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-00016826.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Sidebar) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Prosecutor Ms. Moe objects to the Defense's line of questioning for witness Dubin, arguing against the relevance of 'uncharged conduct' regarding the defendant or Epstein. Moe also argues there is no foundation to suggest Dubin was present for sexualized massages involving a victim identified as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00016488.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The court discusses the preclusion of testimony from witnesses Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards on 401/403 grounds, allowing the defense to release them. Additionally, the court addresses a government objection to a defense exhibit regarding a 1996 sale agreement for the defendant's home at 44 Kinnerton Street in London.
DOJ-OGR-00016460.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a legal argument asserting the defendant's guilt on two theories. The first is that the defendant personally exerted coercive control over a victim named Jane, leading to her sexual abuse. The second theory is that the defendant is also guilty of aiding and abetting Jeffrey Epstein by knowingly facilitating his abuse of Jane, being present on the plane and in the room in New York where the abuse occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00010559.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 22, 2022, presents evidence to argue that a defendant remained a close associate of Jeffrey Epstein for several years after 2002. The evidence includes flight logs showing she flew on his private jet dozens of times between 2003 and 2005, records of Epstein paying for her travel through 2006, and a bank record of Epstein transferring over $7.7 million to her account as of 2007. The document also mentions a 2005 police search of Epstein's Palm Beach residence which found items indicating the defendant's 'forceful presence' in the house.
DOJ-OGR-00010550.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 22, 2022, details the repeated sexual abuse of a minor named Carolyn, aged 14-15, by Epstein during massages. It outlines the significant role of an unnamed "defendant" who facilitated the abuse by scheduling the massages, paying Carolyn, and being aware of her age and vulnerable personal history. The defendant also invited Carolyn to travel with them and Epstein, further implicating them in the scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00010548.jpg
This legal document details the testimony of a victim named Annie regarding a trip to Jeffrey Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. Annie states that she was groomed and sexually abused by both Epstein and an unnamed female defendant, who was in a romantic relationship with Epstein. The defendant allegedly used the pretense of giving a massage to sexually abuse Annie, and Epstein later assaulted her in her bed, as part of a coordinated effort to groom her for further abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010544.jpg
This page from a court document outlines the grooming and abuse tactics employed by the defendant and Epstein, citing expert testimony from Dr. Lisa Rocchio. It describes two distinct phases of the conspiracy: an early phase (1994-2001) focused on isolating vulnerable individuals, and a later phase (2001-2004) involving a recruitment scheme at the Palm Beach residence where girls were paid to recruit others.
DOJ-OGR-00010541.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) outlining the procedural history of charges against the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the timeline of indictments from June 2020 through March 2021, listing eight specific counts including conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein to entice and transport minors for illegal sex acts (1994-2004), sex trafficking (2001-2004), and perjury.
DOJ-OGR-00009167.jpg
This document is page 48 of a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's request to seal Juror 50's motion to intervene, asserting it is a judicial document that should be public. It also defends the Government's previous decision to publicly file a letter regarding Juror 50's public statements, noting that defense counsel failed to respond to attempts to confer prior to that filing.
DOJ-OGR-00009165.jpg
This document is page 46 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The Government argues that 'Juror 50' should be allowed to review his jury questionnaire before any potential hearing to consult with counsel regarding his Fifth Amendment rights. The text notes that Juror 50 does not recall answering questions about sexual assault and discusses procedural arguments regarding subpoenas and the scope of the inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009164.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, discusses a motion by Juror 50 to obtain his own jury questionnaire and voir dire testimony transcript. The defendant opposes the request, framing it as a 'discovery request' that would prejudice an 'investigation' into the juror's conduct. The Government argues that Juror 50 is not a defendant seeking discovery and that the privacy concerns for sealing such documents do not apply to the juror himself.
DOJ-OGR-00009163.jpg
This page is from a Government filing (Document 615) dated February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues against the defendant's request to subpoena 'Juror 50's' social media records, citing the Stored Communications Act and privacy concerns. It also discusses a previous motion filed by Juror 50's counsel on January 10, 2022, seeking to intervene to protect the juror's rights against self-incrimination.
DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg
This document is Page 43 of a legal filing (Document 615) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's request to compel the production of 'Juror 50's' (Scotty David) private emails and social media records (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram). The prosecution characterizes the defense's request as an inadmissible 'fishing expedition' and argues that the juror's post-trial media interviews or comments on a victim's Twitter post do not justify invading his privacy regarding pre-trial or during-trial communications.
DOJ-OGR-00009157.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing from February 24, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues against the defendant's claim that Juror 50's questionnaire responses prevented proper voir dire, comparing the situation to Jurors 189 and 239, who also answered 'yes' to Question 48 (regarding sexual abuse) but were qualified without objection after brief questioning. The filing asserts that the record disproves the defense's theory that they were deprived of the opportunity to examine Juror 50's views.
DOJ-OGR-00009156.jpg
This document is page 37 of a legal filing (Doc 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's claim that the Court should have further probed 'Juror 50' regarding his ability to set aside past traumatic experiences and fairly evaluate the testimony of defense expert Dr. Loftus. The filing cites voir dire transcripts from November 16, 2021, where Juror 50 affirmed his ability to be impartial, and references case law (*United States v. Pirk*, *United States v. Barnes*) regarding the limited purpose of voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00009155.jpg
This is page 36 of a legal filing (Document 615) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text is a government argument refuting the defense's claim that 'Juror 50' needs to be probed further regarding their ability to assess witness credibility in sexual assault cases. The government argues that Juror 50 already affirmed this ability in their questionnaire (Question 47) and that any further inquiry regarding the juror's personal history of abuse should be limited and conducted privately (sidebar or in camera).
DOJ-OGR-00009154.jpg
This document is page 35 of a legal filing (Document 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a Government argument requesting that the Court limit the scope of an upcoming hearing regarding potential misconduct by 'Juror 50' regarding undisclosed history of sexual abuse. The Government argues the Court should conduct the questioning to protect the juror from harassment and that inquiries must be strictly limited to whether the juror lied on Question 48 or Question 25 of the jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009150.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discusses the legal standard for 'Inferred Bias' in jurors. It argues that even if 'Juror 50' had disclosed a history of sexual abuse during voir dire, the Court would not have automatically dismissed him for cause without further questioning to establish actual partiality. The text cites precedents like *Torres* and *Greer* to support the trial court's discretion in these matters.
DOJ-OGR-00009149.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on Feb 24, 2022. It discusses the defendant's argument that Juror 50 displayed implied bias by allegedly lying, rejecting comparisons to the 'Daugerdas' case and the dismissal of Juror 55. The court concludes that the defendant failed to establish implied bias, with significant portions of the text regarding Juror 55 redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00009142.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 615) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's motion claiming juror bias, specifically discussing the legal standards for 'actual bias' versus 'implied' or 'inferable' bias in a post-trial context. The Government argues that actual bias is the only relevant inquiry and cites various legal precedents (Torres, Greer, Smith v. Phillips) to support the position that the defendant's arguments are unpersuasive.
DOJ-OGR-00009139.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court filing (Document 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's claim that 'Juror 50' deliberately lied on a jury questionnaire regarding past victimization, suggesting that laypersons may not classify their own abuse as a 'crime' in the same way legal professionals do. A significant portion of the page following this argument is heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00009137.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. It argues that 'Juror 50' made an honest mistake rather than a deliberate falsehood when failing to disclose their history of sexual abuse on the jury questionnaire (specifically Question 48). The text cites transcripts where the juror claims they 'flew through' the form and genuinely did not remember the specific question asking about personal victimization.
DOJ-OGR-00009127.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. It details the jury selection process (voir dire) occurring in November 2021, specifically focusing on 'Juror 50.' The text highlights Juror 50's questionnaire responses, where he disclosed reading on CNN that the defendant was Epstein's girlfriend but affirmed his ability to remain fair, impartial, and decide the case based solely on evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00009121.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a court filing (Document 615) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The filing appears to be the Government's response arguing against the Defendant's motion for a new trial, specifically addressing issues surrounding 'Juror 50' regarding their questionnaire, voir dire, and post-verdict public statements. The outline proposes a limited hearing to question Juror 50 while arguing that the defense has not met the legal standards (McDonough test) to warrant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009092.jpg
This document is page 25 of 30 from a court filing (Document 613-1) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains a 'Closing Question' (Question 51) of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50. The juror marked 'No' in response to whether they wished for any answers to remain confidential.
| 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 |
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.
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.
Legal Consultation
Defense counsel will be able to schedule legal calls for the defendant on weekends as needed.
Defendant's assets
The defendant had an interview with Pretrial Services (and by extension, the Court) during which she was allegedly less than candid about her finances.
Defendant's bail proposal and financial resources
The defendant submitted a memorandum that the government claims pointedly declines to provide information about her financial resources.
Trial defense
The document notes that throughout the trial, the defendant was visibly engaged and actively communicating with her defense counsel.
No Subject
The document states that victims received phone calls from the defendant when the victims were between the ages of 14 and 17.
Boarding assistance
Defendant 'made it happen' for Jane to get on a flight without proper identification.
Threat to safety
The defendant sent an email from within the MDC to the IG, claiming to be in fear for her safety and that MDC staff members were threatening her.
Threat to safety
The defendant sent an email from within the MDC to the IG, claiming to be in fear for her safety and that MDC staff members were threatening her.
Reply Brief
Devotes a single sentence to claim of pre-indictment delay.
Request to stay ruling
Request to stay ruling pending release of a documentary featuring Juror 50 (Denied).
Request to stay ruling
Request to stay ruling pending release of a documentary featuring Juror 50; request was denied.
Motion for a new trial
Defendant filed a motion for a new trial.
Opposition to hearing request
A second letter from the Defendant on the same day, opposing the Government's request for a hearing.
Juror's interviews
A letter from the Defendant informing the Court about the juror's interviews, filed shortly after the Government's letter.
Request for Reciprocal Discovery
Request for notice regarding any expert witness the defendant intends to rely upon.
Thirteen motions in limine
Defense filed motions to exclude certain evidence, which this document opposes.
Court-ordered disclosures
Hard drive sent via FedEx.
Intent to call expert witness
Notification of intent to call Dr. Rocchio in the case-in-chief.
Plea
The defendant confirms they have discussed the matter with their attorney, waives the public reading of the indictment, and pleads 'not guilty'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity