the defendant

Person
Mentions
996
Relationships
332
Events
485
Documents
491

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
332 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Juror 50
Legal representative
17 Very Strong
24
View
organization The government
Legal representative
15 Very Strong
65
View
person Jeffrey Epstein
Co conspirators
13 Very Strong
13
View
organization The government
Adversarial
13 Very Strong
21
View
person Jeffrey Epstein
Business associate
13 Very Strong
23
View
person Epstein
Business associate
12 Very Strong
9
View
person Juror 50
Juror defendant
11 Very Strong
7
View
organization The Court
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
13
View
person Defense counsel
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
10
View
person ALISON J. NATHAN
Judicial
10 Very Strong
6
View
person Defense counsel
Client
10 Very Strong
8
View
person Epstein
Co conspirators
10 Very Strong
14
View
organization GOVERNMENT
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
6
View
person MDC staff
Custodial
10 Very Strong
6
View
organization GOVERNMENT
Adversarial
10 Very Strong
7
View
person Defense counsel
Professional
9 Strong
5
View
person JANE
Abuser victim
9 Strong
5
View
person Giuffre
Legal representative
9 Strong
5
View
person Mr. Everdell
Legal representative
8 Strong
4
View
person Jeffrey Epstein
Co conspirator alleged
8 Strong
4
View
person Epstein
Financial
8 Strong
3
View
person Epstein
Legal representative
8 Strong
3
View
person Minor Victim-3
Abuser victim
7
3
View
location France
Citizenship
7
3
View
person Minor Victim-4
Legal representative
7
3
View
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-00020964.jpg

This document is page 21 of a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressing post-trial arguments by the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) regarding Juror 50. The Court analyzes whether Juror 50 was dishonest about his sexual abuse history, noting that while he claimed he rarely disclosed it, he later gave media interviews and contacted witness Annie Farmer. The Court recounts Juror 50's explanation that he did not believe his family or friends would discover his abuse despite the media attention.

Court order / legal opinion (united states district court)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020954.jpg

This document is page 11 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the Court's assessment of 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during voir dire; the juror testified that this history did not affect his impartiality. The document also notes the denial of a defense request to stay the ruling pending the release of a documentary featuring said juror.

Legal court order / opinion
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020953.jpg

This document is a court order from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) detailing the testimony of 'Juror 50' regarding inaccuracies in his jury questionnaire. Juror 50 admitted to being a victim of childhood sexual abuse by a stepbrother but claimed his failure to disclose this was an inadvertent mistake caused by rushing, distraction, and misunderstanding the questions. The text outlines his justifications, including technical issues, a recent breakup, and a belief that the sheer volume of jurors made his specific answers less critical.

Court filing / legal opinion (us district court)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020951.jpg

This legal document details post-verdict issues in a criminal case where the defendant was found guilty. A week after the verdict, the Government notified the Court that a juror, identified as Juror 50, gave press interviews claiming to be a victim of sexual abuse, a fact he had denied on his jury questionnaire. The Government requested a hearing on the matter, which the Defendant subsequently opposed in a letter to the Court.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020938.jpg

This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, identified as being completed by Juror 50. The document was filed on March 9, 2022. In response to the final question, the juror indicated that they do not wish for any of their answers to be kept confidential from the Judge, counsel, or the Defendant.

Juror questionnaire
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020912.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) involving the questioning (voir dire) of a potential juror. The text covers a sidebar conference where defense counsel (Ms. Sternheim) requests the Judge ask the juror if they read the case summary, specifically regarding the charges. The Judge then reads a portion of the indictment summary to the juror, stating that the defendant is charged with conspiring with and aiding Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors between 1994 and 2004.

Court transcript
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020843.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (part of an appeal filing dated Feb 28, 2023) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Ms. Menninger. They are analyzing a jury question regarding whether the defendant can be held responsible for specific flights (to New Mexico vs. New York) and discussing the legal necessity of proving transportation to a specific location versus the general intent to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text highlights the defense's argument that the indictment does not specify New Mexico exclusively.

Court transcript
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020837.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated February 28, 2023 (filing date). Attorneys Mr. Everdell (Defense) and Ms. Moe (Prosecution) are arguing over how to answer a jury question regarding 'Count Four' and 'Jane.' The debate centers on whether a 'return flight' from New Mexico can serve as the basis for a conviction if the initial flight's intent for illegal sexual activity is in question.

Court transcript
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020758.jpg

This document is page 23 of 24 from a legal filing (Document 187) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 29, 2021. It details the 'Substitute Asset Provision,' outlining the government's intent to seize alternative property from the defendant if the original proceeds of the alleged crimes (specifically Count Six) cannot be located, have been transferred, or diminished in value. The document is signed by the Grand Jury Foreperson and United States Attorney Audrey Strauss.

Legal filing (indictment/substitute asset provision)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020625.jpg

This document is a page from a court docket report (Case 22-1426, SDNY) detailing the sentencing and disposition of charges against a defendant (identifiable as Ghislaine Maxwell by the case number and sentence details). The defendant was sentenced to 240 months (20 years) imprisonment and fined $750,000 for sex trafficking and conspiracy charges. The document also lists several terminated counts, noting which were dismissed and one count (2ss) where the defendant was acquitted by a jury.

Court docket report / judgment summary
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020490.jpg

This document is a court docket sheet page from Case 22-1426 dated July 8, 2022, detailing the sentencing disposition for a defendant (identified by context as Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists the defense attorneys (Mark Cohen and Bobbi Sternheim), the pending counts related to sex trafficking and conspiracy, and the final sentence of 240 months imprisonment plus a $750,000 fine. The document notes that counts 1 and 5 were not entered as judgments because they were deemed multiplicitous.

Court docket / sentencing judgment record
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020389.jpg

This document is a court docket page (Page 3 of 91) from Case 22-1426 dated July 8, 2022. It details the legal representation (Mark Cohen and Bobbi Sternheim) and the disposition of charges against the defendant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell), including a sentence of 240 months imprisonment and a $750,000 fine for sex trafficking and conspiracy charges. Counts 1 and 5 were not entered into judgment as they were deemed multiplicitous.

Court docket / case summary sheet
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00018945.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument regarding the admissibility of 'message books' containing caller names, dates, times, and callback numbers intended for the defendant and Mr. Epstein. The Court overrules an objection, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 803.6 (Business Records), stating that witnesses Alessi and Hesse provided sufficient foundation that these were regular records rather than miscellaneous jottings.

Court transcript
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00018937.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the admissibility of spiral-bound message pads used by household staff. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues these are valid business records created under strict instructions from the defendant, while the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) counters that many messages are undated and unsigned, though noting Ms. Hesse's messages were 'well maintained.'

Court transcript
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00016885.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is addressing the Court regarding the timeline of the defendant's residence at a property on Kinnerton Street in London. Everdell argues that despite a deposition statement where the defendant claimed to be there in 1992 or 1993, she did not own or reside at the property at that time, noting that another couple lived there prior to her purchase.

Court transcript
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00016155.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing a sidebar conference. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to Defense Attorney Ms. Sternheim's opening statement, arguing it violates a pretrial ruling by suggesting the government is targeting the defendant. The Court rules that while the defense cannot question the prosecution's motives, they are permitted to argue that witnesses are treating the defendant as a 'scapegoat' or 'stand-in' (likely for Jeffrey Epstein, referred to as the 'empty chair').

Court transcript (sidebar conference)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00016148.jpg

This document is page 38 of a court transcript from the opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz in the trial against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The prosecutor outlines that victims, including 'Jane,' will testify about the sexual abuse they suffered, specifically highlighting the defendant's active role in grooming, touching, and facilitating the abuse alongside Jeffrey Epstein. It also addresses the fact that witnesses received financial compensation but emphasizes that the money does not negate the trauma they endured.

Court transcript (opening statement)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00016147.jpg

This document is page 37 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (referenced as 'the defendant'), dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz outlines the prosecution's opening argument, describing a 'pyramid scheme of abuse' where the defendant recruited and groomed minors for Jeffrey Epstein under the guise of massage appointments. The text details specific charges, including transporting minors under age 17 across state lines and sex trafficking of minors.

Court transcript (opening statement)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00016146.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript featuring an opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the case against a defendant associated with Epstein. It details how the recruitment of victims evolved from individual targeting in the 1990s using scholarship promises to a "pyramid scheme" in the 2000s where victims were paid to recruit their friends.

Court transcript
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00016144.jpg

This document is a page from the opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz in the trial of US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It details how the defendant and Epstein groomed a 14-year-old victim identified as 'Jane' through gifts, money, and outings before escalating to sexual abuse at Epstein's Palm Beach home. The text emphasizes the defendant's role in normalizing the abuse by being present in the room while Epstein, a man in his 40s, abused the minor.

Court transcript (opening statement)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00016141.jpg

This document is page 35 of a court transcript (Document 741, filed 08/10/22) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). In this opening statement, Ms. Pomerantz describes how the defendant and Epstein used a 'cover' of mentorship to gain the trust of aspiring young girls and their parents. The text details the grooming methodology, specifically how the defendant normalized sexual topics and used 'massage' as a ruse to lure girls into sexually abusing Epstein at his Palm Beach and Manhattan properties.

Court transcript (opening statement)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00016140.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Opening Statement by Ms. Pomerantz) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text outlines Maxwell's role as the 'lady of the house' and 'second in command' to Jeffrey Epstein, detailing how she managed his properties and enforced a strict culture of silence among employees. It further describes their 'playbook' for grooming victims, which involved targeting vulnerable girls—often from single-mother households—by flaunting wealth and promising to pay for their education.

Court transcript (opening statement)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00016131.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, in which a judge is instructing the jury on their conduct. The judge strictly prohibits jurors from discussing the case with anyone, including each other, until deliberations, and forbids the use of any electronic devices or social media for communication or research related to the case. The instructions emphasize the need to keep an open mind and base their verdict solely on the evidence presented in court.

Court transcript
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00002345(1).jpg

This is page 2 of a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated February 4, 2021, signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The Judge approves proposed redactions to documents, citing the need to protect the Government's ongoing investigation and the privacy interests of third parties. The Defendant is ordered to file the redacted documents by February 5, 2021.

Court order (united states district court)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00002336.jpg

This is page 2 of a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated January 28, 2021. The US Attorney's office is addressing Judge Nathan regarding proposed redactions to the defendant's motions (Motions 3, 10, and 11) to protect victim-witness privacy and the integrity of the ongoing investigation. The government agrees to most redactions but intends to submit limited additional redactions for Motion 3 via email under seal.

Court filing / legal correspondence
2025-11-20
Total Received
$459,768,958.00
14 transactions
Total Paid
$45,550,000.00
31 transactions
Net Flow
$414,218,958.00
45 total transactions
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
As Sender
73
As Recipient
17
Total
90

No Subject

From: the defendant
To: ["defense counsel"]

The document states the defendant has access to email with her defense counsel while detained at the MDC.

Email
N/A

No Subject

From: the defendant
To: ["defense counsel"]

The document states the defendant has access to calls with her defense counsel while detained at the MDC.

Phone call
N/A

Tax returns

From: Unknown
To: the defendant

The defendant was faxed information relating to the tax returns.

Fax
N/A

Legal consultation

From: the defendant
To: ["counsel"]

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.

Phone call
N/A

Legal counsel communication

From: the defendant
To: ["legal counsel"]

The document states that MDC staff does not record or listen to the substance of the defendant’s calls and visits with legal counsel.

Calls and visits
N/A

Defendant's finances and property ownership

From: the defendant
To: Pretrial Services

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.

Report
N/A

Defendant's finances and property ownership

From: the defendant
To: Pretrial Services

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.

Report
N/A

Legal Counsel

From: the defendant
To: attorneys

5 hours per weekday; 25 hours per week total.

Video-teleconference (vtc)
N/A

In-person legal visits

From: attorneys
To: the defendant

In-person visits as needed.

Meeting
N/A

Carolyn's life and background

From: the defendant
To: CAROLYN

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.

Conversation
N/A

Legal Consultation

From: the defendant
To: Defense counsel

Defense counsel will be able to schedule legal calls for the defendant on weekends as needed.

Legal calls
N/A

Boarding assistance

From: the defendant
To: Unknown (Airline/Airpo...

Defendant 'made it happen' for Jane to get on a flight without proper identification.

Call
2025-01-01

Threat to safety

From: the defendant
To: Bureau of Prisons Insp...

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.

Email
2022-06-24

Threat to safety

From: the defendant
To: Bureau of Prisons Insp...

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.

Email
2022-06-24

Reply Brief

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Devotes a single sentence to claim of pre-indictment delay.

Legal brief
2022-04-29

Request to stay ruling

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Request to stay ruling pending release of a documentary featuring Juror 50 (Denied).

Request
2022-04-01

Request to stay ruling

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Request to stay ruling pending release of a documentary featuring Juror 50; request was denied.

Legal request
2022-04-01

Motion for a new trial

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Defendant filed a motion for a new trial.

Motion
2022-01-19

Juror's interviews

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

A letter from the Defendant informing the Court about the juror's interviews, filed shortly after the Government's letter.

Letter
2022-01-05

Opposition to hearing request

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

A second letter from the Defendant on the same day, opposing the Government's request for a hearing.

Letter
2022-01-05

Request for Reciprocal Discovery

From: the government
To: the defendant

Request for notice regarding any expert witness the defendant intends to rely upon.

Legal request
2021-10-29

Thirteen motions in limine

From: the defendant
To: Court/Government

Defense filed motions to exclude certain evidence, which this document opposes.

Legal filing
2021-10-18

Court-ordered disclosures

From: the government
To: the defendant

Hard drive sent via FedEx.

Mail
2021-10-11

Intent to call expert witness

From: the government
To: the defendant

Notification of intent to call Dr. Rocchio in the case-in-chief.

Legal notice
2021-04-23

Plea

From: the defendant
To: ["The Court"]

The defendant confirms they have discussed the matter with their attorney, waives the public reading of the indictment, and pleads 'not guilty'.

Court proceeding dialogue
2021-04-01

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity