Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
16
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Opposing counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Co counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
12
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
196 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
38 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Chapell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional adversarial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Visoski
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Espinosa
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Opposing counsel |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Disclosure of evidence | The government provided new information/documents to Mr. Everdell's team. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Witness discussion | Discussion about a witness coming from the U.K. who cannot be present until Monday. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberation/Instruction | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-12-26 | N/A | Potential date for charging conference and jury service | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-22 | N/A | Deadline for Government to submit updated witness list to the Defense and the Court. | N/A | View |
| 2025-11-18 | N/A | Charging conference | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-16 | N/A | Potential date for charging conference. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Filing date of the court document. | Court | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court hearing where Mr. Everdell explains why a bequest from an estate in bankruptcy, though di... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument is presented by counsel (Mr. Everdell) to a judge regarding the appropriate sent... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A judge overrules several objections made by Mr. Everdell regarding evidence and testimony agains... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the evidence for a conspiracy charge. Mr. Everdell argues that a ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Meeting | A court proceeding where objections regarding victims and the defendant's finances were discussed. | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding sentencing guidelines in Case 22-1426. The court confirmed an i... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where Mr. Everdell and the Court discuss sentencing factors, guidelines, and e... | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the applicability of the 2004 Manual based on the timeline ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A judge (THE COURT) is issuing rulings on objections raised by an attorney (MR. EVERDELL) regardi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court proceeding to resolve factual objections and determine the correct sentencing guideline c... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the interpretation of pilot testimony about Maxwell's super... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | N/A | Court hearing (likely appeal record filing date, actual hearing earlier) regarding Ghislaine Maxw... | Southern District (Court) | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court filing date for Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell Appeal). The transcript records a pr... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court Hearing (Appeal or Sentencing related) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | The court and counsel discuss a note from the jury about ending deliberations for the day and a p... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court hearing | A court hearing (voir dire) to discuss the suitability of a potential juror, focusing on his ques... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding how to respond to a jury's question about ... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018308.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, likely a cross-examination involving 'Parkinson,' dated August 10, 2022. The discussion centers on a diagram of a house, specifically its foyer and staircase. Mr. Everdell requests to display Government Exhibits 235 and 292, which the Court approves, indicating a transition in the presentation of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018305.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The questioning focuses on establishing the layout of a house, specifically identifying the 'lake room' as the location where money was taken and contrasting its position with a 'staff room'. A diagram of the house's second floor, labeled Government Exhibit 297, is introduced as evidence during the testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018304.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The questioning focuses on a floor plan, identifying a 'staff room' and a 'lake room'. The 'lake room' is established as the location of Mr. Epstein's desk, from which the witness indicates money was taken.
DOJ-OGR-00018303.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The questioning focuses on the floor plan of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence, specifically identifying a 'staff' room located near the kitchen, which is identified in Government Exhibit 238 as a small office. Attorneys Everdell and Comey discuss the admissibility of Exhibit 238 with the Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00018296.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson (likely a police officer) by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony covers Parkinson's early interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, specifically a burglary investigation in October 2003 and casual encounters seeing Epstein jogging in Palm Beach. It concludes by introducing the topic of a search warrant executed on October 20, 2005.
DOJ-OGR-00018295.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. Parkinson testifies about a visit of under four hours to a residence on October 5, 2003, to speak with Mr. Epstein, and denies knowing or seeing Ghislaine Maxwell there. An attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully objects to a question about a burglar on the grounds of relevance and hearsay.
DOJ-OGR-00018293.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Parkinson by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony focuses on a past meeting between Parkinson and Jeffrey Epstein at Epstein's house, specifically in his main office. They discuss a burglary incident where Epstein alleged that cash was stolen from a bag near his desk.
DOJ-OGR-00018292.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The witness confirms meeting with Mr. Epstein at his residence on a Sunday morning to discuss a burglary, where Epstein claimed several thousand dollars in cash were stolen. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, attempts to introduce evidence, but the court states that one of the exhibits is under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00018289.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the beginning of a cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning centers on Mr. Parkinson's participation in executing a search warrant at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence at 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005.
DOJ-OGR-00018287.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the admission of 'Exhibit 51' without objection from defense attorney Mr. Everdell. Prosecutor Ms. Comey subsequently requests that Detective Byrne come forward to set up and publish the exhibit for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00018286.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. Parkinson identifies Government Exhibit 51 as a massage table that he personally seized from a bathroom at 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005. The government, represented by Ms. Comey, successfully offers the table into evidence without objection from Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00018284.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Witness Parkinson is being questioned by Ms. Comey regarding a photograph (Government Exhibit 285) showing a desktop in a bathroom anteroom at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The exhibit is admitted under seal to protect a party's interests, preventing the witness from reading specific writing on the picture aloud in open court.
DOJ-OGR-00018279.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Comey questions a witness, Mr. Parkinson, about an exhibit, Government 278. Mr. Parkinson identifies the exhibit as a fair and accurate photograph of the shower room at 358 El Brillo Way as it looked on October 20, 2005, after which Ms. Comey offers it into evidence without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018278.jpg
This document is page 177 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between the Judge (The Court), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the admissibility of evidence, specifically 'school costumes' and photographs thereof. The Judge rules that a foundation must be laid through a witness, suggesting Special Agent Maguire for this purpose. Following the ruling, the jury is recalled and a witness named Mr. Parkinson takes the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00018277.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding the relevance of photographs, prior testimony by Jane, and the submission of evidence binders for upcoming witnesses. The Court also provides a reminder to Ms. Comey about microphone usage.
DOJ-OGR-00018276.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of photographs. The core issue is the lack of a proper foundation for the evidence, as the expected witness, Jane, did not testify, and there is a significant time gap of approximately 25 years between the events she allegedly witnessed (c. 1994-1995) and a 2019 search.
DOJ-OGR-00018275.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal dispute where prosecutors Ms. Moe and Ms. Comey request to brief an issue regarding photographic evidence, accusing the defense of 'sandbagging' by objecting late. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell denies the accusation, while the Judge notes a 'factual disjointedness' regarding the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018272.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding the admissibility of photographs of a 'New York house' (implied to be Epstein's). The prosecution argues the photos corroborate the testimony of a witness named 'Jane,' who described specific decor (nude artwork, animal decorations, and a red massage room) present during her visits between 1994 and her early twenties.
DOJ-OGR-00018271.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves the Judge, Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell discussing procedural matters regarding the sealing of documents and objections to specific evidence (the '900 series' exhibits). Mr. Everdell notes that these objections relate to a search conducted in 2019 and will become relevant when Agent Maguire testifies to introduce the exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00018270.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge, a government attorney (Ms. Comey), and a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell). They discuss the witness schedule, anticipating finishing with Mr. Parkinson and calling Agent Maguire next. The attorneys also address the handling of evidence, including redacting a video and the incomplete process of dedesignating photos, before the court calls for a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00018262.jpg
This court transcript excerpt from August 10, 2022, details a portion of a direct examination of a witness named Parkinson. The government's attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully admits exhibits 289 through 293 into evidence, which are said to accurately depict the second floor of a house at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. After the exhibits are admitted without objection, Ms. Comey begins questioning the witness about their contents.
DOJ-OGR-00018258.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson. The testimony concerns photographs (Government Exhibits 252, 253, and 254) depicting the interior of 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The exhibits are admitted into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00018256.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It records the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson, during which Ms. Comey (Government) moves to admit Government Exhibits 243 through 250 under seal. The Court admits the evidence without objection from defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and the jurors are instructed to review Exhibits 243, 244, 245, and 246 in their binders.
DOJ-OGR-00018255.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. He identifies a series of photographs (Government Exhibits 243-250) as accurately depicting the interior of a property at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The government's attorney, Ms. Comey, offers the exhibits into evidence under seal, and the opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, states he has no objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018249.jpg
This document is page 148 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Parkinson by prosecutor Ms. Comey, specifically focusing on the admission and presentation of Government Exhibits 223, 224, and 225 to the jury without objection from defense attorney Mr. Everdell. The page concludes with Ms. Comey preparing to show the witness Exhibits 226 through 241.
Jury Instructions for Ms. Maxwell's case
Mr. Everdell argues for a supplemental jury instruction regarding the relevance of conduct in New Mexico to a conviction under New York law. The Court rejects the proposed instruction, stating it is incorrect and that the defense failed to seek a limiting instruction on the testimony earlier.
Cross-examination and submission of evidence
Mr. Everdell questions Ms. Chapell about FedEx invoices, offers Defense Exhibit TC-1 into evidence under temporary seal, and concludes his questioning.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding whether photographs accurately depict the location during the time of the conspiracy.
Jury Instructions
Oral argument regarding the clarity of jury instructions concerning jurisdiction and age of consent.
Admission of Exhibit RS-1
Defense offers RS-1 for identification; prosecution agrees if under seal; accepted by Court.
Limiting Instruction Edits
Discussion regarding changing wording in jury instructions from 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact'.
Motion for Acquittal
Motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) regarding insufficiency of evidence in the S2 indictment.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding office seating arrangements and introduction of Exhibit 327.
Exhibit Identification
Inquiry about trial mark for the 1996 London home sale agreement.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding flight rules, mingling with passengers, and cockpit procedures.
Jury Instructions/Charge Language
Discussion regarding the specific wording of sex trafficking charges and conspiracy counts.
Jury Instructions regarding New Mexico Law
Argument that specific sexual activity was not illegal under New Mexico law because it lacked force or coercion, and the jury instruction should reflect this.
Legal definitions
Verbal exchange regarding case law and definitions for jury instructions.
Stipulation of facts and admission of exhibits
Discussion regarding the admission of exhibits DH1-DH4, J2, A5, and stipulations regarding UK property records.
Cross-examination regarding photographs found during search
Everdell questions Parkinson about a specific photo of a woman found in Epstein's house and confirms no other photos of her were presented during direct testimony or found in the video evidence.
Cross-examination regarding flights and Les Wexner
Questioning regarding flights to Columbus, Ohio and the relationship between Epstein and Les Wexner.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding exhibits CE3 through CE8 (headshots of cast members).
Jury Instructions/Verdict Form Wording
Discussion regarding wording on pages 25 and 26 of a legal document, specifically regarding 'Jane', 'interstate commerce', and statutory age limits.
Jury Instruction 44
Mr. Everdell reads a proposed jury instruction regarding the credibility of witnesses with prior felony convictions.
Admissibility of property records and need for an additio...
Mr. Everdell discusses with the Court newly obtained property records for Stanhope Mews, which he intends to use to impeach a witness's deposition testimony about their residence. He argues that despite the government's objection, additional factual development is needed, possibly requiring another witness, to counter the government's argument.
Timeline of Ms. Maxwell's property ownership and residency
Mr. Everdell explains the complex leasehold title of a property purchased by Ms. Maxwell, stating the deal closed in 1997. He argues this evidence, along with witness testimony from 'Kate', proves Ms. Maxwell did not live at the property before 1996, countering allegations of events in '94 and '95.
Cross-examination regarding employment with Jeffrey Epstein
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. Rodgers about the start date of his employment with Jeffrey Epstein, his hiring of Larry Visoski, their respective roles as chief pilot and co-captain, and a role swap that occurred in late 2004.
Proposed Jury Instruction on 'Dominant Purpose'
Mr. Everdell argues to the Court that a new proposed jury instruction is more accurate because it tracks case law development from the Second Circuit, specifically from Judge Rakoff, as opposed to older language invented by Judge Sand that was not based on circuit case law.
Request for jury instructions
Mr. Everdell requests that the jury be explicitly instructed that individuals named Kate and Annie were over the age of consent under New York law, and that related testimony should not be considered as evidence of illegal sexual activity. The Court agrees to a separate language change regarding the defendant's name.
Admission of evidence
Mr. Everdell moves for the admission of Defendant's Trial Exhibit B.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity