the defendant
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
17
Very Strong
|
24 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
65 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
13
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Business associate |
12
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror defendant |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MDC staff
|
Custodial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Abuser victim |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirator alleged |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Financial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Abuser victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
location
France
|
Citizenship |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Minor Victims-1 through -4 | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Illegal sexual abuse | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Payment of criminal monetary penalties within 30 (or 60) days after release from imprisonment, ba... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jane's testimony regarding sexual abuse | New Mexico (abuse location) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual Abuse | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defendant living in isolation and hiding assets | Unknown hiding location | View |
| N/A | N/A | Period during which the defendant and Epstein committed crimes together. | Epstein's properties | View |
| N/A | N/A | Attendance at Arts Camp | Arts Camp | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flights on private planes with minors | Epstein's private planes | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search of the New York Residence. | New York Residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Limited Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial completion | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flight to New Mexico | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | N/A | Post-trial allegation of juror bias | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defendant's evasion of detection leading up to arrest. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Massages taking place in Epstein's bedroom. | Epstein's Bedroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defendant's Quarantine | MDC | View |
| N/A | N/A | Motion for a New Trial | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Grooming and sex acts involving Minor Victim-3 | London | View |
| N/A | N/A | Evasion of detection/press | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition where alleged perjury occurred. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Legal Ruling | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Arrest of Defendant | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Anticipated trial where evidence regarding victims and terms like 'rape' will be used. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing ruling where the judge determines Virginia Roberts and Melissa are victims for... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002818.jpg
This legal filing argues against a subpoena issued by the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) to BSF, claiming the requested documents are either procurable from the government or are items (boots and photographs) better produced at trial if relevant. The document specifically mentions photographs connecting the Defendant, Virginia Giuffre, and Prince Andrew at a London townhome, as well as items related to Annie and Maria Farmer.
DOJ-OGR-00002773.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court is denying a third motion for bail, citing the Defendant's flight risk due to international ties, substantial financial resources, and experience evading detection. The Court also highlights a lack of candor regarding the Defendant's assets, noting discrepancies between information provided to Pretrial Services in July 2020 and the Court in December 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00002768.jpg
This is page 2 of a court order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the defendant's third motion for release on bail, rejecting new proposals such as renouncing her French and British citizenship and placing spousal assets under the monitoring of a retired judge. The document reiterates that the defendant remains a flight risk and that government evidence remains strong.
DOJ-OGR-00020140.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020 (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), denying release/bail for the Defendant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court argues that the Defendant poses a significant flight risk due to her French citizenship, the difficulty of extradition (specifically mentioning Israel), her extraordinary financial resources, and her proven ability to avoid detection. The Court explicitly rejects the Defendant's argument that waiving extradition rights indicates an intent not to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00020137.jpg
This page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330) denies bail arguments for the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court affirms that the Government's case is strong, relying on testimony from three witnesses regarding the enticement of minors, flight records, and links to Epstein. The document cites the Defendant's international ties, foreign citizenships, foreign property, and extraordinary financial resources as reasons for continued flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020133.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court order filed on December 28, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text details the Court's rejection of the Defendant's motion for release, despite her offers to pay for private security, waive extradition rights from the UK and France, and arguments regarding COVID-19 risks in confinement. The Court concludes that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00020094.jpg
This document is a page from a Government court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely USA v. Maxwell) dated December 18, 2020. It addresses defense complaints regarding discovery access, noting that one hard drive malfunctioned because the defendant dropped it, and details her special confinement conditions at the MDC, which include 13 hours out of cell, private shower, computers, phone, and TV. A footnote highlights a contradiction in the defense's arguments regarding the value of discovery versus the prejudice caused by delays.
DOJ-OGR-00020092.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is an extreme flight risk. The Government cites her foreign citizenship in a non-extraditing country, substantial international ties, financial resources, and a demonstrated sophistication in hiding assets. The filing also refutes the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement, stating she has ample access to her legal counsel and discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00020087.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing opposing the defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) bail application. It argues she is a flight risk who has sophisticatedly hidden her wealth by transferring millions of dollars to her spouse through trusts over the last five years, noting she brought over $20 million to the marriage while he brought only $200,000. The text highlights her lack of candor with Pretrial Services regarding her net worth and the ownership of her New Hampshire residence.
DOJ-OGR-00020085.jpg
This legal document argues for the defendant's detention by highlighting her evasive behavior and lack of trustworthiness. It cites an instance where she fled from FBI agents and suggests her actions, like wrapping a phone in tin foil, were meant to evade law enforcement. Furthermore, it claims the defendant was deceptive about her wealth, reporting only $3.8 million to Pretrial Services when evidence suggests she has access to far more, indicating a willingness to deceive the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00020084.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing against a renewed bail application for the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). It details her evasion of law enforcement, noting that despite communications between her counsel and the government from July 2019 to March 2020, her location was never disclosed. It further highlights that upon arrest, she ignored FBI directives and fled from agents who were clearly identified, countering defense claims that she was simply following security protocols.
DOJ-OGR-00020081.jpg
This document is page 18 of a government filing (Document 102) from June 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues against bail by highlighting flight risks, specifically noting that France does not extradite its own citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and arguing that any 'anticipatory waiver' of extradition the defendant might sign regarding the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable under UK law (referencing the Extradition Act of 2003 and U.S. v. Stanton). The prosecution asserts that such waivers are meaningless until a defendant is physically present before a British judge.
DOJ-OGR-00020080.jpg
This page from a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant poses a flight risk because French law strictly prohibits the extradition of French nationals. The prosecution refutes the defense expert's claim that there is no precedent for this by citing the 2006 case of Hans Peterson, a dual US-French citizen who committed murder in the US but could not be extradited from French territory (Guadeloupe) despite US efforts.
DOJ-OGR-00020077.jpg
This page from a government filing (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant is a flight risk. It highlights her time hiding in New Hampshire, her foreign ties to the UK and France, and the difficulty of extradition. A footnote reveals that in 2018, despite being married, both the defendant and her spouse listed their status as 'single' on bank trust account forms, which the government cites as evidence of a lack of candor.
DOJ-OGR-00020074.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on December 28, 2020. The text argues that government evidence, including documentary evidence and witness testimony, 'virtually indisputably' proves that the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein interacted with minor victims. The document addresses a defense complaint regarding the volume of evidence produced in discovery, though specific details of the defense's argument and specific evidence are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00020060.jpg
This document is the cover page for Exhibit F, a legal filing from April 1, 2021, in Case 21-58. It is the Government's Memorandum in Support of the Defendant's Renewed Motion for Release, indicating the prosecution is not opposing the defendant's request to be released from custody.
DOJ-OGR-00019959.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on April 1, 2021, concerning a defendant's bail. A government representative, Ms. Moe, argues that the defendant is a significant flight risk due to possessing multiple passports, large sums of money, and international connections, and should therefore be detained pending trial. The judge clarifies with Ms. Moe that the government's sole basis for requesting detention is the risk of flight, not any danger the defendant poses to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00005823.jpg
This document is page 40 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) from October 29, 2021, arguing for the admissibility of testimony from 'Employee-1'. The text details that Employee-1 will testify that in October 2005, Epstein and a supervisor ordered the removal of computers and contact books from the house. The government argues this testimony proves the defendant's role in the conspiracy, knowledge of the abuse of underage girls, and authenticates exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00005652.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 386-1) is a formal request from the United States Attorney's Office (Audrey Strauss, signed by Assistants including Maurene Comey and Alison Moe) to the defense. The Government reiterates a request originally made on August 5, 2020, for reciprocal discovery regarding evidence the defendant intends to use at trial and prior statements of defense witnesses (referring to the defendant as 'she'). The document cites Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16(b) and 26.2.
DOJ-OGR-00005651.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the Government (prosecution) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), providing notice of expert testimony by Dr. Rocchio. The filing outlines that Dr. Rocchio will testify generally about the psychology of trauma, sexual abuse, grooming tactics, and delayed disclosure by victims, explicitly stating she has not evaluated any specific victims in this case. Additionally, the Government requests reciprocal discovery regarding any expert witnesses the defense intends to call.
DOJ-OGR-00005590.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE on October 29, 2021. The Government argues that the Court should prohibit the defense from challenging the credibility of individuals who will not be witnesses at trial, specifically mentioning Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6. The motion also asserts that any evidence or argument concerning the minor victims' consent is categorically inadmissible given the nature of the charges against the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00005574.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, addresses the defense's arguments against a motion, asserting that the Government's actions are not merely tactical but aimed at protecting victims. It emphasizes the importance of privacy safeguards for Minor Victims, including the use of pseudonyms and the sealing of exhibits containing identifying information, while maintaining public and press access to the trial and most evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00005573.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discusses the court's ruling on the anonymity of 'Minor Victim-4' during trial. The court rejects the defense's argument that using the victim's real name is necessary for impeachment or to address allegations of suborning perjury. The ruling allows the defense to use the victim's first name and show unredacted exhibits to the jury, but prohibits saying the victim's last name out loud in court.
DOJ-OGR-00005571.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is part of a court case where the Government is arguing for the protection of 'Minor Victims' by allowing them to testify under pseudonyms. The Government asserts that this protection is necessary to prevent their identities from being exposed by news outlets, which would cause significant harm, and that the Defendant's need for witness information does not outweigh this need for protection. The document cites the Second Circuit's definition of a defendant's interests in witness disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00005569.jpg
This document is page 15 of a Government filing dated October 29, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It discusses the Government's proposal to protect the identities of Minor Victims 1, 3, 4, and 6 through the use of pseudonyms or first names only during testimony. The text explicitly links the 'intimate details of childhood sexual abuse' to both the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Security Guards | $0.00 | Defendant proposes to pay for on-premises secur... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Young girls | $0.00 | Cash payments handed to girls after massage app... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Bank Accounts | $0.00 | Placing assets into accounts held under other n... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Unnamed real esta... | $0.00 | Purchasing a home using a trust in another name. | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Unknown (Employee... | $250,000.00 | Payment discussed by The Court and Defense as p... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Unknown (Employee... | $100,000.00 | Payment discussed by The Court and Defense as p... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Security Guards | $0.00 | Proposal that Defendant would pay for on-premis... | View |
| N/A | Received | Epstein | the defendant | $0.00 | Receipt of funds mentioned in context of missin... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Spouse/Husband | $0.00 | Transfer of 'millions of dollars' of assets thr... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | CAROLYN | $0.00 | Paid twice as much when she brought friends to ... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Virginia | $0.00 | Paid more as encouragement to recruit additiona... | View |
| N/A | Received | Sale of Property | the defendant | $0.00 | Sale of the Manhattan townhouse, noted as the p... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Various Accounts | $0.00 | Placing assets into accounts held under other n... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Unknown seller | $0.00 | Purchase of a real estate transaction under a f... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | US | $0.00 | Purchasing a home using a trust in another name. | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | the defendant | $0.00 | Hypothetical 'absence of payments' mentioned as... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Real Estate Selle... | $0.00 | Purchase of a real estate transaction under a f... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Virginia | $0.00 | Monetary incentives used to encourage Virginia ... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Security Guards | $0.00 | Proposal that Defendant would pay for on-premis... | View |
| N/A | Received | N/A | the defendant | $70,000.00 | Cash found in safe at NY home. | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Unknown | $0.00 | Purchase of Kinnerton Street residence | View |
| 2025-03-01 | Paid | the defendant | Marital Assets | $20,000,000.00 | Amount brought to the marriage by the defendant... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Paid | the defendant | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Fine imposed as part of sentencing | View |
| 2022-07-08 | Paid | the defendant | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Fine imposed as part of sentencing. | View |
| 2022-07-08 | Paid | the defendant | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Criminal Fine imposed during sentencing | View |
Motion for a New Trial
Referenced as 'The Defendant's Motion for a New Trial'
Identification
Announced themselves as federal agents.
Financial Assets
Defendant reported approximately $3.8 million in assets; Government claims this was less than candid.
Sentencing Arguments
Defendant's brief cited at page 12 regarding legislative history.
Questioning regarding guilt
Defendant was asked 'did you do that' and answered 'no', leading to perjury charges.
Sexual Topics
Defendant discussed sexual topics with girls to make them comfortable with sexual contact involving Epstein.
Legal Consultation
5 hours per weekday (25 hours/week) of attorney calls.
Legal Consultation
Calls placed from the day room phone.
Arranging sex acts for Carolyn with Epstein
The defendant made phone calls to arrange for Carolyn to engage in sex acts with Epstein in exchange for money.
Arranging sex acts for Carolyn with Epstein
The defendant made phone calls to arrange for Carolyn to engage in sex acts with Epstein in exchange for money.
Massage appointments
The defendant called Carolyn to arrange massage appointments in Florida so she could engage in commercial sex acts.
Legal Consultation
In-person attorney visits are available seven days a week at the MDC, but defense counsel has so far declined to use this option.
Legal Consultation
Defense counsel relies on VTC (Video Teleconferencing) calls to communicate with the defendant.
Legal Consultation
The defendant is able to send and receive emails with defense counsel daily.
Legal Consultation
Phone calls are used to supplement VTC and email communications between the defendant and counsel.
Legal Correspondence
The defendant's legal mail is processed like all other inmate mail at the MDC, which can take multiple days due to volume.
No Subject
The document states the defendant has access to email with her defense counsel while detained at the MDC.
No Subject
The document states the defendant has access to calls with her defense counsel while detained at the MDC.
Tax returns
The defendant was faxed information relating to the tax returns.
Legal consultation
The defendant will be given a legal call to confer with her counsel if the counsel does not visit in person on the day of the report.
Legal counsel communication
The document states that MDC staff does not record or listen to the substance of the defendant’s calls and visits with legal counsel.
Defendant's finances and property ownership
The defendant told Pretrial Services that a New Hampshire property was owned by a corporation whose name she didn't know, and she was just permitted to stay there.
Legal Counsel
5 hours per weekday; 25 hours per week total.
In-person legal visits
In-person visits as needed.
Carolyn's life and background
The defendant had multiple conversations with Carolyn, during which Carolyn revealed details about her life, including prior sexual abuse, her parents' separation, and her mother's addiction.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity