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-00010405.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing, likely from the prosecution, arguing against a Defendant's claim of prejudice due to a delay in prosecution. The prosecution asserts that the Defendant has failed to meet the high legal standard for proving prejudice, citing case law. The Defendant's claims are based on the loss of documentary evidence (flight, financial, phone, and property records related to Epstein) and the deaths of four potential witnesses (architects Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, and property manager Sally Markham).
DOJ-OGR-00010399.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, likely a response or motion, dated April 29, 2022. It defends the Court's decisions regarding jury instructions against objections from the Defendant (Maxwell). The Court rejected the Defendant's requests to limit the charges to specific travel routes (e.g., from Florida to New York) and to instruct the jury on the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Florida, arguing these requests were unnecessary, inaccurate, and would confuse the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00010396.jpg
This document page is from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated April 29, 2022, concerning the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses a dispute over the interpretation of a jury note regarding 'Count Four,' specifically whether the jury was considering conduct in New Mexico versus New York state law. The text details arguments about a missing comma in the note and the Court's instruction that New York law was the governing statute, even if New Mexico events were relevant to intent.
DOJ-OGR-00010393.jpg
This page details the Government's evidence regarding the Defendant (Maxwell) and Epstein's criminal scheme, focusing on the testimony of a victim named Jane. It describes how Jane was groomed and trafficked across state lines, including trips to New York, Florida, and New Mexico, for sexual activity with Epstein, facilitated by the Defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00010392.jpg
This document is page 26 of a court filing from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 29, 2022. It discusses specific jury instructions regarding witnesses 'Jane,' 'Kate,' and 'Annie,' clarifying jurisdictional boundaries (New York vs. New Mexico) and age of consent issues relative to New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The text explains that while testimony from Kate (who was over 17) and Annie (whose incidents occurred in NM) could not be used as the sole basis for conviction on specific counts, it was admissible to establish the Defendant's intent regarding the transport of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00010387.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, is a court ruling denying a defendant's motions for acquittal and to vacate convictions. The ruling summarizes testimony from witnesses named Annie, Carolyn, and Kate, which established the Defendant's role in a conspiracy with Epstein to transport minors for illegal sexual activity. The evidence included the Defendant paying for sexualized massages, inappropriately touching a witness, and inviting underage girls to locations like New Mexico and Epstein's Caribbean island.
DOJ-OGR-00010384.jpg
This document is page 18 of a court ruling (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on April 29, 2022, upholding the guilty verdict against the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) for Counts Four and Six. The text details testimony from a victim, 'Jane,' describing how she was sexually abused by Epstein starting at age 14 in Palm Beach and transported to New York via private and commercial flights arranged by the Defendant. It highlights a specific incident where the Defendant intervened to help a 15-year-old Jane board a flight without ID and notes the Defendant's presence during sexual abuse incidents in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00010383.jpg
This document is page 17 of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is denying the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for acquittal regarding Counts Three, Four, and Six, noting that Counts One and Five were deemed multiplicitous and the jury found her not guilty on Count Two. The page specifically details the elements of Count Four, which involves the interstate transportation of a minor ('Jane') for illegal sexual activity between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00010382.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The page details the Court's denial of the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, citing various legal precedents regarding the sufficiency of evidence required to sustain a conviction. The text outlines the legal standard that evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the government.
DOJ-OGR-00010361.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. The Court rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) post-hearing argument that Juror 50 was biased because he failed to follow instructions on a questionnaire. The Court found that while the juror admitted to being distracted during the questionnaire, he was attentive and followed all instructions during the more critical phases of voir dire, the trial, and deliberations, and was therefore able to serve as an unbiased juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010359.jpg
This document is page 36 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's arguments regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically concerning the juror's history of sexual abuse and 'healing process.' The Court cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to prevent inquiry into the juror's mental processes during deliberations and concludes that the juror's past trauma did not interfere with his ability to be fair and impartial.
DOJ-OGR-00010340.jpg
This document is page 17 of a court order regarding the validity of the trial verdict in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically addressing 'Juror 50'. The Court credits Juror 50's testimony that he failed to disclose his own history of sexual abuse on the jury questionnaire because he was distracted by a recent breakup, felt rushed by the environment, and did not believe he would be selected. The text argues that his failure to disclose was not intentional deceit but a result of lack of focus and the specific wording of the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00010339.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 653) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated April 1, 2022. The text discusses the Court's evaluation of 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose a history of childhood sexual abuse on a jury questionnaire. The Court concludes that while the Juror's answers were incorrect, they were not 'deliberately inaccurate,' accepting the Juror's testimony (given under immunity) that he rushed through the form carelessly. The Court cites the Juror's demeanor and consistency as reasons for crediting his testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00010334.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the Court's assessment of 'Juror 50,' who had failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse on a questionnaire; the juror testified that this omission was not intentional and that he could remain impartial. The document also notes the denial of a defense request to stay the ruling pending a documentary featuring the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010332.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. It outlines the court's decision to hold an evidentiary hearing on March 8, 2022, to investigate whether 'Juror 50' provided false statements during jury selection. This action followed a motion for a new trial by the Defendant, which was based on statements made by the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010330.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated April 1, 2022, detailing the jury selection process for 'Juror 50'. It outlines that Juror 50 completed a questionnaire on November 4, 2021, answering 'No' to questions 25, 48, and 49 regarding prior knowledge or conflicts, and subsequently underwent in-person voir dire on November 16, 2021. During questioning, Juror 50 admitted to seeing a CNN article about the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein but affirmed he could decide the case impartially based solely on evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00010329.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on April 1, 2022. It details the process of screening 694 prospective jurors in November 2021, specifically focusing on the inclusion of questions regarding sexual abuse, assault, and harassment in the juror questionnaire. The text describes how counsel for both the Government and the Defendant reviewed these questionnaires and categorized jurors into four lists regarding their eligibility to serve.
DOJ-OGR-00010327.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text denies the defendant's Rule 33 motion for a new trial and outlines the background of the jury selection process, detailing how it was conducted under COVID-19 protocols using questionnaires and voir dire to screen for bias in a high-profile case. It references specific docket entries (366, 367, 404, 427, 459) and transcript dates.
DOJ-OGR-00010305.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing dated March 15, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues against the defendant's motion for a new trial, asserting that Juror 50 was fair and impartial despite disclosing past sexual abuse. The filing contends the defendant failed to meet the 'McDonough test' requirements to prove juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010303.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues against a defendant's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror bias. It focuses on Juror 50, who had a history of sexual abuse, and contends that despite this, the juror consistently affirmed his impartiality during voir dire on November 16, 2021, and a subsequent hearing on March 8, 2022. The filing asserts that Juror 50's testimony demonstrates he was not biased and was capable of rendering a verdict based solely on the evidence and the court's instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00010294.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on March 15, 2022. It argues against the defendant's motion for a new trial, specifically addressing allegations regarding 'Juror 50' and citing the 'McDonough' test for juror misconduct. The text asserts the defendant failed to prove the juror committed a deliberate falsehood during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00010292.jpg
This document is page 2 (Table of Contents) of a legal filing (Document 648) submitted on March 15, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines arguments opposing the Defendant's motion for a new trial, specifically addressing findings regarding 'Deliberate Falsehood' and 'Cause Challenge' (likely related to juror misconduct allegations). The document bears a Department of Justice footer stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00009847.jpg
This is the signature page (Conclusion) of a legal document filed by the United States Attorney's Office in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The prosecution requests that the Court deny the defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record and instead schedule a hearing to resolve the motion. It is signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and four Assistant US Attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00009844.jpg
This document is page 46 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022. It discusses the procedural handling of 'Juror 50' regarding a potential hearing about false statements on a jury questionnaire concerning sexual assault history. The Government argues that Juror 50 should be allowed to see his questionnaire before testifying to consult with counsel about Fifth Amendment rights, but agrees with the defense that the juror should not intervene in defining the scope of the inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009843.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), dated March 11, 2022. It discusses a dispute regarding 'Juror 50', who has requested access to his own voir dire transcript and juror questionnaire; the defense opposes this, arguing it would prejudice the investigation into the juror's conduct, while the government supports the juror's right to access a document he authored. The text also references a separate motion by The New York Times to unseal juror questionnaires.
| 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 |
Argument on the merits of Juror 50's motion to intervene
Previews argument regarding Juror 50's motion, claiming it is a discovery request.
Legal Defense
Review of discovery materials and legal consultation.
N/A
Hypothetical 'absence of phone calls' mentioned as a potential argument by the defense regarding missing phone records.
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.
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.
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.
Recruitment of minors
Q. Can you list for me all the girls that you have met and brought to Jeffrey Epstein’s house that were under the age of 18?
Request 2(c)
Request seeking documentation of dates on which Juror 50 opened and closed social media accounts.
No Subject
Defendant stated ''92, '93 was when I was there' regarding the residence.
Appointments
Called to set up appointments with Carolyn at Epstein's mansion.
Personal Life
Talked about family problems, traumatic personal experiences, and goals; compliemented her body.
Legal Defense
Communications regarding defense preparation and review of discovery
Response Letter (Dkt. No. 331)
Raised two issues: seeking identities of co-conspirators and disclosure of co-conspirator statements.
Mem. of Law (Dkt. No. 293)
Pretrial motions requesting identification of uncharged co-conspirators.
Legal consultation
Phone conversations observed visually but not audibly by MDC staff.
Dkt. No. 569
Informing the Court about the juror's interviews.
Dkt. No. 570
Opposing the Government's request for a hearing and arguing for a new trial.
Civil matter depositions
Two depositions in a civil matter where the defendant allegedly made false material declarations.
Code of Silence
Instructed employees not to speak directly with Epstein, not to talk to visitors, and to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing.'
Instruction
Directed Virginia to show Carolyn how to sexually gratify Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity