DOJ-OGR-00010284.jpg

764 KB

Extraction Summary

6
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
5
Relationships
2
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 764 KB
Summary

This legal document argues that the government's charges related to sex trafficking constitute a single, decade-long conspiracy rather than separate offenses. The author points to the similarity in conduct between victims Carolyn (2000s) and Jane (1990s), the overlap of participants like Sarah Kellen, and the consistent location of the Palm Beach residence to support the claim of a single scheme involving Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The document contends that the government only separated the charges due to a legal technicality regarding the enactment date of a sex trafficking statute.

People (6)

Name Role Context
Carolyn Victim/Witness
Mentioned as a victim whose abuse from 2001-2004 at the Palm Beach residence is central to Counts Five and Six. Her t...
Jane Victim/Witness
Mentioned as a victim whose abuse in the 1990s is described as similar to Carolyn's. She testified that Epstein gave ...
Epstein Accused
Mentioned as the perpetrator of sexual abuse against Carolyn, Jane, and Annie Farmer. He is described as giving money...
Annie Farmer Victim
Mentioned as a victim whose abuse was not included in Count Five due to the timing of the sex trafficking statute's e...
Ms. Maxwell Co-conspirator
Mentioned as being in a decade-long scheme with Epstein to 'groom' and recruit minor girls for sexual abuse.
Sarah Kellen Associate
Mentioned as someone who scheduled massage appointments for Epstein in Palm Beach and appeared in the 2000s during th...

Organizations (1)

Name Type Context
government government agency
Referred to throughout the document as the prosecuting party, making decisions about charges (Counts) and arguing its...

Timeline (4 events)

1990s
Jane had sexual encounters with Epstein at his Palm Beach residence, after which he gave her money.
Palm Beach residence
1994-2004
A single, decade-long scheme between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to 'groom' and recruit minor girls to be sexually abused at Epstein’s various residences.
Epstein’s various residences
2000s
Sarah Kellen scheduled massage appointments for Epstein in Palm Beach.
Palm Beach
2001-2004
Carolyn was abused by Epstein at his Palm Beach residence.
Palm Beach residence

Locations (2)

Location Context
The location where Carolyn's abuse occurred from 2001-2004 and where Jane had sexual encounters with Epstein.
The city where Sarah Kellen scheduled massage appointments for Epstein.

Relationships (5)

Epstein co-conspirators Ms. Maxwell
The document describes them as being involved in a 'single, decade-long scheme' to 'groom' and recruit minor girls for sexual abuse.
Epstein abuser-victim Carolyn
The document discusses 'Carolyn’s abuse' by Epstein at his Palm Beach residence.
Epstein abuser-victim Jane
The document states Jane testified about sexual encounters with Epstein, after which he gave her money.
Epstein abuser-victim Annie Farmer
The document refers to 'Annie Farmer’s abuse'.
Sarah Kellen professional Epstein
The document states that Sarah Kellen 'scheduled massage appointments for Epstein in Palm Beach'.

Key Quotes (2)

"groom"
Source
— Indictment (attributed) (Used to describe the actions of Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in their decade-long scheme to recruit minor girls.)
DOJ-OGR-00010284.jpg
Quote #1
"but importantly, not all"
Source
— government (Quoted from the government's argument that not all participants in the two conspiracies overlapped.)
DOJ-OGR-00010284.jpg
Quote #2

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,264 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 18 of 24
The government’s decision to add Counts Five and Six, which are based on the same conduct, did not suddenly convert Carolyn’s abuse and the conduct she described in the Palm Beach residence from 2001-2004 into a separate, distinct conspiracy. In fact, the conduct in the 2000s that Carolyn described was no different than the conduct in the 1990s that Jane described. Like Carolyn, Jane testified that Epstein gave her money after almost every sexual encounter with him at this Palm Beach residence, which would support a sex trafficking charge. (Tr. 301-02). Indeed, the government concedes that the only reason it did not expand Count Five to include Jane and Annie Farmer’s abuse (as it had expanded Counts One and Three to include Carolyn’s abuse) was that the sex trafficking statute was not enacted until after their abuse had occurred. (Opp. at 28). Had that legal impediment not existed, the government could have, and no doubt would have, broadened the date range of Count Five to 1994-2004, as it had done with Counts One and Three, and included overt acts related to Jane. Instead, the government included a more narrow sex trafficking count based primarily on Carolyn’s allegations from 2001-2004, but still framed all of the charges in the Indictment as the product of a single, decade-long scheme between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to “groom” and recruit minor girls to be sexually abused at Epstein’s various residences from 1994 to 2004. (See Ind. ¶¶ 1-2, Overview Section). Accordingly, the offenses charged in the Indictment support a finding of multiplicity.
B. Overlap in Participants, Time, and Geographic Scope
The government makes a half-hearted attempt to deny the obvious overlap between Counts Three and Five in participants, time period, and geographic scope. (Opp. at 30-32). For example, the government argues that some “but importantly, not all” of the participants in the two conspiracies overlapped, and notes that Sarah Kellen, who scheduled massage appointments for Epstein in Palm Beach, only appeared in the 2000s during the time period of the sex trafficking conspiracy. (Opp. at 30-31). But in the end, the government concedes, as it must,
14
DOJ-OGR-00010284

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document