| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-01-01 | Investigation | The USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's two depositions took place sometime before the summer of 2016. | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The defendant testified under oath in a civil deposition related to a lawsuit brought by Virginia... | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Deposition | Maxwell's deposition where she agreed to testify, relying on the confidentiality protections of t... | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Deposition | Maxwell's July 2016 deposition is mentioned in a section heading. | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Deposition | A deposition of Maxwell took place. | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Deposition | Deposition of Maxwell as part of the factual background. | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Deposition | Maxwell's deposition, grouped with the April 2016 deposition where she declined to invoke privilege. | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Deposition | Maxwell declined to invoke her privilege against compulsory self-incrimination but agreed to test... | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Deposition | Maxwell appeared at a second deposition and answered questions. A superseding indictment alleges ... | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Investigation | An investigation into Maxwell was fomented, with evidence of collusion tracing back to early 2016. | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Deposition | Deposition of Maxwell took place. | N/A | View |
| 2015-09-21 | N/A | Filing of Document 1 in Case 1:15-cv-07433 | Court (implied) | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Legal filing | Virginia Giuffre filed a civil defamation case, Giuffre v. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Legal filing | Giuffre, represented by Boies Schiller, filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2009-01-01 | Testimony | Carolyn testified under oath that Maxwell called her to schedule sexualized massages. | Court | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Report to law enforcement | Carolyn mentioned meeting a woman with short black hair and an accent (implied to be Maxwell) to ... | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Financial transaction | Epstein paid Maxwell $7.4 million. | N/A | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Report to law enforcement | Annie reported to the FBI how Maxwell touched her breasts during a massage. | N/A | View |
| 2006-01-01 | N/A | Epstein and Maxwell kept Ransome's passport, threatened her, and forced her into sex with them an... | N/A | View |
| 2005-01-01 | Document creation | A household manual for the Palm Beach house, outlining demands from Epstein and Maxwell, was date... | Palm Beach | View |
| 2004-12-31 | Crime | End of a four-year time period in which alleged sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy oc... | N/A | View |
| 2004-07-09 | Phone call | Maxwell called for Mr Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Hesse stopped working for Maxwell and Epstein | N/A | View |
| 2004-01-01 | Personal relationship | Maxwell started dating Ted Waitt. | N/A | View |
This document is an email dated March 7, 2020, sent by an Assistant U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York. The email transmits a draft legal document titled 'Maxwell draft elements, order of proof', likely related to the prosecution strategy for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell.
This document is an email dated March 30, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. The email discusses the dismissal of a lawsuit by Judge Koeltl and outlines a plan to request materials that were disclosed to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team during an upcoming discussion.
An email dated June 30, 2020, from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York to a team of colleagues. The email distributes a draft press release regarding the impending arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell ('GM'), which the sender hopes will occur 'tomorrow or Thursday at the latest' (July 1st or 2nd, 2020). The document includes an attachment titled '2020-06-30,_GM,_press_release,_draft.docx'.
This document is an email chain from November 2021 circulating a transcript from the 'US V Maxwell' trial. The emails contain an attachment named 'LBAAMAXH.pdf'. The sender and recipient identities are heavily redacted, though one recipient appears to be designated as a contractor.
This document is an email dated February 5, 2019, sent by a Government representative to the Chambers of Judge Sweet regarding the case 'v. Maxwell, et al., 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)'. The email transmits an attachment related to an unsealing application and order, which the Government requests be filed under seal. The sender and recipient email addresses are redacted.
An internal email from a Paralegal Specialist at the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) dated October 5, 2021. The email confirms that a thumb drive provided by defense counsel has been loaded with the latest discovery production for Ghislaine Maxwell ('GM') and asks colleagues to approve attached letters associated with the transfer.
An email dated October 1, 2021, with redacted sender and recipient. The subject and attachment refer to 'Maxwell Jury Exercise Takeaways,' suggesting legal strategy or jury consulting work related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The body text provides brief feedback on the attached document's introduction.
This document is an email header/metadata page dated October 26, 2020. The subject line indicates it transmits notes from a call that took place on the same day with the Georgia U.S. Attorney's Office (GA USAO) regarding 'Maxwell' (likely Ghislaine Maxwell). The actual content is contained in an embedded .msg file not shown in the image. The sender and recipients are redacted.
This document is an email chain from March 2021 concerning the US v. Maxwell case, specifically regarding requests from defense counsel to view highly confidential images and physical evidence. The emails detail logistics for reviewing evidence, including questions about image formats, metadata, the need for multiple laptops for review, inventory lists of physical items, and proposed dates and locations for the review at 500 Pearl Street.
This document is an email chain from July 6, 2019, involving Geoffrey Berman and other SDNY officials, coordinating the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein. It confirms that Judge Moses signed a search warrant, Epstein was confirmed on a flight with two pilots (manifest provided by CBP), and was subsequently taken into custody upon arrival. The emails also mention agents performing 'approaches' regarding Maxwell and another individual on the same day.
This document is an email dated November 12, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York to a colleague. The sender requests the preparation of a binder for an upcoming court appearance on the following Monday, attaching various legal documents related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, including motions regarding 'MV-3' (Minor Victim 3), expert witnesses Dietz and Loftus, and responses to the defense.
This document is an email header dated January 5, 2021, originating from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The subject concerns activity in the criminal case 'USA v. Maxwell' (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), specifically regarding the setting or resetting of deadlines. The specific names of the senders and recipients are redacted.
This document is an email from an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York regarding an upcoming court update for Maxwell's conditions of confinement, due on April 6, 2021. The sender proposes a call to discuss the matter, particularly issues raised in defense counsel's letter, and attaches a PDF document titled 'MDC_Conditions_Letter_2-16_FINAL.pdf'. Redactions are present for sender and recipient names.
An email chain dated November 15, 2021, discussing the provision of a password for a hard drive intended for 'Maxwell' (Ghislaine Maxwell). A legal assistant requests the password to provide the hard drive to her the following day, and a subsequent email attaches a letter containing the necessary password. The document references the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center) in the attachment filename.
This document is a chain of three emails forwarded between June 28 and June 30, 2021. The subject concerns a 'Maxwell Suppression Opinion,' referencing the legal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20cr330). The final email includes attachments of a sealed opinion and order dated June 25, 2021. All participants in the email chain are redacted.
This document is a printout of an email header dated December 8, 2020. The subject is 'Maxwell Related Question,' likely pertaining to Ghislaine Maxwell. The sender and primary recipients are redacted, but a Bcc recipient is identified as 'USAHUB-USAJournal111'. The email originated from an Outlook/Exchange environment and included an embedded message attachment.
An internal email from an Assistant United States Attorney at the Southern District of New York dated September 13, 2021. The email attaches a discovery letter related to the Maxwell case and discusses procedural etiquette regarding whose name should appear in the signature block of such letters.
An email dated April 1, 2021, sent by an Assistant United States Attorney from the Southern District of New York. The email concerns a 'Maxwell bail briefing' and includes four attachments related to Ghislaine Maxwell's legal proceedings, including bail motions, denial orders, and arraignment records spanning from July 2020 to April 2021.
An email sent on August 11, 2019, sharing a link to a New York Post article about Jeffrey Epstein's alleged recruiters. The sender highlights a specific claim from the article that Ghislaine Maxwell is cooperating with authorities. The identities of the sender and recipients are redacted.
This document contains the metadata and header information for an email sent on February 22, 2021, with the subject 'Re: Maxwell Follow Up'. The sender and primary recipients are redacted, but 'USAHUB-USAJournal111' is visible in the BCC field. The document appears to be part of a larger production, marked with the identifier EFTA00027082.
This document contains the header information of an email sent by an FBI agent in New York on October 20, 2020. The subject line 'Maxwell discovery review' suggests it relates to the legal proceedings or investigation involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The document lists metadata including message ID and an embedded message file, but heavily redact sender and recipient identities.
This document contains the metadata header for an email sent on February 22, 2021, with the subject 'RE: Maxwell Follow Up'. The sender and primary recipients are redacted, but a Bcc recipient is identified as 'USAHUB-USAJournal111'. The document includes a Message-ID indicative of Microsoft Outlook architecture.
This document is an email dated February 22, 2021, with the subject 'Opposition to Maxwell GJ Motion'. It was sent from a redacted sender to multiple redacted recipients, including 'USANYS' and 'USAHUB-USAJournal111' in Bcc, and includes an embedded message file named 'Opposition_to_Maxwell_GJ_Motion.msg'.
An email from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) regarding a telephone conference for the Maxwell case presided over by Judge Nathan. The email follows up on previous communication from Bobbi Sternheim and provides dial-in information for the defendant, referencing an attached court order.
| 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 |
Review of discovery materials
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.
making small talk
She told me to get undressed.
Maxwell asked Carolyn what she wanted to do in the future, and Carolyn replied that she wanted to become a massage therapist.
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of a response from the District Court, claiming it resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
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.
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.
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
A reply brief cited as "Maxwell Reply at 18" where the Defendant asserts the government failed to prove its case.
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
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.
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.
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
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.
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
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.
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
Maxwell informing Carolyn that Epstein was on a jog or would be back soon and that she could go upstairs to set up.
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
Witness clarifies distinction between spending physical time vs communicating. States she stopped spending time around age 24.
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Renewing request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity