| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Juror defendant |
12
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
location
court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
second juror
|
Co jurors |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Defendant juror |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Communication |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Juror court |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant juror |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional potential bias |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional juror defendant |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Lucia Osborne-Crowley
|
Professional interviewer interviewee |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Juror defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Social media interaction |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Juror witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus
|
Adversarial juror vs expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Judicial oversight |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Juror witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Luc Cohen
|
Interview subject interviewer |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Osborne-Crawley
|
Interviewee interviewer implied |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lucia Osborne-Crowley
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 questioning during trial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50's Twitter account was active. | Online | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 communicated with Annie Farmer. | View | |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection Questionnaire Process | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 answering Questions 25 and 48 during jury selection. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 media press tour | Various media outlets | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Voir Dire Questioning | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jurors answering Question 48 regarding abuse history | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation into juror misconduct | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation of Juror No. 50 | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation into the conduct of Juror No. 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection (voir dire) | The process of screening prospective jurors for Ms. Maxwell's trial, during which Juror No. 50 al... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | During voir dire, defense counsel attempted to locate the Twitter account of Juror No. 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's trial, which is the subject of a motion for a new trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A proposed evidentiary hearing regarding Juror No. 50, which is being debated by the government a... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Juror misconduct | Juror No. 50 and a second deliberating juror were untruthful on their jury selection questionnair... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A motion for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell, based on issues with a juror's answers during voir dire. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection (voir dire) | Juror No. 50 provided answers to questions during the voir dire process, which are now being chal... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which is the subject of the motion for a new trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | Juror No. 50 provided false answers to questions, which deprived the Court of a basis for inquiry... | Court | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | Jurors completed questionnaires as part of the selection process. The document alleges that at le... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | Juror No. 50 told his fellow jurors about the abuse he suffered, causing the room to go 'went sil... | Jury room | View |
| N/A | Interview | Juror No. 50 was interviewed by Reuters journalist Luc Cohen. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Interview | Juror No. 50 was interviewed by the Daily Mail. | N/A | View |
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) recording the voir dire process. The Court is questioning Juror No. 50, a 35-year-old Manhattan resident who works as an executive assistant in finance and has held that role since graduating college in 2008.
This legal document, dated January 19, 2022, argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied her constitutional right to a fair trial because at least one juror, identified as Juror No. 50, was dishonest during the jury selection (voir dire) process. The filing requests that the Court either vacate the jury's verdict and order a new trial, or alternatively, hold an evidentiary hearing to question all twelve jurors.
This document is page 63 of a legal filing (Document 642) from March 11, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues that submissions by 'Juror No. 50' should remain sealed because they lack merit, the juror has shown a 'lack of reliability' and 'appetite for publicity,' and releasing them could compromise an ongoing investigation into juror misconduct. The document concludes with a legal argument regarding the importance of *voir dire* in ensuring an impartial jury.
This document is page 62 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. It presents legal arguments citing 'Brown v. Maxwell' and 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.' regarding the definition of 'judicial documents' and the presumption of public access. The filing argues specifically against releasing 'Juror No. 50's pleadings,' claiming that doing so would generate prejudicial publicity and infringe upon Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial.
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against providing discovery materials (specifically a questionnaire) to 'Juror No. 50.' The prosecution contends that releasing this information would allow the juror to manipulate their testimony and argues that the juror lacks standing, citing various legal precedents. The document suggests Juror No. 50 attempted to destroy evidence and flee the media, and mentions the possibility of future charges for perjury or criminal contempt.
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that a court should deny a discovery request from 'Juror No. 50'. The filing asserts that the juror has no legal standing to intervene in the criminal case, citing legal precedent. Furthermore, it reveals that Juror No. 50 is under investigation, and releasing the requested information would prejudice that investigation by allowing the juror to tailor responses and alter the investigation's focus.
This document is page 57 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. In the text, Maxwell's defense requests a specific protocol for a hearing to question Juror No. 50 and potentially a second juror regarding allegations that they gave false answers during voir dire. The defense argues that this inquiry is necessary to prove the jury was not fair and impartial under the Sixth Amendment and asserts that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as they are not impeaching the verdict based on deliberations.
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on March 11, 2022, outlines a request for evidence related to potential misconduct by "Juror No. 50". It seeks communications, social media activity, and records of payments to the juror regarding their jury service. The document also discusses a hearing concerning the misconduct, which involves another juror who also allegedly failed to disclose being a victim of childhood sexual abuse, potentially implicating the entire jury's verdict.
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is a request by Ms. Maxwell to the Court for pre-hearing discovery. She asks the court to authorize subpoenas for the communications of Juror No. 50, who is alleged to have answered a question falsely during voir dire. The request seeks emails and other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victims, witnesses, or other jurors in the case to investigate potential juror misconduct.
This document is page 52 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. It argues that 'Juror No. 50' provided false answers during voir dire regarding social media usage to hide biases and ensure selection, noting he later used Twitter to contact victim Annie Farmer and appeared in an ITV documentary. The text contrasts this behavior with Juror No. 55, whose falsehoods were exposed through follow-up questioning.
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that Juror No. 50 was not impartial and failed to honestly disclose his past as a victim of sexual abuse during jury selection. The filing contends that this omission prevented the Court and defense from properly assessing his ability to be fair, particularly regarding the testimony of Dr. Loftus and the defense of Ms. Maxwell. The document suggests that had the juror been truthful, further inquiry would have been made, and his claim of impartiality is not credible.
This legal document argues that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers during voir dire, particularly concerning his use of social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The document contends that this pattern of dishonesty, combined with his post-trial media engagement, casts doubt on the truthfulness of all his answers, including those meant to screen for bias against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It also mentions a letter from the government, published by the media, which is described as an attempt to silence the juror and circumvent court rules.
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is a page from a motion arguing for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. The argument centers on the post-trial conduct of 'Juror No. 50,' who allegedly engaged in a paid publicity tour, gave interviews for a documentary, and communicated with journalist Annie Farmer, demonstrating bias. The document criticizes the government for publicly filing a letter (Docket No. 568) to stop the juror's tour, arguing this was an improper procedure that alerted the juror to scrutiny, whereas Ms. Maxwell's counsel would have objected and preferred the matter be handled under seal.
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that Juror No. 50's claim of not remembering a questionnaire question about personal experiences with sexual assault is not credible. The filing cites the questionnaire's explicit purpose of ensuring impartiality and points to the juror's post-verdict media interviews about his own victimhood as evidence that his omissions were intentional.
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that Juror No. 50 is not credible. It cites the juror's nonsensical explanation for a false answer when confronted by a Daily Mail reporter, disputes his claim of having 'flew through' the jury questionnaire by providing evidence of careful completion, and asserts it is unbelievable he would not remember a question about being a victim of sexual assault. The document aims to undermine the juror's truthfulness and fitness to serve.
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers to questions during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell has met the burden of proof for this claim, citing legal precedents and suggesting that video evidence of the juror being confronted supports the allegation of intentional falsehood. The ultimate goal is to argue for the juror's implied or actual bias.
This document is a page from a legal motion filed on March 11, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for a new trial based on the alleged dishonesty of Juror No. 50 during voir dire, specifically regarding social media usage (Twitter/Instagram) and a failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse. The defense draws a parallel to Juror No. 55, who was dismissed for cause after similar dishonesty regarding Twitter was discovered.
This document is legal filing (Page 42 of 66) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, filed on March 11, 2022. It argues that Juror No. 50 demonstrated implied bias and lied during voir dire by concealing his history as a sexual abuse victim and his active use of social media (specifically Twitter) during the trial. The filing notes that the juror communicated directly with victim Annie Farmer via Twitter after the trial and framed the verdict as being 'for all the victims.'
This document is page 36 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It presents a legal argument specifically concerning 'Juror No. 50,' asserting that had the juror answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, they would have been challenged for cause. The text relies heavily on case law citations (McDonough, Wainwright, Stewart) to define legal standards for juror impartiality and materiality of false answers.
This document is page 28 of a legal filing (Document 642) dated March 11, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that Maxwell was deprived of a fair trial due to juror misconduct, specifically highlighting that Juror No. 50 and a second anonymous juror disclosed their personal histories of sexual abuse during deliberations, which allegedly influenced the jury's discussions. The page references a New York Times article from January 5, 2022, and contains a significant redaction in the footnotes.
This legal document presents evidence of potential juror misconduct in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It includes a screenshot of a deleted tweet, allegedly from Juror No. 50, to a witness/victim (@anniefarmer), stating her story was critical to the jury's verdict. The document further alleges that this juror posted about his jury service on Instagram in early January 2022, despite having told the Court during voir dire that he had deleted his account.
This document is a page from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, concerning the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It presents evidence of social media activity, including tweets from journalist Lucia Osborne-Crowley about her interview with a juror named 'Scotty', and a responsive tweet from 'annie farmer'. The document highlights that 'Juror No. 50' (presumably Scotty) subsequently interacted with Farmer's tweet, suggesting this interaction is relevant to the legal proceedings.
This document appears to be page 22 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated March 11, 2022. It details a transcript or account of an interview where 'Juror No. 50' is challenged regarding the accuracy of his jury questionnaire responses concerning sexual abuse victimization (specifically question 48). The text notes the juror's physical reaction (flushing red) and his verbal defense claiming honesty. It transitions to a section regarding the juror's social media activity involving Annie Farmer and journalist Ms. Osborne-Crawley.
This legal document describes interviews given by Juror No. 50 to Reuters and the Daily Mail following a trial. Juror No. 50 stated that his disclosure of being a past victim of sexual assault helped convince other jurors who doubted the credibility of accusers. The document also highlights a video from the Daily Mail interview where the juror denies being asked about his sexual abuse history on the jury questionnaire.
This legal document details the perspective of Juror No. 50 from the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The juror explains how his own experience as a victim of abuse informed his view that the victims' delayed disclosure and continued contact with Maxwell and Epstein were irrelevant to their credibility. The document also references a post-trial interview with the Daily Mail on January 5, where the juror called Maxwell a 'predator' and described how he helped fellow jurors understand traumatic memory.
Posted about his jury service after the verdict was returned on Instagram
Asked if he had any doubt about ability to be fair; Juror 50 said 'no'.
Juror publicized interviews with the press.
False denials regarding victim status and social media usage.
Written questionnaire and in-person questioning.
Questioning regarding age, residence, education, and employment history.
Juror No. 50 promoting himself and his experience.
Request for subpoenas covering emails or written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victim or witness.
Request for subpoenas covering emails or written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other juror in the case.
Juror No. 50 used Twitter to communicate directly to Annie Farmer.
Revealed he was not alone in disclosing victim status to jurors.
Direct communication via Twitter.
Statement that a second juror disclosed they were a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
Revealed disclosure of abuse history during deliberations.
Failure to disclose being a victim of sexual abuse.
Failure to disclose being a victim of a crime.
Statement that a second juror disclosed they were also a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
Admitting to having provided false answers during voir dire.
Requests regarding judicial document status, currently under seal.
Interviewer challenges Juror No. 50 regarding question 48 about being a victim of abuse.
The document notes that Juror No. 50 communicated with Annie Famer (Farmer).
Proclaimed that the verdict against Ms. Maxwell was a verdict 'for all the victims.'
Disclosed beliefs such as 'the abusive event is like a video and victims remember the event accurately'.
Alerted the juror that he 'may be in trouble' regarding his disclosures/conduct.
Defense counsel was unable to locate the Twitter account of Juror No. 50, with the handle @ScottyDavidNYC, during voir dire.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity