MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane
|
Acquaintance |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Friend |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Romantic |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Litigant judge |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Elizabeth
|
Adversarial defendant victim |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-1
|
Perpetrator victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Virginia Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Adversarial defendant victim |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Accomplice |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Criminal conspiracy |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Defendant victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Conspirators |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Groomer victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Scotty
|
Juror defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Groomer victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed speaker
|
Victim abuser |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Facilitator |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial investigative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Employees
|
Employee |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The 'Doe case' was stayed to avoid adversely affecting an ongoing criminal prosecution against Ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | A witness (A. Farmer) stayed at a ranch with Epstein and Maxwell. | the ranch | View |
| N/A | Conversation | Kate and Maxwell discussed Kate's family situation, including her mother's illness. | Maxwell's townhouse | View |
| N/A | Conversation | Kate and Maxwell discussed Kate's future plans, including her offer to study law at Oxford Univer... | Maxwell's townhouse | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell lied under oath during a civil deposition to conceal her crimes, specifically regarding h... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | A Superseding Indictment (S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)) was filed, charging Maxwell with eight counts, inc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defendant met victim and asked her to give massages. | The house | View |
| N/A | Trial | A four-and-a-half-week jury trial was held where the Government presented evidence of sexual abus... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan entered a 'challenged Order' denying Maxwell's request to use criminal discovery mat... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | Maxwell filed a motion to modify a Protective Order and subsequently appealed the denial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The Government charged Maxwell with perjury in connection with civil cases. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Maxwell and Mr. Epstein would be "out of town and be flying in" when appointments were scheduled ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, where this summation was delivered. | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| N/A | Scheduling | Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages. This is related to counts Five and Six. | New York | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An appeal by Maxwell regarding an Order to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A pending criminal case involving the parties. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Trip | The narrator visited Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. | private island in the U.S. ... | View |
| N/A | Abuse | The narrator was subjected to sexual predation multiple times per day over a period of seven to e... | New York mansion and privat... | View |
| N/A | Crime | Maxwell transported Jane to New York for sexual abuse and conspired to do the same. | New York | View |
| N/A | Trial | Maxwell's criminal trial, for which she received evidence (notes of Jane's interview) over three ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | The District Court sentenced Maxwell to 240 months' imprisonment, which was slightly above the Gu... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Crime | Epstein and the Defendant (Maxwell) groomed victims for abuse at various properties and in variou... | various properties and in v... | View |
| N/A | Attempted college application | The author wrote an application to FIT, which was controlled and ultimately never submitted by Ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | A court holds that the District Court did not err in applying a leadership enhancement or in expl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Interview | Upon her arrest, the defendant was interviewed by Pretrial Services and allegedly lied about her ... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014622.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, details overt acts from an indictment related to conspiracy charges. It alleges that between 1994 and 2002, Maxwell, along with co-conspirator Epstein, engaged in sexual abuse and trafficking of minors identified as Jane, Annie, and Carolyn. The alleged acts occurred in New York, Florida, and New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00014579.jpg
This document is a transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in a criminal trial. The speaker argues that the witnesses—Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie—have no financial motive to lie in their testimony against the defendant, Maxwell, as their civil cases are settled and they have already received compensation. The speaker specifically addresses and dismisses a defense claim regarding a conversation between Jane's lawyer and a prosecutor, asserting it does not constitute evidence of a financial incentive for testifying.
DOJ-OGR-00014576.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, showing a rebuttal by Ms. Comey. She argues against the defense's claim that their client, Maxwell, was framed by witnesses. Comey's reasoning is that before Epstein's death in 2019, he was the 'big fish' and the logical target for any fabricated stories, meaning there was no motive for witnesses to invent Maxwell's involvement years ago.
DOJ-OGR-00014575.jpg
This document is a transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in a criminal case against a defendant named Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues against the defense's theory that lawyers fabricated stories about Maxwell for financial gain. She presents evidence that three victims—Jane, Carolyn, and Annie—had reported Maxwell's involvement to friends, boyfriends, and the FBI years prior (in 2006 and 2007), long before any compensation fund or financial incentive existed, thus making the defense's theory untenable.
DOJ-OGR-00014573.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal rebuttal by Ms. Comey, filed on August 10, 2022. Comey argues that the defense is focusing on 'peripheral details' to distract the jury from the core fact that a witness, Carolyn, has consistently and without prompting identified Maxwell as a key figure involved in scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein, citing Carolyn's 2009 deposition. The argument aims to reinforce the credibility of Carolyn's memory against defense suggestions that it was contaminated or implanted.
DOJ-OGR-00014572.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey. She counters the defense's focus on inconsistencies in the testimony of a victim named Carolyn, specifically regarding her age at the time of abuse (16 vs. 14) and her memory of a photo of a pregnant Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues these are minor details, asserts the act was still a crime, and directs the jury to government exhibits that support the presence of such photos in the Palm Beach house.
DOJ-OGR-00014565.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey's) rebuttal in a criminal trial, likely against Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues that the jury should rely on the powerful and consistent testimony of multiple victims, as sexual abuse crimes rarely produce documentary evidence. She highlights that three separate victims gave similar accounts of the defendant touching their breasts and using massage as a prelude to sexual abuse, which serves as strong corroboration of guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014550.jpg
This document is a transcript of a closing argument by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues for Maxwell's acquittal on 'Count Six', which relates to an accuser named Carolyn, by attacking Carolyn's credibility and claiming she never traveled to New York as alleged. The attorney also distances Maxwell from any involvement in the travel of another individual, Annie Farmer, to undermine the government's broader conspiracy theory involving Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002855.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 29, 2021. It details specific allegations of Maxwell facilitating the sexual abuse of three unnamed minors (Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4) for Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2002. The alleged incidents occurred in various locations, including New Mexico, London, and Florida, and form the basis for Count Two of the indictment, 'Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts'.
DOJ-OGR-00020149.jpg
This legal document is a court order signed by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 28, 2020. The order explicitly denies Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail. The decision references a precedent from the 2018 case of United States v. Raniere.
DOJ-OGR-00020075.jpg
This legal document argues for the continued detention of the defendant, Maxwell. It asserts that even though some documentary evidence does not name her, it supports victims' testimonies about their interactions with both her and her co-conspirator, Epstein, making the Government's case strong. The document also dismisses the defense's bail arguments, citing the defendant's foreign ties, transfer of millions to her spouse, and ability to hide as factors that weigh heavily in favor of detention.
DOJ-OGR-00005551.jpg
This legal document outlines the recollections of an individual identified as 'AK' regarding discussions about the Epstein case. AK recalls a meeting with attorneys where she sought to clarify their proposal to have the SDNY re-investigate conduct previously handled in Florida, and she disputes an account of the meeting from Brad Edwards's book. The document also notes AK's vague memory of being told about depositions and the possibility of perjury charges against Maxwell, though no investigation was opened, and her decision to take no further action on the Epstein matter after calling Sean Watson.
DOJ-OGR-00005550.jpg
This document summarizes the recollections of 'AK,' a Human Trafficking Coordinator, regarding potential investigations into Epstein at SDNY. AK denies that attorneys urged an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell as a 'duo,' stating the focus was on Epstein and Maxwell was only mentioned in passing. AK also denies ever meeting or speaking with attorney David Boies and has no memory of a second meeting on the subject in the summer of 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00005546.jpg
This document summarizes a conference call held on February 11, 2021, with Amanda Kramer (AK) regarding her recollections of a meeting on February 29, 2016. During the 2016 meeting, attorneys Pete Skinner, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger presented information to AK, who was then a prosecutor, advocating for the SDNY to open a criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The memo details AK's limited memory of the meeting, the roles of the attorneys, and the mention of civil lawsuits, including the 'Guiffre v. Maxwell' case.
DOJ-OGR-00005318.jpg
This document is a transcript of Judge Alison Nathan's preliminary remarks to potential jurors in the case of United States v. Maxwell, filed on October 22, 2021. The judge welcomes the jury pool to the Southern District of New York and outlines the two-phase jury selection process, which includes filling out a questionnaire and potential in-person questioning starting in mid-November.
DOJ-OGR-00020381.jpg
This is the conclusion page of a legal document filed on May 27, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. Assistant United States Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach argue that a motion filed by an individual named Maxwell should be denied. The document is electronically signed by Maurene Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00020377.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to an appeal by Maxwell regarding her pretrial confinement conditions. The Government argues that Maxwell's complaints about disruptive nighttime flashlight checks are unsubstantiated and do not demonstrably interfere with her trial preparation. The document also refutes Maxwell's accusations of misrepresentation, clarifying a statement made by Government counsel and explaining an acknowledged inaccuracy in information received from the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00020375.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court order denying a renewed motion by an individual named Maxwell for temporary release from confinement. The court relies on the 'law of the case' doctrine, stating that Maxwell has not provided a compelling reason, such as new evidence or a change in law, to justify reversing its prior decision. The court also dismisses Maxwell's arguments concerning a recent letter briefing and a written order by Judge Nathan, affirming the previous finding that Maxwell is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020374.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a 'renewed motion' from a defendant named Maxwell is meritless. It cites legal precedents (United States v. Hochevar, Stack v. Boyle) and procedural rules to assert that the motion is not properly before the court. The document further states that a lower court judge, Judge Nathan, did not err in previously finding three times that Maxwell is a flight risk and denying bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) discusses the court's affirmation of Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The text argues that MDC's nighttime security protocols do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation and notes procedural errors in Maxwell's filing of a 'renewed motion' rather than a new appeal or proper motion in District Court. It cites Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the untimeliness of the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00020368.jpg
This document page, part of a legal filing from May 2021, details the Government's response to Judge Nathan regarding 'flashlight surveillance' of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. It explains that while general population inmates are checked hourly and SHU inmates every 30 minutes, Maxwell is checked every 15 minutes due to an 'enhanced security schedule' and 'heightened safety and security concerns,' despite not being on suicide watch.
DOJ-OGR-00020367.jpg
This legal document outlines the procedural history of a case involving a defendant named Maxwell. After Maxwell appealed two of Judge Nathan's bail decisions and was denied pretrial release on April 27, 2021, she did not file a renewed motion. Instead, on April 29, 2021, she submitted a letter to Judge Nathan requesting the court to order the MDC to stop or justify the 15-minute light surveillance that was disrupting her sleep.
DOJ-OGR-00020366.jpg
This legal document details the court's denial of a bail application filed by the defendant, Maxwell, on February 23, 2021. Judge Nathan found Maxwell's arguments about her confinement conditions unpersuasive and reiterated that her detention was necessary due to her being a flight risk, citing her substantial international ties, financial resources, and a "lack of candor regarding her assets" at the time of her arrest. The judge concluded that even a substantial bail package could not reasonably assure Maxwell's future appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00020362.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, is a court filing outlining the allegations against Maxwell. It details her alleged role as a co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997, including identifying, enticing, and grooming victims. The document also references a Superseding Indictment that expanded the charges and the conspiracy timeline to 2004, and notes that Maxwell lied under oath in a civil deposition to conceal her crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00020322.jpg
This is a 'Notice of Case Manager Change' issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 27, 2021, regarding the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Case 21-58cr). The document lists Debra Ann Livingston as Chief Judge and Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe as Clerk of Court, and references the lower court proceedings in the SDNY under Judge Nathan.
| 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 |
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.
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.
Reconsideration of response
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
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 massage appointments
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
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.
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.
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.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
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.
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.
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.
Scheduling massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
Small talk during massage
making small talk
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity