haven't looked at any law on that question. You've put none before me. I made very clear you'd have to brief it. So we're not doing that today.
MS. MENNINGER: No, I understand, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Moe, what's your response to the waiver question?
MS. MOE: Your Honor, having not had an opportunity to research it or consider it or confer with Mr. Glassman, who -- it's not my privilege to hold, so I can't speak to its waiver without researching the issue and conferring with Mr. Glassman.
JUDGE NATHAN: The government not infrequently objects to privilege grounds to questions during trial. So the government certainly has a position, I'm sure.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I would just want to make sure I was conferring with her counsel about that issue and being mindful. Broadly speaking, your Honor, to the extent this evidence is offered for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the prosecutors in this case, which is what I think what Ms. Menninger was suggesting, I think that would be entirely improper.
JUDGE NATHAN: I think that's, in part, like the mysterious implication of the second question that I said I wouldn't allow.
JUDGE NATHAN: Because it just doesn't match up to anything in motivating her. So we know where the branch of the tree ends. If the question is yes, that's the end of it. If the question is no, then it sounds like we're done with this witness with that question. And then you're going to brief calling her lawyer only on the question of whether he told the government that her participating -- testifying would help her civil case.
MS. MENNINGER: He told her that. No, he told Jane that.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes. And, your Honor, that would be something to -- I mean would be --
JUDGE NATHAN: It would be waiver argument. You're going to brief waiver as to that on the basis that he told that to the government.
MS. MENNINGER: Exactly. The waiver was the telling to the government. The question for him on the stand would be what he told his client. But the briefing would be on the waiver question.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, right. But whether he waived -- whether the privilege -- it's the client's to waive, I think. That will be part of the briefing, I suppose. Okay. But if the answer is no, you don't have anything further for this witness?
MS. MENNINGER: I understand, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: That was a question.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, that's right. I understood your Honor to say there is no other question, so I --
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, no, it was a question. If she says no, do you have other questions for her?
MS. MENNINGER: On this topic, no. On other topics, yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes, of course.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: I think Ms. Moe had something.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Just to facilitate clarity with respect to the threshold question here about the witness, about her understanding if the question is phrased as her understanding about testifying at trial today and the effect of a civil case, I think the answer to that question has to be no because there is no civil case, there is no pending claim, it's all been resolved. And so I just wanted to clarify whether the question is at the time she started meeting with the government was that her understanding, while the case was active, or whether the question will be about her testimony here at trial. Jane has testified on direct that her understanding is she has no financial stake in the outcome of this case. The civil matter is resolved and the verdict in this case won't affect what she's received from those settlements. And so I just wanted to clarify in terms of how that question is phrased and what we're getting at about the issue about testifying at trial or her initial decision to cooperate with the government.
JUDGE NATHAN: Fair enough.
MS. MENNINGER: That's fair. In the paragraph itself it refers to cooperating with the case and it refers to testifying. So I think any reason to believe either one of those --
JUDGE NATHAN: Can you just give us the specific question.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you have any basis to believe -- any reason to believe that your cooperation would help with this case, would help you with your civil case, that's one question. The other is do you have any reason --
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sorry. I don't think that clarifies -- I think it's unclarifying on two points that Ms. Moe has raised.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: One, cooperating in this case, meaning by testifying or more broadly. And two, since she no longer has a pending civil case, I think she'd probably be left wondering what you're referring to. Can you clarify the question -- I think what you're asking is at any point during your -- at any point in your cooperation with the government -- "cooperation" is loaded because it's not like there's a cooperation agreement or something. But for lack of a better term, cooperating with the government with respect to this criminal case, did you ever have an understanding that it might benefit you in what was then a pending civil litigation? Ms. Moe, is that getting at what you're suggesting?
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Menninger, is that getting at what you are suggesting?
MS. MENNINGER: It is. I believe that he also communicated that testifying would benefit her in the criminal case.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: And so I'm not privy to whether, you know, at what point in time --
JUDGE NATHAN: How about did you ever have an understanding that any cooperation with the government, including testifying in this trial, would aid you in any way in your efforts to recover in the then-pending civil litigation? Does that get at it, Ms. Menninger? I'm not disputing that you should ask the question. I agree with Ms. Moe there's points for confusion, so let's just --
MS. MENNINGER: I think it does, your Honor. I would have to kind of -- I would like to just write out the question so I understand. But I do think, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, because the civil litigation morphed into the victims' comp fund, there may be a similar question with respect to the comp fund. But I think I can draft this language and we could -- I can tell your Honor what it is in just a minute.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
(Pause)
JUDGE NATHAN: What else do we need to take up?
MS. MOE: Your Honor, I'm not quite sure about the timing for the length of cross, but I did want to just remind the Court that the next witness raises the prior consistent statements issues we discussed at the conclusion of the Court day yesterday.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sorry, that what?
MS. MOE: That the next witness we anticipate calling would be the witness identified as Matt. And so just wanted to tee up any issues relating to prior consistent statements.
JUDGE NATHAN: I think where we left it was that, as Ms. Sternheim said, we'll evaluate when you seek to introduce a prior consistent statement whether, in fact, it's consistent and whether they have attacked the veracity of that and, if not, you won't object.
MS. STERNHEIM: Right.
JUDGE NATHAN: And if they do object, I'll decide.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. Okay. What do you have, Ms. Menninger?
MS. MENNINGER: Under the authority of Rule 611(c), I have redrafted it into a leading question, if that's permissible, your Honor. And what I would ask is --
JUDGE NATHAN: It's cross, so --
MS. MENNINGER: Right. Why not? -- you knew that cooperating with the government, including testifying, would benefit you in your civil litigation against the Estate of Epstein and Ms. Maxwell? And then the same question with respect to the victims' compensation fund.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll never win this argument with a lawyer, but I always think it's a better question just to ask them did you know. But you do you. Okay. Any objection to that question?
JUDGE NATHAN: And the same formed question with respect to the victim compensation fund?
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Good. Anything else we can take up? And if not --
MS. MOE: Your Honor, if possible, it would be helpful to have a sense of timing for the duration of cross for timing of next witnesses.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Ms. Menninger? You took your foot off the gas for about the last half an hour there. Was that because you were looking forward to have some time during lunch or --
MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor. I have low blood sugar. Sorry. I did revive myself with a Diet Coke. Your Honor, I think I would estimate about 45 minutes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. And then, Ms. Moe, do you anticipate substantial redirect?
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. We have a plan. I think we can get the jury. And we can bring the witness back up please.
(Witness present)
(Jury present)
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you for your patience, members of the jury. I hope you had a nice lunch. And we will continue with the cross-examination of Witness Jane. Jane, I remind you you are under oath. Ms. Menninger, you may continue.
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor. JANE, resumed.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: I want to go back to something I needed to skip earlier. I was asking you about whether or not you had traveled on Jeffrey Epstein's expense commercially after you moved to Los Angeles. And I started to show you Exhibit J-37, so I'd like to do that and go to page 13, about three-quarters of the way down. See if you recognize your name.
MS. MENNINGER: And the date associated with your name?
MS. MENNINGER: And the amount?
MS. MENNINGER: Does that refresh your recollection that you were -- a trip was paid for you in April of 2000 for $343?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you think that looking at other pages of your travel would refresh your recollection?
MS. MENNINGER: If the answer is no, I'm planning on moving on, your Honor. I can show other ones.
JUDGE NATHAN: Is there anything that would refresh your recollection?
MS. MENNINGER: We were talking a little bit earlier about your decision to testify in this case and cooperate with this case. You met with the government, I think we established, ten or more times over the last couple of years. Is that fair?
MS. MENNINGER: And in each of those meetings, you had your attorney with you or the vast majority of those meetings?
MS. MENNINGER: Your attorneys are Mr. Glassman and Mr. Werksman, right?
MS. MENNINGER: At any point during your cooperation with the government, including testifying, you knew that your cooperation with the government, including testifying, would benefit you in your civil litigation against the Epstein estate and Ms. Maxwell; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You knew that cooperation with the government, including testifying, would benefit you in your claim for the victims' compensation fund; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Yesterday, you testified a bit about your inability to speak with your mother about what happened -- you say happened between you and Epstein; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You testified that you and your mother did not have that kind of relationship, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You testified that you were raised in a household where you would be in trouble if you said something, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Something personal.
MS. MENNINGER: And the effect on you is you felt you could not tell your mother about Epstein, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You told the jury about an incident with your guidance counsellor, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Where you got in trouble --
MS. MENNINGER: -- for telling the guidance counsellor that your mother was unavailable and unsupportive, right?
MS. MENNINGER: So when you were in high school and you were mine, you didn't feel like your mother would get your back if you told her about Epstein's misconduct, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And your mother would not want you to report that to others, right?
MS. MENNINGER: I want to ask you about another incident that happened when you were at the Palm Beach School of the Arts. Do you remember a time when you claim a teacher pulled your hair?
MS. MENNINGER: You recall telling your mother about the teacher pulling your hair?
MS. MENNINGER: You recall your mother hiring a lawyer for you?
MS. MENNINGER: You recall you and your mother filing a lawsuit against your teacher?
MS. MENNINGER: I'd like to show you a couple of exhibits. They've been marked for identification purposes as J-7 and J-9. I'd like to show you what's been marked for identification purposes, this J-7, second page. Does that refresh your recollection that you sued your teacher for pulling your hair on one occasion?
MS. MENNINGER: I'm going to show you Exhibit J-10 -- I apologize, J-9.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we have the original of this document present in the courtroom. This one is redacted for the name, but, if it's necessary, may I approach the witness?
JUDGE NATHAN: Show it to the government. Ms. Menninger.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, what we have is an original of a document that was certified. It's been marked -- those two pieces have been marked J-8 and J-9. But they are combined as originals from the Court; it is one document.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: So I wanted the record to be clear what I would be showing the witness.
JUDGE NATHAN: You're showing her a combination of J-8 and J-9.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor, that are unredacted.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. Without objection, Ms. Moe?
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: Does looking at that document refresh your recollection about a lawsuit that you and your mother filed against your teacher?
MS. MENNINGER: You recognize the name of the teacher --
MS. MENNINGER: -- as the same person who was on your Interlochen application we looked at earlier; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: That's true. I'll allow that question and then you're not going to do more. You asked if it refreshed her recollection. The answer is clearly -- is no. She's answered the same way. So let's go.
MS. MENNINGER: I'm a little unclear, your Honor. And I don't know if we need a sidebar, because there are two other names that -- without my saying them out loud to ask her if she remembers who those persons are.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, so you want to point her somewhere in the document and say, Do you recognize a name?
MS. MENNINGER: If I could -- I'll try to do it without naming the names because I don't know if that's a problem.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right.
MS. MENNINGER: But on J-7, on the second page, they are in the first paragraph. And I'm just going to direct the witness to that line so that we can see the names.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recognize the names of the persons in that first paragraph?
JANE: I remember my teacher, I remember the principal. I don't remember the guidance counsellor.
MS. MENNINGER: And do you know whether you and your mother sued the principal of your high school?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, at this time I would offer into evidence the originals of the document that is a combined document of Exhibits J-8 and J-9. I think the Court can take judicial notice. They are certified copies.
JUDGE NATHAN: You're moving J-8 and J-9?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, in the combined original exhibit would be the court exhibit, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll take a look at the document and then we'll move on.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: Can I have the witness's copy? Go ahead.
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: You consider yourself an actor?
MS. MENNINGER: An actor plays the role of a fictional character --
MS. MENNINGER: -- for a living?
MS. MENNINGER: An actor endeavors to effectively communicate the character they are playing to an audience?
MS. MENNINGER: Using their voice, body, actions, right?
MS. MENNINGER: An actor takes lines borrowed from a writer and uses those lines to convincingly portray someone else in front of an audience; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Been an actor for a very long time?
MS. MENNINGER: Since middle school?
MS. MENNINGER: You performed numerous times as a teenager?
MS. MENNINGER: You traveled away from school to perform?
MS. MENNINGER: You performed around the state?
MS. MENNINGER: You competed internationally?
MS. MENNINGER: What?
MS. MENNINGER: You performed at a number of different venues?
MS. MENNINGER: You received coverage in the local newspapers; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Before you began your senior year of high school, you had a professional agent?
MS. MENNINGER: Before your senior year.
MS. MENNINGER: If we could show the witness Government Exhibit 761 at page 4.
JUDGE NATHAN: It's been admitted?
MS. MENNINGER: Not yet, your Honor. I was just going to use it to refresh. I believe there's a witness coming today.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recognize that document?
MS. MENNINGER: You do?
MS. MENNINGER: And what is it?
JANE: Well, I actually don't -- can you go back to the first page? I recognize that I wrote this. I don't know what the document is.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: And you see the date on there?
MS. MENNINGER: And that was before you were a senior?
MS. MENNINGER: And then if you go to page 4, you listed your agent; correct?
JANE: Actually, that was a manager, that's why it was -- I didn't remember. I had a manager, not an agent.
MS. MENNINGER: But you got an agent in your senior year?
MS. MENNINGER: You got a manager and an agent by your senior year?
MS. MENNINGER: All right. And you moved to New York for the purpose of going to that high school here; correct?
JANE: Not to go to that high school. The high school wasn't a performing arts school; it just was a private school.
MS. MENNINGER: Professional Children's School?
JANE: Yes. It was for kids who were seeking professions in -- entertainment professions. And if they booked a job, then the school would work with them of sending them homework, but we didn't do any arts in that school.
MS. MENNINGER: I see. Thank you for that clarification. And you did have work in your senior year; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. You don't remember any school notes in which they commented that you had been missing a lot of school because of your work in your first quarter at that school?
MS. MENNINGER: That you were working, but you weren't?
MS. MENNINGER: Later in your -- after your senior year, you got this job in Los Angeles, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you moved to Los Angeles to work on the soap opera?
MS. MENNINGER: And you recently commemorated 20 --
MS. MENNINGER: Twenty-something years on that show. A soap opera is characterized by tangled interpersonal situations, fair enough?
MS. MENNINGER: And melodramatic are sentimental treatment of those interpersonal situations, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Your character has been involved in a number of different plot lines over those 20-something years, fair?
MS. MENNINGER: You've played a protective mom?
MS. MENNINGER: You've been bullied?
MS. MENNINGER: You've battled cancer?
MS. MENNINGER: You've played a car crash victim?
MS. MENNINGER: Mental health issues?
MS. MENNINGER: You've been stalked by serial killers?
MS. MENNINGER: You played a prostitute?
MS. MENNINGER: You ran a restaurant?
MS. MENNINGER: You took down a Mexican drug cartel?
MS. MENNINGER: Essentially, there's no melodramatic role that you haven't played?
MS. MENNINGER: It involves a significant amount of drama; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You're able to cry on command?
MS. MENNINGER: You express pain through your characters?
MS. MENNINGER: Vulnerability?
MS. MENNINGER: The job you've trained for for a long time, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You've been hired to work on other TV shows and series, right?
MS. MENNINGER: A feature-length movie?
MS. MENNINGER: Christmas specials, a wide range, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You had a reality show we talked about a little while ago?
MS. MENNINGER: Which was not real?
MS. MENNINGER: Your accusations in this case depend significantly on you -- your memory that you were 14 when you met Epstein; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You repeated it a number of times on the stand, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Well, actually, when you first met with the government, you told them that you were 13 when you met Epstein, right?
JANE: No, I said I might have been 13 going on 14; because my birthday is in August, and I believe I met them earlier in the summer. So it was just a small technicality, I guess.
MS. MENNINGER: Well, in your civil complaint in the first paragraph, you said it all started in 1994, when 13-year-old Jane met Epstein and Maxwell; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: You didn't say "13, going on 14."
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. Do you want to take a look at 3509-007, paragraph 1.
MS. MENNINGER: And there you just said you were 13, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And that was what was filed by your attorney in court?
MS. MENNINGER: And you told the government 13, but later they refreshed your memory that maybe you were 14, right?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. I'll have you take a look at 3509-008, page 11. And looking at that, do you recall the government asking you --
JUDGE NATHAN: Where?
MS. MENNINGER: I apologize. The second from the -- second full paragraph from the bottom up.
MS. MENNINGER: Does that refresh your recollection about a conversation you had with the government?
JANE: No, because I didn't write any of this. The second half of that makes sense, which is I was probably 13. And it says here that I turned 14 that summer.
MS. MENNINGER: So you were not asked if it was possible that you met Epstein after you turned 14?
MS. MENNINGER: But I understand now you're saying you believe you were 14 because it was later in the summer, right?
MS. MENNINGER: When you met Epstein.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. So you thought you met him earlier in the summer?
MS. MENNINGER: And then we talked about The Lion King, where you thought you were 14 when you saw the Broadway show, but then realized you were not; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: It actually came out when you were 17; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Now, you recall meeting Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes fame in New York, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you believed that you were 15 when you met him?
MS. MENNINGER: You met him with Epstein, I should clarify, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And your first meeting with the government -- I'll have you look at 3509-001 on page 5 in the middle of the page.
MS. MENNINGER: And you told the government about meeting Mike Wallace?
MS. MENNINGER: And that was Mike Wallace's 80th birthday party; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And you came in and said happy birthday to Mr. Wallace; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: And that's when you were 15?
JANE: I'm not sure. That's why it says approximately. I couldn't remember, and I don't know how old Mike Wallace was when --
MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: He has passed away.
MS. MENNINGER: You recall it being his 80th birthday party though; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. And you don't know what his birthday is, I think you just said; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: If I can have you take a look at J-33, on the right side. Do you have any reason to believe that that birthday is incorrect?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MENNINGER: Does it refresh your recollection?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained. No basis for refreshing.
MS. MENNINGER: It's true that Mike Wallace's birthday party, 80th birthday party, was in May of 1998; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MS. MENNINGER: You might have been 15 or it might have been some other date, right?
MS. MENNINGER: You moved to New York in or around 1998, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And you went to your senior year here from '98 to '99?
MS. MENNINGER: What you put in your civil complaint is that you moved to New York in 1996 to go to school here; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Let's go back to 3509-007, paragraph 20. And in your civil complaint, you alleged that you moved to New York in 1996 when you were 16; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you want to look at the first page of this?
MS. MENNINGER: You know your lawyer signed it?
MS. MENNINGER: The lawyer that you met with the government with multiple times, right?
MS. MENNINGER: If I could have one moment, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
(Counsel conferred)
BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: In this civil case -- just a moment. In your civil case, you were given something called interrogatories. Do you know what those are?
MS. MENNINGER: They are questions for you to answer under oath. Does that ring a bell?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recall answering any questions under oath?
MS. MENNINGER: Do you know what your lawyer put down as your answers under oath to any particular questions?
MS. MENNINGER: I'm going to show you a document that we have marked as J-15. I have one that's redacted, but if you would like to see the entire document, just let us know. We have that available. Do you recognize the caption on this case?
MS. MENNINGER: Is this your lawsuit that you filed?
MS. MENNINGER: And this is signed by your attorney in June of 2020; correct?
MS. MENNINGER: On the last page. Sorry. I forgot you didn't have --
MS. MENNINGER: And in June of 2020, you answered, through your attorney, interrogatories, right?
MS. MENNINGER: And interrogatory number nine, if I could have you turn to that, on page 4, asked you to identify all persons other than decedent, Mr. Epstein, who have ever committed or attempted to commit sexual misconduct or offenses against or otherwise concerning you, including, without limitation, any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature, sexual abuse, sexual assault, threats or intimidation of a sexual nature or sexual exploitation, regardless of whether the misconduct or offenses involved physical touching, and you responded none. Correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Are you moving this?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor, this interrogatory.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think the record is that this witness doesn't recognize it, doesn't know anything about it, and so for that reason we'd object.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, it's a legally binding document.
JUDGE NATHAN: Can I see the whole document?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Are you making an authentication objection?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes, I understand.
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. J-15 is admitted.
(Defendant's Exhibit J-15 received in evidence)
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you. No further questions.
(Continued on next page)
JUDGE NATHAN: Let me just ask about J-8, the combined J-8 and J-9. I'll overrule the objection, and it's admitted.
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor. (Defendant's Exhibits J-8 and J-9 received in evidence)
JUDGE NATHAN: Redirect.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. MOE:
MS. MOE: Since we were just talking about Defendant's Exhibits J-15, I just want to be clear, do you recognize this document?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MS. MOE: Jane, you were asked questions on cross-examination about your meetings with the government. Do you remember being asked about that?
MS. MOE: And you were asked about your meetings with me. Do you remember being asked about that?
MS. MOE: And you were asked about whether in your meetings with the government you were asked about the questions that I was going to ask you on direct examination. Do you remember being asked about that?
MS. MOE: Did I or any other prosecutor ever tell you what to say on the witness stand at this trial?
MS. MOE: You were asked some questions on cross-examination about notes of meetings with the government. Do you remember being asked about that?
MS. MOE: I want to ask you about your meetings with the government. When you met with the FBI and the government, did you cover every detail of your entire relationship with Maxwell and Epstein in every meeting with the government, or did you talk about different topics at different times at different meetings?
MS. MOE: Did you have any opportunity to review any notes or reports of any meetings for accuracy?
MS. MOE: And before Ms. Menninger showed you some notes during your cross-examination, had you ever seen any of that before?
MS. MOE: In your conversations with prosecutors, were there times when we asked you about additional details of your experiences in followup meetings?
MS. MOE: I want to back up and ask you about your first meetings with the government. Can you explain for the jury, was it difficult to talk to the government in your first meetings?
JANE: Because I was sitting in a room full of strangers and telling them the most shameful, deepest secrets that I'd been carrying around with me my whole life.
MS. MOE: In those first meetings, were you able to share with the government all of the details of what had happened to you?
MS. MOE: Over time, did you become more comfortable sharing the details about what happened to you with the government?
JANE: Because I guess I became more familiar with the people sitting in front of me, and starting to feel like I could trust them, and it didn't feel quite as embarrassing.
MS. MOE: Did there come a point in your meetings with the government where fewer people were in the room?
MS. MOE: And did you have an understanding at the time about why in your meetings with the government there started to be fewer people in the room?
MS. MOE: And how did you feel once you started having meetings with the government with fewer people in the room?
MS. MOE: I want to ask you about your last few meetings with the government leading up to the trial. During those meetings in the last few months, was your attorney present?
MS. MOE: You were asked some questions on cross-examination about your living situation when you were in middle school and high school living in Palm Beach. Do you remember those questions?
MS. MOE: So I just want to ask you about where you were living at the time. In the summer of 1994, when you first met Maxwell and Epstein, where were you living?
MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Leading, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. You may answer.
JANE: That summer we were still living on Palma Way at my mother's friend, Joan, in her pool house in her back yard, and we -- when we came home from camp that summer, we were still living in that place.
MS. MOE: Was there ever a time when you and your brothers had a hard time paying for lunch at school?
MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor. 403.
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. You may answer.
JANE: I mean, I remember my mother never had any money. She didn't work, so she didn't have money to really pay for anything. We had food stamps that she refused to use because her pride was too big, and she would sort of, you know, scrounge for quarters, and sometimes I would give my brothers my lunch money and pretend like I had some so that they could eat.
MS. MOE: Can you describe for the jury the ways that Jeffrey Epstein helped your family financially?
JANE: Well, he -- he handed me cash. He gave us a computer. He paid for some school stuff. He -- he paid for Interlochen Arts Camp for the next two summers. He paid for my younger brother's Interlochen Arts Academy his entire year at boarding school. Gave us gifts. And, you know, so on and so forth.
JANE: That's when we moved to that second house that was first discussed, that three-bedroom house. My sister was the one who rented it for us.
MS. MOE: Approximately when did you move out of the pool house and into the three-bedroom house?
JANE: We moved out of the pool house in, I think, spring of '96. Wait. Sorry. I'm tired. The spring of '95. Sorry.
MS. MOE: Do you recall being asked some questions on cross-examination about whether you traveled internationally when you were in high school?
MS. MOE: Without discussing any specifics about your family members, do you have some family members who live abroad?
JANE: Yes, that's -- the country that we would travel to, that's where we were from, and any time those dates that were discussed earlier, that would be a family trip home.
MS. MOE: Do you recall being asked on cross-examination questions about whether you had ever talked to a reporter?
MS. MOE: And you were asked about whether you made a statement to a tabloid about what had happened to you with Jeffrey Epstein. Do you remember being asked about that?
MS. MOE: Can you please explain for the jury what were the circumstances under which a reporter approached you?
MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor. A. Okay. Sorry.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead.
MS. MOE: When you had that conversation with the reporter, did you want to have that conversation?
MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. Go ahead. A. He said that he -- that court documents with my name on it were unredacted, and that the Epstein's little black book was out, and my name was in it, and he was going to print --
MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.
JUDGE NATHAN: We'll limit what the witness has testified to as not being offered for the truth of what was stated by someone else but the effect on the listener. And let's re-narrow the question.
JUDGE NATHAN: Let me hear the question.
MS. MOE: When you spoke with that reporter, did that reporter threaten to reveal your identity publicly if you wouldn't speak with him?
MS. MOE: Did you make an agreement with the reporter in order to make sure your identity wasn't revealed?
JANE: It was important because I was -- I was scared. I was embarrassed, ashamed. I didn't want anybody to know any of this about me. I wanted to stay out of it. I -- I'm working on a TV show, and I didn't want everybody to know that that was me and associate me with any of this, and so I desperately did whatever I had to do to make sure that he didn't reveal my name.
MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor. Asked and answered.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. MOE: You were asked some questions on cross-examination about your attorney, Robert Glassman. Do you remember those questions?
MS. MOE: Can you just explain for the jury without getting into any privileged conversations, how did you find this attorney?
JANE: He was a referral. Actually, he's friends with my husband's best friend, and I met with him, and I just liked him.
MS. MOE: You were asked some questions on cross-examination about your applications for admission to Interlochen. Do you remember those questions?
MS. MOE: If I could just have a moment, I'm going to grab a copy of them. Your Honor, I'd ask for permission for the witness and the jurors to view Defendant's Exhibit J-3 which I believ is in evidence under seal.
JUDGE NATHAN: Let me just verify. Yes.
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. May the jurors turn to that in their binders? Ms. Menninger, without objection?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Jurors, you may pick up your binder and turn to J-3, correct?
MS. MOE: Just to be clear, what we're talking about is Defendant's Exhibit J-3, your application for admission to Interlochen for the summer of 1994?
MS. MOE: I want to ask you about a few things on this application. But when I do, I just want to be careful we are not reading anything into the record that's identifying about you. If we could turn to the second page of that application, and directing your attention to the second section towards the bottom, do you remember Ms. Menninger asking you questions about whether you told Interlochen you were having any difficulties?
MS. MOE: Let me just be clear about this portion of the application. I want to direct your attention to the portion of the middle section that says: List two difficult works performed in orchestra, band or ensemble within the past year. Do you see that question?
MS. MOE: Just to be clear, nowhere in this application did you say you weren't having any difficulties at home, right?
MS. MOE: You were asked some questions about the recommendation letters in your applications to Interlochen. Do you remember those questions?
MS. MOE: And you were asked about whether your recommenders talked about your family in a favorable light. Do you remember those questions?
MS. MOE: The people who you asked to recommend you for Interlochen, did they know what was going on in your house at home?
JANE: Because we were very good at hiding what was going on at home, and these recommendation letters are basically just from our school teachers.
MS. MOE: I want to ask you one last question about this application. If you could turn back to the first page of Defendant's Exhibit J-3. And I want to focus your attention at the top section with applicant information. You see a few lines down, there's a line that starts F, above sex, M or F?
MS. MOE: So, in the very -- I'm looking in the first page of Defendant's Exhibit J-3 in the top header, the very first top of the document under applicant information, do you see about five lines down underneath the names of your siblings, the line there?
MS. MOE: I'd ask for permission for the jurors to turn to Defendant's Exhibit J-4 which is in evidence under seal.
JUDGE NATHAN: Without objection, you may.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
JUDGE NATHAN: J-4 for the jurors.
BY MS. MOE:
MS. MOE: On this application, I want to ask you about that same section about the applicant information?
MS. MOE: Directing your attention to that same line, by the next year in 1995, how tall were you by then?
MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor. It misstates the date on the document. The date on the document is not what was just represented by counsel.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Moe, go ahead.
BY MS. MOE:
MS. MOE: Do you recall defense counsel asking you about Government Exhibit 761 and whether that was your application to the Professional Children's School?
MS. MOE: Do you remember being shown a document on cross-examination and being asked about whether that was your application to the Professional Children's School?
MS. MOE: And did you recognize that document as your application to the Professional Children's School?
MS. MOE: You were asked some questions on cross-examination about your career as an actor. Do you remember being asked about that?
JANE: I am here to hopefully finally find some sort of closure to all of this. This is something that I have been running from my entire life up until now, and I'm just tired of it, and I was just hoping that I could help in any way to make that happen and to hopefully find some peace and healing some day.
MS. MOE: I want to ask you a few more questions about the summer of 1994. About how many weeks were you at summer camp that summer?
MS. MOE: Do you remember which week of summer camp you met Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. MOE: How strong is your memory of meeting Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein at summer camp in 1994?
MS. MOE: You were asked on cross-examination about your memories of being sexually abused. Do you remember those questions?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, this exceeds the scope of cross. I didn't ask this question.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, I believe there were questions on cross-examination about whether she remembers details how strong those memories are.
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may answer.
MS. MOE: Who would give you instructions about what to do during incidents when Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused you when you were 14?
JANE: Because it was just significant. It's when that sort of like fun, casual relationship I had with her just changed.
MS. MOE: When you say the first time, when you talk about first times, what do you mean by that?
MS. MOE: You were asked a lot of questions on cross-examination about first and first times. Do you remember those questions?
MS. MOE: Fair to say there were a lot of firsts for you when you were 14 and 15 and 16 with Maxwell and Epstein?
MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Leading, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
(Pause)
BY MS. MOE:
MS. MOE: I want to ask you about just one last topic. You were asked some questions on cross-examination about the award you received from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund. Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about that?
MS. MOE: To be clear, would you give that money back if it meant that you weren't abused as a kid?
MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Leading, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
JANE: I mean, it -- oh, I wish I would have never received that money in the first place because of what happened. You know, when you're seeking some sort of closure, and I guess in, you know, laws in this country, compensation is the only thing you can get to try to move on with your life and for the, you know, pain and abuse and suffering that I received, and all the out-of-pocket money I paid to try to make this go away and to try to fix myself.
MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Narrative, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. A. So, you know, hopefully this just puts it all to an end, and I can move on with my life.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Ms. Menninger.
MS. MENNINGER: No recross. Thank you.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you, Jane. You may step down. You are excused.