MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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-00013122.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies about her interactions with a person named Maxwell, who invited her to an island and asked about her career aspirations. Carolyn states she told Maxwell she was 14, but Maxwell continued to call her to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013121.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies about conversations she had with Maxwell, revealing that she disclosed her mother's alcoholism and that she had been raped and molested by her grandfather from the age of four. She also recounts that Mr. Epstein and Maxwell invited her to an island, but she was unable to go because she was too young to get a passport.
DOJ-OGR-00013120.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn (likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the case number). Carolyn testifies about driving to Jeffrey Epstein's house without a license to provide massages. She details entering through the kitchen where she would regularly encounter Maxwell, who would update her on Epstein's location (e.g., out jogging) and instruct her to go upstairs to set up.
DOJ-OGR-00013117.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. She testifies about being contacted to schedule appointments, often by individuals named Sarah or Maxwell, or through intermediaries like her mother or a person named Shawn. The calls sometimes mentioned that people would be flying in from New York for these appointments.
DOJ-OGR-00013116.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies that a person named Maxwell would call her to schedule appointments, often stating that "they," referring to Maxwell and Mr. Epstein, were flying in from out of town. The transcript also notes the admission of an exhibit (GX-608), Carolyn's mother's phone number, into evidence under seal to protect the witness's anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00013115.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies that she provided her cell phone, her mother's cell phone, and Shawn's home phone number to Maxwell and Sarah for the purpose of scheduling 'massage appointments'. She states she cannot recall her own old number but remembers her mother's, which she has written down for the court as part of Government Exhibit 608.
DOJ-OGR-00013050.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Ms. Comey conducting a direct examination of a witness named Meder. The testimony centers on identifying a photograph (Government Exhibit 332) from a CD that was part of the 'Epstein and Maxwell investigation.' The witness is also questioned about their familiarity with the appearance of Virginia Roberts.
DOJ-OGR-00013003.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring a legal argument regarding the admissibility of a topless photograph of an unnamed victim. The prosecution argues the photo corroborates testimony that the victim was a minor involved in the conspiracy, citing flight logs showing she traveled with Epstein and Maxwell at age 17. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger objects, citing photo metadata and testimony from Mr. Alessi (House Manager) suggesting the victim was an adult (met in 2001/2002) when the events occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00012997.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of a photograph as evidence. The defense, represented by Ms. Menninger, objects to the photograph's authentication, while the prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, argues it was properly seized by the FBI from Jeffrey Epstein's residence. Ms. Moe further contends the photograph's relevance is self-evident as it depicts the relationship between Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00010549.jpg
This legal document details a scheme of sexual abuse involving the defendant (Maxwell) and Epstein. It describes how Maxwell recruited 17-year-old Virginia Roberts in the summer of 2000, who was then paid for sexualized massages. The scheme escalated into a 'pyramid scheme' when Virginia, in 2001, introduced 14-year-old Carolyn, who was subsequently abused by Epstein over 100 times under the defendant's direction.
DOJ-OGR-00010543.jpg
This legal document describes Ghislaine Maxwell's role as supervisor of Jeffrey Epstein's households, where she acted as 'the lady of the house.' It details how she was financially supported by Epstein, receiving a townhouse and $23 million, while enforcing a strict culture of silence among staff to protect their criminal activities. The document cites a household manual and testimony from former manager Juan Alessi to illustrate the extreme rules of secrecy and obedience she imposed.
DOJ-OGR-00010539.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing for a severe sentence for the defendant due to her extensive involvement in the sexual abuse of minors, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the defendant's lack of remorse. It rejects the defendant's claims regarding prison conditions and her attempts to shift blame, asserting that she willingly participated in and facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00010529.jpg
This document is the final page of a legal filing submitted on June 21, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney Robert Y. Lewis formally requests that Ms. Ransome and Ms. Stein be permitted to speak at Maxwell's upcoming sentencing hearing. The letter is copied to various attorneys involved in the case, including defense counsel (Cohen, Menninger, Sternheim) and DOJ prosecutors (Moe, Comey, Pomerantz).
DOJ-OGR-00009186.jpg
This document is a news article from the Daily Mail, filed as a legal exhibit, detailing an interview with 'Scotty,' a juror from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Scotty expresses his satisfaction with the guilty verdict, stating the jury was convinced Maxwell was 'every bit as culpable' as her associate Epstein. He affirms that the prosecution proved its case 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that justice was served for the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00009183.jpg
This document details two related legal matters. First, it provides an inside account from a juror named Scotty on the deliberations in the Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking trial, explaining how the jury reached its verdict. Second, it reports on a court hearing for Prince Andrew, where Judge Kaplan appeared highly skeptical of arguments made by the prince's lawyer, Andrew Brettler, who sought to use a 2009 settlement between victim Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey Epstein to have the case dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00009181.jpg
This document is a page from a Daily Mail news article, filed as part of a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-RA) on February 4, 2022. It features a photo of a juror named Scotty and a courtroom sketch of the defendant, Maxwell. The text states that Scotty is satisfied with the guilty verdict and believes Maxwell will spend the rest of her life in prison.
DOJ-OGR-00009173.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing detailing a juror's (David's) explanation for Ghislaine Maxwell's acquittal on a specific charge (count two) involving the accuser 'Jane'. David clarifies to 'The Independent' that the jury's decision was based on a lack of direct evidence that Maxwell 'enticed' Jane to travel, not on a disbelief of Jane's testimony. The document also mentions corroborating evidence such as flight logs and Maxwell's 'little black book', which listed names of 'masseuses' and Palm Beach police officers.
DOJ-OGR-00009171.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing, detailing the perspective of a juror named David. David explains to The Independent why he and the jury found the victims credible, despite defense arguments about their behavior and the fallibility of memory. He emphasizes that the jury's role was to judge the stories, not the victims' decisions, and notes that the defense's memory expert, Professor Elizabeth Loftus, did not sway their verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009130.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, analyzes post-trial interviews given by 'Juror 50' in the Maxwell case. The document recounts the juror's statements to media outlets like Reuters and The Independent, where he discussed his initial impartiality, his handling of the juror questionnaire regarding his own experience of sexual abuse, and the jury's reasoning for their verdict. The filing argues that a full review of the juror's interviews demonstrates his impartiality and the care taken during deliberations, countering the defendant's claims of bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009063.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 24, 2022, arguing against the public release of pleadings from 'Juror No. 50'. The argument cites legal precedents, primarily Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, to outline the three-step process for determining public access to judicial documents. The author contends that releasing the documents would be prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial and that there is no compelling reason for their release.
DOJ-OGR-00008968.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 604) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 17, 2022. The text presents a legal argument regarding juror misconduct, asserting that a juror hid a central issue during selection that they later raised during deliberations. The filing argues that the defense should not be required to prove the juror's 'willfulness' to obtain relief, citing Supreme Court precedents (Sheppard v. Maxwell, Irvin v. Dowd) regarding fair trials for unpopular defendants facing adverse publicity.
DOJ-OGR-00008914.jpg
This legal document is a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 11, 2022. The Court denies two separate requests: first, it denies Juror 50's motion to intervene in the criminal case, and second, it denies the Defendant's requests to either strike or seal Juror 50's motion. The Court's reasoning relies on legal precedent, stating that motions to strike are disfavored and that Juror 50's motion qualifies as a judicial document subject to the presumption of public access.
DOJ-OGR-00019867.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, alleges that the defendant (implied to be Maxwell) encouraged victims to accept financial offers from Epstein and participated with him in grooming and abusing minors. It further claims the defendant lied under oath during a 2016 deposition in the Southern District of New York to conceal these crimes. The document then outlines the applicable law for detention under the Bail Reform Act, citing several legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00019866.jpg
This legal document provides background on a sealed indictment returned on June 29, 2020, against a defendant, identified as Maxwell. The charges, including conspiracy and sex trafficking of minors, stem from an alleged scheme with Epstein between 1994 and 1997 to sexually abuse underage girls at his properties in New York, Florida, and New Mexico. The document details Maxwell's alleged role in identifying, grooming, and abusing the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00019853.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ghislaine Maxwell was not a flight risk prior to her arrest. It asserts that she was living openly in her New Hampshire home, her lawyers were in communication with the government, and she had not left the U.S. for years. The document attributes her low profile to intense media harassment, citing a £10,000 bounty offered by The Sun tabloid as a reason for her to seek privacy for safety.
| 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 |
General life updates and invitations
The witness (Kate) testifies that she communicated with Maxwell by phone. Maxwell would ask about her life, if she was dating, and if she wanted to visit. Sexual topics were not discussed on the phone.
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.
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.
Instruction to touch Epstein
According to Kate's testimony, when Maxwell introduced her to Epstein, Maxwell told her to give his feet a squeeze to show how strong she was.
Reply brief
A filing titled "Maxwell Reply" is cited, where the Defendant raises an argument in a footnote for the first time.
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.
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'.
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.
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'.
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.
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 and scheme operations
Maxwell instructed Kellen on how to schedule massages and manage a part of the criminal scheme that Maxwell had previously handled.
Scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein
Carolyn named Maxwell as one of two people who would call her to schedule massages with Jeffrey Epstein.
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.
Culture of silence
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
Culture of silence
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
Travel
Maxwell told Kate that she was very accommodating and that whenever Kate wanted to visit, Maxwell and others ('they') would take care of everything. This conversation happened before Maxwell gave Kate a handbag.
Setting up appointment times for so-called massages
Maxwell would call Carolyn to set up appointments for massages, particularly in the first year or two.
Travel
Maxwell told Kate that she was very accommodating and that whenever Kate wanted to visit, Maxwell and others ('they') would take care of everything. This conversation happened before Maxwell gave Kate a handbag.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
Minor Victim-3's life and family
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
Maxwell Reply
A reply brief filed by the Defendant, Maxwell, which raises an argument about the jury instructions.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity