MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane
|
Perpetrator victim |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Abuser victim |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
location
USA
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Brown
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Abuser victim |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Accomplices |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror defendant |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The District Court
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Defendant juror |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Perpetrator victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Abuser victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Acquaintance |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Perpetrator victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Acquaintance |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Groomer victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Sarah Kellen
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Jury selection for Maxwell's trial, including a jury questionnaire where Juror 50 failed to accur... | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court denies Maxwell's motion for a new trial. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's indictment was denied, trial proceeded, and she is serving a 20-year sentence. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court's findings and application of sentencing guidelines, including a four-level leader... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Relocation of victims from Palm Beach to other places in the U.S. (including Southern District of... | Palm Beach, other places in... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell moved for rehearing en banc, which was denied. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion to compel discovery from the Government, including Jencks Act, Brady, Giglio mat... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court's ruling on Maxwell's discovery requests, concluding she is not entitled to expedited disco... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion is being considered by the Court. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court's consideration of categories of questions Maxwell argues are ambiguous. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Argument by Maxwell that perjury counts should be dismissed due to immateriality of statements. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government's intention to produce 'Materials' to the defendant (Maxwell) under a protective order... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | S2 superseding indictment moots Maxwell's grand jury challenge | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation of expedited discovery timeline | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion to dismiss perjury counts from a civil case deposition. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell contends that the NPA bars her prosecution as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss Mann Act counts for lack of specificity or to compel Government to s... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's sentencing to concurrent terms of imprisonment (60, 120, 240 months) followed by superv... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment due to alleged actual prejudice from Government's delay i... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal arguments by Maxwell to dismiss indictment | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment based on fabricated stories and perjurious conspiracy by ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell seeks writ of mandamus to direct District Court to modify protective order. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell seeks to consolidate her criminal appeal with civil appeal Guiffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-241... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court denies Maxwell's motions to consolidate as moot. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell appeals denial of motion to modify a protective order. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019213.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell groomed and facilitated the sexual abuse of a minor, "Minor Victim-3," by Epstein in London between 1994 and 1995. The document also states that Maxwell later attempted to conceal her conduct by providing false statements under oath during a 2016 deposition for a civil litigation case.
DOJ-OGR-00019212.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, alleges that MAXWELL actively participated in the sexual abuse of minors with Epstein. It details MAXWELL's involvement with 'Minor Victim-1' in 'group sexualized massages' at Epstein's residences in New York and Florida. The document also describes how MAXWELL allegedly groomed 'Minor Victim-2' in New Mexico around 1996, when the victim was under 18, for the purpose of being abused by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00019189.jpg
This document is page 16 of an indictment, filed on July 2, 2020, detailing charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes a charge of perjury (Count Five), stemming from her alleged false testimony during an April 22, 2016, deposition in a civil case where she denied knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages. The document also refers to Maxwell's role in transporting Minor Victim-1 from Florida to New York for sex acts with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00019185.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal indictment filed on July 2, 2020, detailing specific allegations against an individual named MAXWELL. The charges describe her involvement with Epstein in the sexual abuse and exploitation of three minors between 1994 and 1997. The alleged criminal acts, including group sexual encounters and enticement to travel for sex acts, occurred in New York, Florida, and London, England.
DOJ-OGR-00019182.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, alleges that an individual named MAXWELL participated in the sexual abuse of minors with Epstein. It details MAXWELL's alleged involvement with two victims: encouraging 'Minor Victim-1' to travel to Epstein's residences in New York and Florida for sexual encounters, and grooming 'Minor Victim-2' in New Mexico around 1996 for abuse by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00019178.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims for the purpose of sexual abuse. Maxwell is accused of encouraging victims to give Epstein massages, which led to sexual abuse that she sometimes participated in. The document also claims Epstein and Maxwell worked together to make victims feel indebted by offering to pay for travel and educational opportunities.
DOJ-OGR-00017200.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a rebuttal argument given by Ms. Comey. She argues that the witnesses—Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie—have no financial motive to lie, as their civil cases are settled and the victim compensation fund they were paid from is finished. Ms. Comey refutes the defense's implication of a financial incentive for Jane by clarifying that a conversation between Jane's lawyer and a prosecutor occurred in 2021, long after Jane had already received her financial award.
DOJ-OGR-00017195.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a rebuttal argument delivered by Ms. Comey on August 10, 2022. Comey refutes the defense's theory that witnesses (Kate, Carolyn, Annie, Jane) were manipulated by greedy lawyers to fabricate a story about Maxwell for financial gain from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. She argues there is no evidence for this conspiracy and highlights that one witness's lawyer worked pro bono, which contradicts the alleged financial motive.
DOJ-OGR-00017192.jpg
This document is a legal rebuttal arguing for the credibility of a witness named Jane, asserting that her memory of meeting Maxwell and Epstein and the onset of abuse at age 14 is accurate. It counters defense attempts to discredit her timeline by referencing Interlochen and flight records from 1994 and 1996, which place Jane, Maxwell, Epstein, and the defendant together at key times and locations, including flights to New York. The speaker emphasizes that Jane's memory of the abuse is more significant than minor discrepancies in dating events by public figures' birthdays.
DOJ-OGR-00017189.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a rebuttal by Ms. Comey in a criminal case. She argues against the defense's claim that four women (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) are misremembering their experiences, asserting that their core memories of trauma involving the defendant (Maxwell) and Epstein are solid and reliable. The prosecutor highlights specific, vivid memories of the victims to counter the defense's theory of a 'massive false memory event'.
DOJ-OGR-00017171.jpg
This document is a summation by Ms. Menninger in a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Menninger argues for reasonable doubt regarding Carolyn's involvement in Count Six, suggesting Carolyn added Ghislaine Maxwell to her story after financial difficulties. The summation also addresses the government's conspiracy theory involving Epstein and Maxwell arranging for underage females to travel to New York for sex acts, clarifying that Carolyn did not travel to New York and Annie Farmer's travel was independent of Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017095.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the conclusion of a prosecutor's closing argument, which urges the jury to convict Maxwell for sexually exploiting and trafficking underage girls, citing the testimony of witnesses like Juan Alessi, David Mulligan, and Janice Swain. Following the argument, the judge addresses the jury, announcing a short lunch break and reminding them not to discuss the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017094.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Moe in the case against Maxwell. Ms. Moe refutes the defense's claims regarding Maxwell's London residence by citing Maxwell's own 2019 deposition and argues for the credibility of four female witnesses (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie). She asserts that the witnesses are not motivated by money in the current trial, as their civil lawsuits are over and they have already received millions of dollars from the Jeffrey Epstein Victim Compensation Program.
DOJ-OGR-00017093.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Moe, likely a prosecutor, to a jury. She argues that the defense has deliberately misled the jury by taking a witness's (Jane's) statements and a legal document out of context. Ms. Moe highlights a specific portion of that document which states the defendant, Maxwell, facilitated and was present for the sexual abuse of Jane, a part she claims the defense intentionally omitted.
DOJ-OGR-00017087.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's, Ms. Moe's, summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Moe argues that the case is fundamentally about how Maxwell and her partner, Jeffrey Epstein, used manipulation, money, and their privileged status to groom and exploit vulnerable young girls from struggling families. She contrasts the small amounts of money paid to victims, like Carolyn, with the millions Maxwell received from Epstein to underscore the theme of exploitation.
DOJ-OGR-00017086.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's, Ms. Moe's, summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Moe argues that the government has proven Maxwell's guilt on all six charges, asserting that Maxwell made her own choices and committed crimes in partnership with Jeffrey Epstein. She refutes the defense's opening statement and urges the jury to hold Maxwell accountable based on the evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00017085.jpg
This document is a single page from a court transcript (summation by Ms. Moe) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that crimes took place within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of New York, citing trips to Manhattan by victims 'Jane' and 'Annie,' packages sent from Manhattan, and phone calls made by Maxwell to 'Carolyn' to schedule sexualized massages.
DOJ-OGR-00017084.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Moe) summation in a criminal trial, filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor outlines the evidence for Count Five, a sex trafficking conspiracy charge spanning 2000-2004, detailing how the defendant (identified as Maxwell) and co-conspirator Epstein recruited and trafficked victims Carolyn and Virginia Roberts. The prosecutor explains to the jury that they only need to find one instance of agreement and one step taken to carry out the conspiracy to find the defendant guilty.
DOJ-OGR-00017082.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation given by Ms. Moe in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor argues that the defendant, Maxwell, knowingly engaged an underage victim named Carolyn in commercial sex acts, paying her hundreds of dollars for what were termed "so-called massages." The summation also addresses the legal element of interstate commerce, referencing packages Carolyn received from New York.
DOJ-OGR-00017081.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript featuring the summation by Ms. Moe in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutor argues that Maxwell facilitated sexual abuse for Jeffrey Epstein involving victims named Kate, Jane, and Carolyn, specifically addressing Count Four and Count Six regarding sex trafficking of a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00017078.jpg
This document is a page from a court summation in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The speaker argues that the defendant, Maxwell, is guilty of enticing a minor named Jane to travel interstate to New York with the explicit intent for her to be sexually abused by Epstein. The argument cites testimony from Jane and Juan Alessi, as well as flight records, to establish the elements of inducement, travel, and criminal intent.
DOJ-OGR-00017077.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Moe) summation in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutor argues that Maxwell was an essential accomplice to Jeffrey Epstein, specifically detailing how she induced a victim named 'Jane' to travel across state lines to New York for sexual abuse. The testimony of a witness, Juan Alessi, is cited as evidence confirming Maxwell's role in arranging and participating in Jane's travel.
DOJ-OGR-00017076.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 Maxwell was complicit in crimes with an associate named Epstein, citing her living arrangements in Palm Beach, her knowledge of his preferences, and the millions of dollars she received from him. The prosecutor introduces the legal theory of 'aiding and abetting' as a basis for the jury to find Maxwell guilty on specific counts.
DOJ-OGR-00017075.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by 'Ms. Moe', arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's continued and deep involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities. The speaker refutes the defense's claim that Maxwell's relationship with Epstein ended around 2004 by citing evidence such as a 2005 household manual, Maxwell's stationery found in Epstein's home in 2005, and a $7.4 million payment from Epstein to Maxwell in 2007. The summation concludes that Maxwell was a knowing and key participant in Epstein's sexual abuse of children.
| 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 |
Culture of silence
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
Mr. Epstein's status
Maxwell would inform Carolyn upon her arrival that Mr. Epstein was out for a jog but would be back any moment, and that Carolyn could go upstairs and set up.
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.
Minor Victim-3's life and family
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
Scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein
Carolyn named Maxwell as one of two people who would call her to schedule massages with Jeffrey Epstein.
Civil Case Testimony
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
Scheduling massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
Spending time vs Communicating
Witness clarifies distinction between spending physical time vs communicating. States she stopped spending time around age 24.
Legal Review
Review of discovery materials
Scheduling massages and scheme operations
Maxwell instructed Kellen on how to schedule massages and manage a part of the criminal scheme that Maxwell had previously handled.
Reconsideration of response
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Famous people (e.g., Prince Andrew, Donald Trump)
The witness, Kate, states that Maxwell might be talking on the phone about her famous friends while Kate was present.
Reply brief
A filing titled "Maxwell Reply" is cited, where the Defendant raises an argument in a footnote for the first time.
Staff rules and operation of the Palm Beach residence
A household manual dictated the operation of the Palm Beach residence and included rules for staff, such as to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing'.
Interaction with Epstein
Maxwell directed Juan Alessi to speak to Epstein only when spoken to and not to look him in the eyes.
Advice about boyfriends
Maxwell advised Jane that once she has a sexual relationship with a boyfriend, she can always have one again because they are 'grandfathered in'.
Appointments
Maxwell has been on record since 2009 calling Carolyn for appointments.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Carolyn testified that Maxwell called her to schedule sexualized massages.
Small talk during massage
making small talk
Scheduling an appointment to massage Epstein
Maxwell, acting as one of Epstein's employees, would call victims to schedule appointments for them to massage Epstein at his Palm Beach Residence.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
Request to question Juror 50
Renewing request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions.
Maxwell's personal life, relationships, and her boyfriend...
Maxwell told Kate 'amazing things' about her boyfriend, describing him as a philanthropist who liked to help young people, and suggested it would be wonderful for Kate to meet him.
Culture of silence
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity