MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
29 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Judicial |
14
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
30 | |
|
location
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
18 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Friend |
11
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
56 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
location
USA
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Brown
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Perpetrator victim |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Acquaintance |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Association |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-01-01 | N/A | Prior ruling cited (Maxwell, 2021 WL 3591801) | Court Record | View |
| 2020-12-28 | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's bail application in a written order. | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-28 | N/A | Opinion & Order in case 20cr330 (referenced in attachment filename) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-12-28 | N/A | Activity/Order in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA v. Maxwell | Court (implied) | View |
| 2020-12-21 | Legal filing deadline | Deadline for Maxwell's pretrial motions to be filed. | United States District Court | View |
| 2020-12-20 | Legal decision | A decision was made in the case of US v Maxwell, as noted in the watermark. | Court | View |
| 2020-12-20 | Legal decision | The case 'US v Maxwell' was decided, as noted in the document's watermark. | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-18 | N/A | Trial of Ghislaine Maxwell | Court | View |
| 2020-12-08 | Legal proceeding | Maxwell renewed her request for bail, presenting a revised bail package. | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-08 | Legal proceeding | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's renewed application for bail. | N/A | View |
| 2020-11-25 | Legal ruling | A ruling in the case Giuffre v. Maxwell, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221599, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, ... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-11-18 | N/A | Memo Endorsement in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA v. Maxwell | Court (implied) | View |
| 2020-11-09 | Court ruling | The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal of Defendant-Appellant Maxw... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2020-10-26 | N/A | Call with GA USAO re Maxwell | Unknown (Remote/Phone) | View |
| 2020-10-23 | N/A | Discovery Review | MDC | View |
| 2020-10-19 | Court ruling | The court dismissed the appeal of Defendant-Appellant Maxwell and denied the motion to consolidat... | N/A | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Preparation of 5th Production discovery materials for distribution to defense counsel and Ghislai... | New York, NY | View |
| 2020-10-19 | Court ruling | The appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell was dismissed, and the motion to consolidate was denied... | N/A | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Court denial of Maxwell's request for a writ of mandamus. | Court of Appeals | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Court denial of Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil appeal Guiffre... | Court of Appeals | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Court dismissal of Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. | Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Court dismissal of Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order modification. | Court of Appeals | View |
| 2020-10-02 | N/A | Judge Nathan issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion to modify a Protective Order | District Court | View |
| 2020-10-02 | N/A | Filing of Document 82 in Case 20-3061 | Court | View |
| 2020-10-02 | N/A | Rule 16 Discovery | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00005840.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details procedural disputes regarding the timing of the Government's disclosure of co-conspirator statements to the defense. The Court ruled that the Government's commitment to produce these statements six weeks before trial (alongside Jencks Act and Giglio materials) was sufficient, denying the defense's request for earlier identification.
DOJ-OGR-00005831.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against precluding the testimony of 'Minor Victim-3' in the trial of the defendant, Maxwell. The prosecution contends that even if the acts against this victim were uncharged, her testimony is crucial to establish a pattern of abuse, show the defendant's relationship with Epstein, and prove her knowing participation in a conspiracy. The document cites legal precedent to support delaying any decision to strike this evidence until after the government has presented its case at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005828.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum of law, in the case of United States v. Maxwell. The section titled "Applicable Law" argues that the Government is permitted to introduce evidence of acts committed in furtherance of a charged conspiracy. Citing multiple legal precedents, the document asserts that such acts are not considered 'other' acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), but are rather direct evidence of the conspiracy itself and are therefore admissible at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002858.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 29, 2021. It details specific allegations, including Maxwell encouraging 'Minor Victim-3' to massage Epstein in London (1994-1995) and inviting 'Minor Victim-4' to travel from Florida with Epstein (2001-2002). The page formally lays out 'COUNT FOUR,' charging Maxwell with the transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00002852.jpg
This legal document alleges that between approximately 2001 and 2004, MAXWELL met and groomed a 14-year-old, identified as Minor Victim-4, for sexual abuse by Epstein. The grooming and abuse occurred at Epstein's Palm Beach Residence, where Minor Victim-4 was paid hundreds of dollars in cash after providing nude massages to Epstein, during which he engaged in sexual acts with her. MAXWELL is described as facilitating this by scheduling appointments, normalizing the abuse, and sometimes paying the victim.
DOJ-OGR-00002803.jpg
This document is a court filing from March 24, 2021, combining a FedEx shipping label and a court receipt. It documents that attorney David Markus sent a package to the US District Court in New York containing a $505.00 check payment on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell for a 'Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee' related to case 1:20-cr-00330. The court processed this payment on March 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00014473.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Moe in the trial of a defendant named Maxwell. Ms. Moe refutes the defense's arguments regarding Maxwell's London residence and counters the claim that four key witnesses (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) are lying for financial gain. She asserts the witnesses have no financial stake in the current trial's outcome, as their civil suits are concluded and they have already received compensation from the Jeffrey Epstein Victim Compensation Program.
DOJ-OGR-00014472.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Moe in a criminal case. Ms. Moe argues that the defense has deliberately misled the jury by taking a witness's, Jane's, statements out of context. She provides two examples: one involving a question about orchestra music and another where the defense selectively quoted from a legal document, omitting a key sentence that states the defendant, Maxwell, facilitated and was present for Jane's sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00014468.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation delivered by Ms. Moe in the trial of a defendant named Maxwell. Ms. Moe argues to the jury that the testimony of four witnesses—Jane, Annie, Carolyn, and Kate—is credible, despite the defense's claims that they are liars or have faulty memories. She asserts that their consistent accounts of being exploited by Maxwell and Epstein are devastating evidence of Maxwell's guilt and cannot be dismissed as a mass delusion.
DOJ-OGR-00014464.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation delivered by Ms. Moe. She argues that crimes occurred within the Southern District of New York, citing evidence related to several counts, including trips to Manhattan by individuals named Jane and Annie, and Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule 'sexualized massages' in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014462.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Moe in the case against Maxwell. The summation outlines three conspiracy counts, alleging that from 1994 to 2004, Maxwell conspired with Epstein to commit crimes against victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie. Ms. Moe argues that Maxwell groomed Carolyn and Annie as part of an agreement to provide Epstein with underage girls for abuse, which constitutes the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00014458.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a prosecutor's, Ms. Moe's, summation. She argues that the defendant, Maxwell, is guilty of Count Four: transporting a minor named Jane to New York for illegal sexual activity. Ms. Moe asserts that Maxwell arranged the travel, was on flights with Jane as confirmed by witness Juan Alessi and flight records, and thereby aided and abetted Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014456.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation given by Ms. Moe in the case against Maxwell. The prosecutor argues that Maxwell was an essential accomplice to Epstein, focusing on Count Two, which alleges Maxwell enticed a victim named Jane to travel across state lines to New York for sexual abuse. The argument is supported by Jane's testimony and corroborated by a witness, Juan Alessi, who saw Maxwell, Epstein, and Jane boarding a plane together.
DOJ-OGR-00014453.jpg
This document is a legal summation from a court case, outlining Ghislaine Maxwell's activities between 1995 and 2004. It details her role in recruiting, grooming, and exploiting several young women, including Kate, Jane, Annie Farmer, Virginia Roberts, and Carolyn, for Jeffrey Epstein. The text describes a timeline of abuse, financial transactions from Epstein to Maxwell totaling over $23 million, and the evolution of the abuse into a 'pyramid scheme' where victims were incentivized to recruit their friends.
DOJ-OGR-00014452.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Moe, detailing financial transactions from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell totaling over $30 million between 1999 and 2007. The speaker argues these payments were for Maxwell's role as a coconspirator in Epstein's crimes, specifically for aiding in the sexual abuse of underage girls, citing examples involving individuals named Jane and Kate starting in 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00014451.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court summation by Ms. Moe in the trial of Maxwell. The prosecution argues that Maxwell is guilty, citing evidence of a pyramid-like recruitment scheme for underage girls, a 'little black book' containing victim names as proof of her knowledge and intent, and a $30 million payment from Jeffrey Epstein as her motive for being his 'partner in crime'.
DOJ-OGR-00014449.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Moe in a trial involving Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Moe argues that entries in Maxwell's contact book were not for legitimate massages, citing an entry for 'Virginia, parents' and noting some entries were for children. She connects Maxwell to Virginia Roberts by establishing that they met at Mar-a-Lago, where Virginia's father, Sky Roberts, worked, and presents evidence that Maxwell flew with Virginia when she was 17 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00014448.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation given by Ms. Moe. She discusses a 'household manual' belonging to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, describing it as a powerfully incriminating phone directory. She focuses on a specific page from 'Government Exhibit 52-G', titled 'Massage Florida', pointing out the large number of female names as evidence that 'something is off'.
DOJ-OGR-00014447.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Moe) summation in a criminal trial against a defendant named Maxwell. The prosecutor argues that the testimony of a witness, Carolyn, proves Maxwell conspired with Epstein to abuse underage girls. The prosecutor highlights that Carolyn's testimony is extensively corroborated by phone messages, FedEx records, her ex-boyfriend Sean, and other witnesses named Annie, Kate, and Jane, and urges the jury to find Maxwell guilty.
DOJ-OGR-00014445.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the summation by Ms. Moe. The text details allegations of sexual abuse involving Epstein and Maxwell against minors named Jane, Annie, Virginia Roberts, and Carolyn, supported by evidence such as flight logs and FedEx records.
DOJ-OGR-00014443.jpg
This document is a page from a legal summation by Ms. Moe in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It references the 2009 deposition testimony of a victim named Carolyn, who stated that Maxwell and Sarah Kellen, not Mr. Epstein himself, would call her to arrange "so-called massages." These appointments marked the beginning of years of sexual abuse for Carolyn, and the testimony establishes Maxwell's and Kellen's roles as facilitators.
DOJ-OGR-00014438.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a summation describing how Maxwell, referred to as a predator, groomed a 16-year-old victim named Annie for Jeffrey Epstein. The text details Maxwell's actions of 'normalizing touch' by giving Annie a massage where she touched her breasts, which culminated in Epstein later entering Annie's bed at a ranch. The summation argues these were deliberate steps by Maxwell to break down barriers and facilitate sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00014437.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court summation, likely by a prosecutor, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The speaker describes Ghislaine Maxwell's methods of grooming young girls for Jeffrey Epstein, using the examples of 'Annie' and 'Kate'. The text details how Maxwell taught a 16-year-old to give Epstein a foot massage and instructed another girl to squeeze his feet, characterizing these actions as 'classic grooming behavior' designed to break down boundaries.
DOJ-OGR-00014436.jpg
This document is a legal summation from a court case, filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony regarding a victim named Annie. It describes how Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein lured Annie to New Mexico under the false pretense of a scholarship trip, where Maxwell then engaged in grooming behaviors. The text recounts an incident at a movie theater where Epstein assaulted Annie, with Maxwell's full knowledge and complicity.
DOJ-OGR-00014435.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript featuring a summation by Ms. Moe regarding a diary entry written by a teenager named Annie. The text discusses how the diary illustrates the grooming process for sexual abuse, specifically mentioning interactions with Epstein, Maria, and Maxwell during a trip to the movies and subsequent events in 1996.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $250,000.00 | Fine imposed on each count. | View |
| N/A | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Total fine imposed. | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Criminal fine imposed at sentencing. | View |
| 1999-10-19 | Received | Financial Trust C... | MAXWELL | $18,300,000.00 | Transfer sourced from the sale of JP Morgan Ins... | View |
| 1999-10-19 | Received | Financial Trust C... | MAXWELL | $0.00 | Transfer to Maxwell discussed in email; investi... | View |
Scheduling an appointment for Carolyn
Carolyn's mom would receive a phone call, which Carolyn later learned was from Maxwell, and would hand the phone to Carolyn to schedule an appointment.
Scheduling an appointment for Carolyn
Shawn would receive a phone call from Maxwell and would then tell Carolyn that she had a phone call and instruct her to say yes to the appointment.
Reconsideration of the District Court's response
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of a response from the District Court, claiming it resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Travel and an invitation to an island
Maxwell asked Carolyn about her travel history and invited her to an island. Carolyn declined, stating she was too young and her mother would not permit it.
Scheduling massage appointments
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
Carolyn's career aspirations
Maxwell asked Carolyn what she wanted to do in the future, and Carolyn replied that she wanted to become a massage therapist.
Epstein's sexual preferences and needs
Maxwell told the witness, Kate, that Epstein likes 'cute, young, pretty' girls and that he needed to have sex about three times a day. These conversations occurred frequently ('All the time') within the first couple of months after they met.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Reconsideration of response to jury note
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of Judge Nathan's response to the jury's note and raised issues of constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Taking over the house
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
Reply to Government's Opposition
A reply brief cited as "Maxwell Reply at 18" where the Defendant asserts the government failed to prove its case.
Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
Massages
Maxwell asked Annie if she had ever received a massage and told her she would have the opportunity to have one, describing how enjoyable it would be.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell would call Carolyn to ask if she was available for an appointment, sometimes mentioning that she and Mr. Epstein would be out of town and flying in.
Civil Case Testimony
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
Epstein's whereabouts
Maxwell informing Carolyn that Epstein was on a jog or would be back soon and that she could go upstairs to set up.
Scheduling massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
Spending time vs Communicating
Witness clarifies distinction between spending physical time vs communicating. States she stopped spending time around age 24.
Reconsideration of response
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
Small talk during massage
making small talk
Denial of motion
Denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial.
Motion for new trial
Moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity