Nicole Hesse — Direct/Cross
402 linesDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. MOE:
NICOLE HESSE: Good morning.
NICOLE HESSE: Mrs. Hesse, please.
NICOLE HESSE: I was born in West Palm Beach, Florida.
NICOLE HESSE: North Palm Beach.
NICOLE HESSE: I am a CNA. I work with the elderly. I'm also a teacher and work with young children.
NICOLE HESSE: I worked at the Epstein home.
NICOLE HESSE: Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's house.
NICOLE HESSE: On Palm Beach, El Brillo Way.
NICOLE HESSE: To take care of the home when they weren't there, any maintenance. Things like that.
NICOLE HESSE: No.
NICOLE HESSE: Ghislaine Maxwell.
NICOLE HESSE: Short brown hair, defined cheeks, well put together, pretty.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, may we publish what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 115 as a public exhibit?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, I do.
NICOLE HESSE: It's a picture of Ghislaine Maxwell.
MS. MOE: Mrs. Hesse, can you tell us, what do you remember about what the house in Palm Beach looked like?
NICOLE HESSE: It's a big home and I believe it to be white. The hedges are all manicured. And large kitchen with an island. It's a two-story home. I remember the stairwell going up. It was on the water. It was like a pool and a patio area. And a guest home off to the left.
NICOLE HESSE: Ghislaine Maxwell.
NICOLE HESSE: Basically, if anything was broken in the house, like if the air conditioner didn't work, I would call the AC guy and things like that, just any maintenance. And I was there when the housekeeper was there, I would open the door for her and let her in and stuff.
MS. MOE: When you worked for Epstein and Maxwell in Palm Beach, did you receive any instructions about what to do if someone called the house?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes. If someone called, there was a message pad right by the phone and I would write it in that.
MS. MOE: Who gave you the instructions about what to do if someone called the house when Epstein and Maxwell were away?
NICOLE HESSE: Initially, when I met with Ghislaine the first time, she told me, if anyone calls to please write it in that book.
NICOLE HESSE: It was, like, blue and it had a spiral -- it was more like a notebook. It had the time and the date and there were, like, two copies, you know, on each --
NICOLE HESSE: In the kitchen near the phone, there was like a little counter-desk area.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, may I approach the witness with what's marked for identification as Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
BY MS. MOE:
MS. MOE: Mrs. Hesse, I've handed you what's been marked for identification as Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3. Do you see those?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, I do.
MS. MOE: I want to ask you a few questions about those exhibits. Have you reviewed Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 in preparation for trial?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, I have.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, I do.
NICOLE HESSE: They're message pads.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes.
NICOLE HESSE: This is where, when I was working at the Epstein home, I would put messages if someone called.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, I have.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, I do.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, it is.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes.
MS. MOE: The messages that you took in those books, were they made at or near the time of the phone calls that were the source of the messages?
NICOLE HESSE: When the person called, I would look at my watch and write down the time and the date and everything. So immediately, yeah.
MS. MOE: Were these messages kept in the course of regularly conducted activity within the Epstein and Maxwell residence?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes. If the phone rang, I would answer it and write down who called and the time.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, at this time, the government would offer a series of excerpts from Government Exhibit 1. In particular, your Honor, the government offers Government Exhibit 1A as a public exhibit and the following exhibits under seal: Government Exhibits 1B, 1C, 1J, 1K, 1M, 1O, and 1P. With respect to Government Exhibit 2, excerpts from that item have already been offered and received in evidence. With respect to Government Exhibit 3, your Honor, the government offers Government Exhibit 3A as a public exhibit, and the following exhibits under seal: Government Exhibit 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J, 3K, 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3P, 3Q, 3R, 3S, 3T, 3U, 3V, 3W, 3X, 3Y, 3Z, 3AA, 3BB, 3CC, 3DD, 3EE, 3FF, 3GG, 3HH, 3II, 3JJ, and 3KK.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I don't object to the records that this witness has --
JUDGE NATHAN: Microphone.
MR. PAGLIUCA: -- personal knowledge of it in terms of the signature that she took. The remainder, I object on hearsay grounds.
JUDGE NATHAN: Can you identify, do you know which?
MR. PAGLIUCA: We went through a very quick list there, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Why don't I give the jury their morning break and I'll take this up. Members of the jury, we'll see you in about 15 minutes. The witness may step down for the break. Thank you.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury not present)
(Witness excused)
JUDGE NATHAN: You may be seated. Okay.
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. These three exhibits are spiral bound message books. As their appearance makes clear, no one could tear an object out or put it in there, and so they are a continuous record. Your Honor, this witness has authenticated these message books in the same manner that a previous witness has also authenticated other message books, and they were admitted exactly the same way earlier in a trial. With respect to rule 901 --
JUDGE NATHAN: I didn't hear an authentication objection. It was hearsay.
MS. MOE: With respect to hearsay, these are admissible for the same reasons the other message pads are admissible and received. They are phone messages that record the date and time of a person calling. With respect to particular victims that are in those messages, that would be a prior consistent statement to the extent the witness testified. Your Honor, there are already message pads that are already in evidence that were not objected to on hearsay grounds. So they are in the record. These are of a similar nature. We are simply offering an additional set in the same way we offered similar messages through a previous witness.
JUDGE NATHAN: So you have to take the objection when it comes. I don't think there is a waiver theory as to future objections. Are you seeking to offer the names and phone numbers for their truth?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. And here, this witness has testified that they would receive these calls, memorialize it at the same time the person was recording it. And here, we're not offering this for the truth of the particular phone number, but that a person identifying themselves that way had called and left a message on that date. That is consistent with the testimony of victims who described calling the house and the name of a victim who testified yesterday is in these messages. The names are also consistent with the names of other individuals who witnesses have testified about contacting the house and being involved in scheduling massage appointments. So with respect to the business records issue, here, this witness has testified --
JUDGE NATHAN: So the contention is that it's a business record?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In addition, it's memorializing the statement of the person calling at the time they made it. So it's confirming that a person identifying themself that way contacted the house at that time. In particular, your Honor, many of these messages have the first and last name of a victim who testified yesterday under the name Carolyn. And so it confirms that a person with that name was contacting the house during the relevant timeframe of the charged conspiracy.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just so I understand the government's argument, you are offering for the truth, but it's the hearsay exception that proffering is the business record exception?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Just to be more precise. I've been using the shorthand business records, but here the issue is about whether it's record of a regularly conducted activity within an organization.
JUDGE NATHAN: Mr. Pagliuca.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. Just so that the record is clear, there are four, I will call them message slips per page. Many of these message slips don't have dates, don't have signatures, and have very sort of cryptic explanations about what is or isn't being purported to be recorded here. This witness, I think, maybe has the ability to authenticate four or five of these separate slips, but has no knowledge about the other slips.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sorry. So is that a 901 objection?
MR. PAGLIUCA: No, it is not. I think she can say this is the message pad. So it's not an authentication objection. It is, though, as to these individual slips, she has no knowledge about what's contained in them, and it goes to a business record foundation as in when it was made, when it was recorded, how it was stored, all of those sorts of things that a normal business record custodian would talk about. She, this particular witness, is not under any particular business duty to record these other messages and doesn't have any information about how these other messages may or may not have been recorded, by whom, when, where, how, all of those kinds of things. So, I don't think you can just say that we're going to take all these messages with all this different information in it and then say it's all business record, it all comes in for the truth of the matter asserted. That's my objection under 801, your Honor, and I suppose 803.6, which is the particular subsection under which it is being offered.
MS. MOE: Taking those in turn, it appears defense counsel is not disputing the authenticity of these messages within the entire book because this witness has identified the book. It's a spiral bound book. It sounds like there is no dispute that these are authentic. So the only thing we're talking about here is a hearsay objection. Here, this witness --
JUDGE NATHAN: Just to be specific, there is not an objection to the ones that she personally took. Can you identify those, of the numbers.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I just want to doublecheck the exhibits. I want to doublecheck them in the binder. I think they are 1B, 2C, 3P, and 3X. I just want to doublecheck that I have that right.
JUDGE NATHAN: The 2 series is already in?
JUDGE NATHAN: So of the ones that you're offering?
MS. MOE: 1B, 3P, and 3X. Just so I understand the issue, because it seems to now be overlapping, I'm not sure why there would be a business records objection to records other than those that this employee took. I'm not sure if that's an authentication question --
JUDGE NATHAN: No. I think, as I understand it, we need a custodian who indicates the foundation for the exception. The record was made at or near the time by or from information transmitted by someone with knowledge. The record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit. Making your record was a regular practice of that activity. So I think, with respect to the objection, we start with the record was made at or near the time that the call came in. So I think she's testified what she was instructed to do.
JUDGE NATHAN: Which included indicating a date and time of the call and the like?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In our view, that meets that prong of the business records exception. On that score, I would note, your Honor, this is now the second employee to testify that the instructions at the household were to take contemporaneous messages as they came in, in a message pad exactly like this. So there is now a foundation in the record to show that this was the practice of the household, these were the instructions the employees were given. Again, it's a spiral bound book, so we have a series of messages in sequential order with dates and times memorializing messages made. And the testimony has now been twice that that was the practice of the household and particular restrictions given by the defendant.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, on that point, factually, if you look at these messages, it belies the statement just made, because Ms. Hesse's messages, for example, are pretty well maintained, but when you go through these messages, there are many multiples that are unsigned, undated, and don't fall within the practice that Ms. Hesse practiced -- Mrs. Hesse. So I don't think that anyone can actually say that there is a practice or methodology associated with these exhibits.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, on that subject, because the messages are ordered sequentially, the rule only requires that the record is made at or near the time of the offense recorded, and because the dates and times are sequential, even when a message doesn't have a date or time, it's situated between sequentially ordered messages, which is how the record itself shows that these are sequentially kept messages that are kept at or near the time of those events. They are in chronological order and that's all that the rule requires.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree with that, as well, your Honor, because when I'm going through these, again, there are some that have dates on them and then there are some that have dates out of order on them, and then there are a bunch that don't have dates on them. There is no one that can establish a particular practice of using the same book at the same time. It is common knowledge, I think, for people who were using these books when they were used, you can take any six different books and start writing in them at any point in time to take a message.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, the point here is that employees were instructed to take messages from phone calls as they came in. Mr. Pagliuca's point is to weight and not authenticity or to the business records exception. They're free to argue about the timeframes and what could be construed from them, but the question is whether this is a business record, and based on the testimony from now two witnesses and the organization of the book itself, which shows that this is a sequentially numbered book that's bound, that was used as part of this employee's job functions. That's all that the business records exception requires. Again, on the timing, the issue is whether these records were made at or near. I'm not aware of any authority that requires a foundation that a witness testify that they personally made that record at the exact moment a phone call came in. That's not what the business records exception requires. It's whether it's at or near, whether it's part of the general practice. If the requirement were that witnesses come in and talk about the exact moment they recorded something every time, business records would never be admitted in court. That's not what the rule requires.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm going to poke around at the law. If anybody has a case, you may have noticed, I like cases.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll take a look during the remainder of the break. Can I keep these to look at them?
JUDGE NATHAN: Do you have sheets of the ones in question?
JUDGE NATHAN: I guess what I need to do is consider Mr. Pagliuca's point that they're out of order and the like. I'll take the whole book back and we'll look at the law.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Very briefly on that very last point, I would note that for I think essentially every exhibit -- I'll doublecheck at the break, but I think for every exhibit we've offered, there may not be a date on every single message, but there are four messages per page and there are dates on -- at least somewhere on the page.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. See you in a few.
(Recess)
JUDGE NATHAN: Anything further to offer on this?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. We wanted to point out with respect to Government Exhibit 606, which is the household manual, turning to page 7, there are instructions to employees about taking phone messages. Those instructions are: "Complete a phone message slip with the following information: Name, spelt correctly; date and time of call; telephone number, including the area code." That is consistent with the testimony of Juan Alessi who testified at pages 879 and 880 of the transcript. "Q. And what was the practice when you worked for Mr. Epstein of how you would take messages? "A. I will answer the phone, I will listen who is calling. And if the message was for Mr. Epstein, and if he wants to take the call, he usually answer his calls, he has his number. And if he was there, he will answer his calls. If he was not there, I will take a message. Who's calling? I will ask for the telephone number, the name, and I will write it down in the -- in the -- in the message book. "Q.
And when would you write it in the message book? "A. Soon while I was talking on the phone. "Q. As you're talking on the phone receiving the information, you were writing down that information into the book? "A. Yes." That's also consistent with his testimony at pages 878 through 880 where he describes that not only would he take messages, but his wife would take messages and that another personal assistant would take messages. Finally, your Honor, with respect to the question of case law, the Second Circuit has made clear that the requirement is not that the custodian have personal knowledge of all of the records. In particular, in United States v. Algamal, (ph.) 831 F.appx 539 (2d Cir. 2020). The Second Circuit made clear, quote, the term custodian or other qualified witness in Rule 803.6 is generally given a very broad interpretation. A witness need not be a custodian or have personal knowledge of the actual creation of the document to be qualified within the meaning of Rule 803.6. And that's exactly the foundation here under the business rules exception and for that reason, your Honor, we offer these exhibits.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, factually, Mr. Alessi left in 2002. It's clear from looking at these records that whatever the practice was, was not followed going forward. Assuming for a moment that this house --
JUDGE NATHAN: Not followed in every instance.
MR. PAGLIUCA: In most, in my review of these records. We don't have -- I didn't do a percentages here, but there is a substantial number of items in that book that don't follow what either Mr. Alessi or Ms. Hesse said. And so, I don't think, factually, you can say that these records were regularly -- well -- so this goes to -- I think there are two issues. First, is there a business practice in effect during the time that these particular exhibits are collected. That's the first question. Then the second question is sort of a Lieberman-related issue, and that is the content of what's in these messages, the actual words themselves, all the Western Union money transfer records for the truth of the content of what was written in the money transfer.
Although there were certain pieces of information that could be admitted, for example, someone saying a lengthy dialogue that's recorded in one of these messages shouldn't be admitted for the truth of the matter asserted because, first of all, there is no business trustworthiness foundation for it. Typically, when you're recording hearsay, in order for it to be admissible, there needs to be some sort of business duty to record and trustworthiness of the information. This issue is similar. Issues that come up with hospital records, for example, or police records, for example. Just because a police officer, in the ordinary course of a police officer's business being a police officer, takes a statement from someone doesn't make the statement itself admissible for the truth of the matter in the statement because there is no verification of the accuracy and it just becomes part of a record that, down the road, no one should be able to say, here, I'm introducing this entire statement about what happened for the truth of the matter asserted. So, it is similar to that and I think it is --
JUDGE NATHAN: I think in those cases, at the least, it comes in for the limited purpose that a statement was taken from so-and-so on a particular date and time.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. And so that's a limiting factor on the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. In my experience, typically, the hearsay portions of those kinds of records, which I think these are those kinds of records, are redacted and you get -- there is a very limited range of information on the record.
JUDGE NATHAN: You were handed a note. Do you have another point?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, and Ms. Menninger makes a good point. Police officers, for example, or hospital folks typically get identification when they're recording this information, so they actually know who's speaking to them, and that is some circumstantial trustworthiness at least of ID or something like that. Here, we don't have many instances, anything other than JE Natasha — this is the 2D that I'm looking at — and then a phone number with no date and no signature on it. So there are many of these throughout that simply don't have any indicia of reliability or satisfy even the minimum requirements for the business record exception.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think the Court has it exactly right, that the issue here is whether they can be offered to show who was calling the house, the dates and times of those calls. That's the purpose for which these are being offered. With respect to other indicators of trustworthiness, now two witnesses have testified that a person with a first and last name appearing in these records, in fact, called the house and was there during this time period. It would be exceedingly strange to suggest that her full name would appear in this message book for no reason. There are all kinds of indicia of trustworthiness here. Again, given the purpose for which these are being offered and the substantial foundation for both authentication and admissibility as a business record, we believe these should be admitted.
JUDGE NATHAN: On the purpose point, the name given by the caller, date and time of call, are you also seeking the phone numbers?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, that that person was reporting a certain callback number. Again, the purpose of the messages was to report to the defendant and Mr. Epstein who was calling. So here, that information is relevant in terms of knowledge and otherwise, the fact that a caller provided that information on a certain date and a time, that's the purpose for which they're being offered.
JUDGE NATHAN: I will overrule the objection. I do think between the two witnesses, Alessi and the current witness, is sufficient foundation for application of 803.6 has been made. These are not the kind of miscellaneous jottings that are excluded from calendars or the like. There is a record of a sufficiently regular practice having reviewed the full books in their entirety, and based on the testimony of the two witnesses, there is a sufficiently regular practice to permit admissibility under 803.6 for the purpose of showing that someone reporting to be a given name and calling from a particular number called on the dates indicated, and there are a number of other indicia of trustworthinesses described by Ms. Moe. So I'll overrule the objection and I'll admit the -- well, you're seeking admission of the full message books with the ones you indicated or just the ones you indicated?
MS. MOE: We're just offering the subsets of the marked exhibits that I read into the record. If defense counsel would prefer that the books themselves be admitted along with it, we certainly would have no objection about that. We just tried to be more narrow.
JUDGE NATHAN: I would say part of my analysis depends on having reviewed the full set of books.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I have no objection to offering Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, and I can do that when the jury returns.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Anything else to bring up before the jury comes back?
JUDGE NATHAN: We can bring the witness back. Mrs. Hesse, you may take your seat. Thank you.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury present)
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you, members of the jury. Ms. Moe, you can continue with your direct examination of Mrs. Hesse.
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. Just so the record is clear, for the subset of exhibit numbers that I just read out, have those now been received in evidence?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. Objection overruled. They are admitted.
JUDGE NATHAN: Mr. Pagliuca, same objection, overruled. 1, 2, and 3 are admitted.
(Government's Exhibits 1, 2, 3 received in evidence)
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. We would request that Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 be received under seal for the same reasons.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. GX1, 2, and 3 are admitted under seal for the privacy of witnesses and parties.
BY MS. MOE:
NICOLE HESSE: Okay.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, I would respectfully request that the jury be permitted to turn to Government Exhibit 1B in their binders.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Mr. Pagliuca, 1B?
MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may turn to 1B in the large binder, please.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sorry.
JUDGE NATHAN: I think we're missing --
BY MS. MOE:
NICOLE HESSE: I can't find the B.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MS. MOE: Mrs. Hesse, I want to ask you some questions about Government Exhibit 1B, but I want to be very careful not to read out any names out loud.
NICOLE HESSE: Okay.
NICOLE HESSE: Okay.
(Continued on next page)
BY MS. MOE:
NICOLE HESSE: 8/12/04.
MS. MOE: And looking at the signature line at the bottom of that message in the upper left-hand corner, do you recognize that?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, that's my signature.
MS. MOE: Now, I want to turn to the message on the upper right, the one to the right of the message that has your signature.
NICOLE HESSE: Okay.
MS. MOE: Again, without reading any names, I just want to ask you, yes or no, is the person who left this message Carolyn?
NICOLE HESSE: I don't know. I see a K.
MS. MOE: Focusing on the upper right-hand corner of Government Exhibit 1B, do you see the message that starts "for Mr. Epstein"?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, I do. Oh, wait. Yeah.
MS. MOE: And again, without reading the name, just want to follow along very closely. The top line, it says "for Mr. Epstein"; is that right?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MS. MOE: And again, without reading the name, just yes or no, the M line, is that the person who left the message, again, without saying the name?
NICOLE HESSE: I believe so.
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MS. MOE: All right. So I want to turn now and ask you about another exhibit, Mrs. Hesse. Could you please turn to tab 2T please.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. Mr. Pagliuca, 2T is already in?
MR. PAGLIUCA: That's correct.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Jurors, turn to 2T.
BY MS. MOE:
MS. MOE: All right. Now that we're looking at Government Exhibit 2T, I just want to ask you a few questions about this particular exhibit. So focusing on the message on the upper right-hand corner, do you see the line that says "for" and it says "Mr. Epstein"?
NICOLE HESSE: Yeah. I just want to confirm that I'm in the right spot. Is it GX and then 2T?
NICOLE HESSE: Okay.
MS. MOE: Thank you, Mrs. Hesse. All right. So looking at the upper right-hand corner of Government Exhibit 2T, do you see the message that says "for Mr. Epstein"?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, I do.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, 3/11/2003.
MS. MOE: And the line M underneath that listing, the person who left the message, is that Carolyn, C-A-R-O-L-Y-N?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, that's what I see.
MS. MOE: I want to ask you about just one last message. Could you please turn to the tab marked Government Exhibit 4B.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sorry, what was the number?
JUDGE NATHAN: 4B is in?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Let me --
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment please, members of the jury.
BY MS. MOE:
JUDGE NATHAN: Are you saying "E," like elephant?
JUDGE NATHAN: Let me just confirm, Mr. Pagliuca. I just admitted 3E so --
MR. PAGLIUCA: Correct.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. You may turn to 3E.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, I do.
MS. MOE: Thank you. So my only question about this exhibit is, is the first name of the person who left this message Carolyn, C-A-R-O-L-Y-N?
JUDGE NATHAN: Are you directing to a particular message?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, I do. It's in the bottom corner on the right.
NICOLE HESSE: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Jurors can put the binders down. Thank you.
MS. MOE: Mrs. Hesse, on the days that you worked at the Palm Beach house, were Maxwell and Epstein home?
NICOLE HESSE: No.
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
NICOLE HESSE: No, part-time.
NICOLE HESSE: Around 2004, a little bit after that.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
(Counsel conferred)
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Mr. Pagliuca?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Good afternoon, Ms. Hesse.
NICOLE HESSE: Good afternoon.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Just a few questions.
JUDGE NATHAN: You could take off your mask, Mr. Pagliuca.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you for reminding me, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Ms. Hesse, you were hired after an interview by Ms. Maxwell, hired by Mr. Epstein; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And is it my understanding that you started working in roughly September of '03; is that correct?
NICOLE HESSE: I'm not exactly sure, but, yes, I was working in September of '03.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. And I think you just testified that it was a part-time job at that point in time; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And I believe you had children and you were -- had other obligations as well; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, my two-year old came with me.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. And so the practice was for you to -- when Mr. Epstein wasn't in residence, you would go to the Palm Beach house and take care of various maintenance issues, monitor what was going on, those types of things; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And when Mr. Epstein was in residence, your services were not needed there; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: So I think it would be fair to say you functioned as what I would call sort of a part-time caretaker of the property?
NICOLE HESSE: Manager, yeah.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you would go for however much time was needed, and then you would leave and go back home, right?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. Now, when you were doing this job, sometimes Ms. Maxwell would be there and sometimes Ms. Maxwell wouldn't be there; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you actually didn't interact with her very much at the house in Palm Beach; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And there were times that you were aware of where Mr. Epstein would go to the Palm Beach property and bring another woman with him other than Ms. Maxwell; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: I don't really know that.
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can show the witness electronically 3517-002, page 2.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, I believe the witness testified she doesn't know, not that she doesn't remember.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm referring the witness to a statement, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may proceed.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you.
JUDGE NATHAN: It's not up yet, so I need to look at it.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand. I'm waiting for it to be up, your Honor. 3517-002, page 2, second paragraph up from the bottom.
JUDGE NATHAN: That's not it.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Excuse me?
JUDGE NATHAN: What was just shown --
MR. PAGLIUCA: 3517-02.
NICOLE HESSE: I see what you're showing me.
JUDGE NATHAN: You mean the third paragraph?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment. Okay.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Ms. Hesse, do you recall that you knew Epstein liked women, and that women would visit the residence even when Maxwell was not there?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, that there were women that came to massage, because I've taken messages for them.
MR. PAGLIUCA: When Maxwell was not there, right?
NICOLE HESSE: Right. But I wasn't there to see it, but I've taken a message in reference to massage.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. So you also understood that Ms. Maxwell had another residence in Miami at the time; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: No, I never knew about a Miami residence, only New York.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you did know that she had a home in New York, right?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. I want to take a look at some of what you've looked at in Government Exhibit -- let's start with 1B, which was the first message pad that you looked at.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
(Counsel conferred)
MR. PAGLIUCA: I just want to use this page as a general example moving forward, Ms. Hesse. So the left message is a message that you took, the top left quarter?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct. That's my signature.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And perhaps, your Honor, if the jurors could be referred to their binders and follow along.
JUDGE NATHAN: Jurors may turn to GX-1B, please. Is that the small binder or large binder?
JUDGE NATHAN: Small binder. Thank you. Just caution about saying the last name.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: 1B. Thank you. GX-1B.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: And so, Ms. Hesse, just looking at the left quarter there, that's a message that you took; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And the top line is the "for" line on all of these messages?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And on this page, for example, the top two are for Mr. Epstein; the one in the left quarter lower is JE, and then the right is Sarah. Do you see that?
NICOLE HESSE: Oh, the JE is down below. Correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. And I'm assuming you did not take the three yellow messages that are referenced here; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: It appears to me that you were pretty precise when you were taking messages, is that a fair statement?
NICOLE HESSE: That's fair.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And then the other three on this page lack some of the precision of your message-taking; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: That's true.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Going forward, let's take a look at 1C.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And if the jurors could just follow along, if that's all right, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. You may look at 1C, please, jurors.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And again, 1C doesn't appear to have been taken at all by you; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: I don't have anything on 1C; it's all blank.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. I have some messages on mine on 1C.
JUDGE NATHAN: Mrs. Hesse is referring to the message on the lower left-hand corner of 1C. The whole page is --
NICOLE HESSE: Oh, the whole page is 1C, but the left corner is blank. Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. And just to orient us, this is not taken by you; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: That is correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And again, the top line, there is one in the top left for Mr. Epstein, and then on the top right we've got Sarah, and then I can't tell who the bottom right is.
NICOLE HESSE: I can't either.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. And if we could then look at 1J.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And if the jurors could also turn to 1J, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: They may. Please turn to 1J.
MR. PAGLIUCA: All four of these messages are for Mr. JE, do you see that, Ms. Hesse?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. And if we go to 1K --
JUDGE NATHAN: Jurors may go to 1K.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Just starting at the top left of these messages, we've got for Sarah, Jeffrey, Sarah, Mr. JE. Do you see that?
NICOLE HESSE: I do.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. If we can go to 1M.
JUDGE NATHAN: Jurors may go to 1M.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 1M, we've got --
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sorry, is it "M," like Mary?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, "M," like Mary, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The messages are for Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes, that's what I see.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Have you reviewed these message pads before today, Mrs. Hesse?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: It's a fair statement that the vast majority of the messages in these exhibits are for Mr. Epstein; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And at the time that -- well, let me back up. Many of these messages do not have dates or times on them; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: I see a lot that do. On this page it does, yeah.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And then there's a number that don't, right?
NICOLE HESSE: Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And again, you don't have any personal knowledge about the accuracy of any of these messages, just that somebody wrote down a message to Mr. Epstein generally in these message pads; correct?
NICOLE HESSE: The ones I wrote are accurate.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand. I'm not questioning your recording accuracy, Mrs. Hesse. But all I'm talking about is the ones that you didn't write.
NICOLE HESSE: Mm-hmm.
MR. PAGLIUCA: OK? And to my understanding, the only time you would be taking messages would be when you were at the residence when Mr. Epstein wasn't there?
NICOLE HESSE: That's correct.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: If I could have a moment, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
(Counsel conferred)
MR. PAGLIUCA: I have no other questions, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Thank you. Ms. Moe?
JUDGE NATHAN: Mrs. Hesse, you may step down. You are excused. Thank you.
NICOLE HESSE: Okay.
(Witness excused)
JUDGE NATHAN: The government may call its next witness.
MS. COMEY: The government calls David Rodgers.
JUDGE NATHAN: David Rodgers may come forward. Good afternoon, Mr. Rodgers. DAVID RODGERS, called as a witness by the Government, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Comey, you may inquire.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.