Victim-4
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
FBI
|
Informant witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Alleged victim perpetrator |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | End date of alleged continued conduct for Counts Three and Six involving Victim-4 | Unspecified | View |
EFTA00027158.pdf
An email from an Assistant US Attorney to Judge Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The email updates the court on victim attendance for an upcoming arraignment, noting that Victim-2 will attend via phone while her attorneys David Boies and Sigrid McCawley will attend in person, whereas Victims 1, 3, and 4 will not attend.
EFTA00009897.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 21, 2021, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and the Chambers of Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The correspondence details the attendance plans for victims and their counsel at an upcoming arraignment, specifically noting that Victim-2 will attend by phone while her attorneys, David Boies and Sigrid McCawley, will attend in person. It also confirms that four attorneys will appear on behalf of the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00021692.jpg
This page is from a 2023 legal filing (likely the government's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal) arguing against claims of retroactive application of the statute of limitations. It asserts that because the criminal conduct (conspiracy and sex trafficking involving Victim-4) continued through 2004, it post-dated the 2003 amendment to Section 3283.
DOJ-OGR-00005587.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a motion filed by the prosecution ('Government') arguing against the defense's desire to introduce evidence related to a past charging decision from a Florida investigation. The prosecution contends this evidence is irrelevant, cumulative, and would invite the jury to speculate, creating a 'bizarre spectacle' that distracts from the actual evidence of the current trial. The document cites case law to support its position that the jury should only consider the evidence presented in this specific case, not the prosecutorial decisions made in other jurisdictions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity