| 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 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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').
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| 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 |
The document states the defendant has access to email with her defense counsel while detained at the MDC.
The document states the defendant has access to calls with her defense counsel while detained at the MDC.
The defendant was faxed information relating to the tax returns.
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.
The document states that MDC staff does not record or listen to the substance of the defendant’s calls and visits with legal counsel.
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.
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.
5 hours per weekday; 25 hours per week total.
In-person visits as needed.
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.
Defense counsel will be able to schedule legal calls for the defendant on weekends as needed.
Defendant 'made it happen' for Jane to get on a flight without proper identification.
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.
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.
Devotes a single sentence to claim of pre-indictment delay.
Request to stay ruling pending release of a documentary featuring Juror 50 (Denied).
Request to stay ruling pending release of a documentary featuring Juror 50; request was denied.
Defendant filed a motion for a new trial.
A letter from the Defendant informing the Court about the juror's interviews, filed shortly after the Government's letter.
A second letter from the Defendant on the same day, opposing the Government's request for a hearing.
Request for notice regarding any expert witness the defendant intends to rely upon.
Defense filed motions to exclude certain evidence, which this document opposes.
Hard drive sent via FedEx.
Notification of intent to call Dr. Rocchio in the case-in-chief.
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