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-00000414.jpg
This legal document is a transcript of an argument, likely from a prosecutor, asserting that the defendant is a significant flight risk and a danger to the community. The argument cites the defendant's refusal to disclose his extensive wealth, access to private jets, a residence in France, a prior guilty plea for solicitation of a minor, and credible allegations of witness tampering as reasons for his detention.
DOJ-OGR-00000413.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) dated July 16, 2019, in which the government argues that the defendant (Jeffrey Epstein) poses a significant flight risk. The prosecutor highlights that new victims have come forward post-charge, the defendant faces life in prison, and possesses vast wealth including six residences (one abroad). The government emphasizes they kept the investigation covert specifically to prevent the defendant from fleeing.
DOJ-OGR-00000412.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 16, 2019, in which a government prosecutor argues for the pretrial detention of a defendant charged with sex trafficking. The prosecutor emphasizes the seriousness of the alleged crimes, which involve years of sexual abuse of dozens of minors in multiple locations. The argument is supported by claims of strong evidence, including credible and corroborated information from victims, witnesses, and a recent search of the defendant's Manhattan mansion.
DOJ-OGR-00000411.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing dated July 16, 2019, details allegations from an indictment against a defendant for sexual abuse of underage girls. The crimes allegedly occurred at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida, and involved facilitation by employees and associates. The document argues that the defendant, being 'extraordinarily wealthy' with multiple international residences and two private jets, is a significant flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00000348.jpg
This document is Page 6 of a legal filing (likely a bail/detention memorandum) submitted to Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman on July 8, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecution argues for detention based on overwhelming evidence, including an 'extraordinary volume' of nude photographs of minors found at Epstein's New York residence and call records linking him and his agents to victims. The document also argues that the previous Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting this case.
DOJ-OGR-00000346.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal memorandum filed by the government on July 12, 2019 (dated July 8), arguing for the pre-trial detention of the defendant (Jeffrey Epstein, Case 1:19-cr-00490). It outlines the legal standards of the Bail Reform Act, citing case law regarding flight risk and danger to the community, and emphasizes that because the charges involve a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, there is a statutory presumption favoring detention.
DOJ-OGR-00000341.jpg
This page from a government filing (July 12, 2019) argues before Judge Berman that a previous plea agreement in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) does not bind other districts or the broader 'United States' government. It further asserts that the defendant (Epstein) was the 'leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise' rather than a mere consumer, highlighting his role in recruiting, funding, and organizing the scheme across two states.
DOJ-OGR-00000330.jpg
This legal document is a filing arguing against granting bail to a defendant accused of a years-long scheme of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls. The prosecution contends that the defendant's proposed bail package is inadequate, he is a flight risk due to his wealth and private jet, and he poses a danger to the community. The document details the allegations, including that the defendant paid victims and victim-recruiters in cash in locations like New York and Palm Beach, and urges the Court to order him detained pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021043.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely a sentencing hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell) where the judge is ruling on sentencing guidelines. The judge overrules an objection, finding by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant supervised Sarah Kellen, who is identified as a 'knowing participant in the criminal conspiracy.' The ruling cites testimony from Larry Visoski, David Rodgers, and Carolyn, as well as flight records and a household manual, to establish the defendant's leadership role as 'Epstein's number two.'
DOJ-OGR-00021038.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely United States v. Maxwell given the context and case number 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. The text details a judge's analysis of sentencing guidelines (2003 vs 2004) and determines the timeline of a sexual abuse conspiracy, specifically noting that the conspiracy involving a victim named Carolyn ended in early 2005 when she turned 18. The judge explicitly states that they found Carolyn to be a credible witness.
DOJ-OGR-00021031.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which an attorney, Ms. Moe, responds to a judge's question about the hierarchy of a criminal conspiracy. Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence shows the unnamed defendant held a leadership position superior to that of Sarah Kellen, who was an assistant to Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. The argument is based on the defendant's role shifting over time and Kellen taking on tasks like calling victims, placing the defendant higher in the scheme's structure.
DOJ-OGR-00021029.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 28, 2023, likely from the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). Defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) argues that evidence of money moving to buy a helicopter does not prove the defendant's continued criminal involvement, comparing it to pilot Larry Visoski holding assets for Epstein without being a co-conspirator. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) counters that the financial evidence was introduced to refute the claim that the defendant had 'moved on' from her association with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021028.jpg
This document is the final page (45) of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Judge Alison J. Nathan ruled on motions regarding multiplicity, dismissing Counts One and Five as multiplicitous with Count Three, and ordering judgment of conviction on Counts Three, Four, and Six. The document confirms the sentencing date for June 28, 2022, and explicitly links the Defendant to a decade-long conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein to groom and abuse underage girls.
DOJ-OGR-00021027.jpg
This document is page 44 of a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on April 29, 2022, denying the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) Rule 29 motion to vacate convictions. The court rejects arguments regarding prejudice due to absent deceased witnesses (including Jeffrey Epstein, his mother, Michael Casey, and Detective Joseph Recarey) and claims of pre-indictment delay. The text references evidence establishing the Defendant's close work with an individual named Markham on a manual and checklists.
DOJ-OGR-00021024.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court ruling (likely denying a motion to dismiss) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal standard for 'pre-indictment delay' and 'lost evidence,' specifically refuting the Defendant's claims that lost government property records and flight manifests (delivered by pilot Larry Visoski to Epstein's NY office) prejudiced her defense. The court argues the Defendant failed to prove these records were unavailable through other means or that their absence was caused by the government's delay.
DOJ-OGR-00021022.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 657 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressing the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) claim that delay in prosecution caused prejudice to her defense. The text argues the defendant failed to prove substantial prejudice but outlines her specific claims regarding lost evidence, including flight records, financial documents, phone records, and property records. It specifically names deceased witnesses the defense claims were unavailable: architects Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, and property manager Sally Markham.
DOJ-OGR-00021016.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (likely a Government brief or Court Opinion) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's requests regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'travel to New York' and the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the UK, and Florida. The text argues that the Court's instructions were legally sound and that the Defendant's proposals would have confused the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00021013.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) discusses a dispute over a jury note regarding 'Count Four.' The argument centers on whether the jury could convict based solely on conduct in New Mexico versus the required New York law violation. The text details a debate over the placement of a comma in the jury's note and the Court's subsequent instruction to the jury to focus on New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00021007.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court ruling (filed April 29, 2022) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (referred to as the Defendant). It addresses a defense motion regarding a 'constructive amendment,' specifically discussing whether the jury improperly convicted the Defendant based on intent for sexual activity in New Mexico (involving a victim named 'Jane') rather than New York, as charged in the indictment involving a scheme with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021002.jpg
This legal filing (page 19 of 45) details court testimony regarding 'Count Six' and 'Count Five' of sex trafficking charges against the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). It summarizes victim Carolyn's testimony that the Defendant scheduled sexualized massages for Epstein, paid her, and touched her inappropriately while she was 14 years old. A footnote discusses corroborating evidence involving Virginia Roberts, Juan Alessi, and flight logs from December 2000.
DOJ-OGR-00020999.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 29, 2022. The Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, which was made at the close of the Government's case. The text outlines the legal standard for such a motion, citing numerous precedents that require the court to view evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00020992.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (likely an appeal brief) arguing that certain counts against the Defendant are 'multiplicitous' (charging the same offense multiple times). It cites legal precedents regarding conspiracy charges and argues that because the participants (specifically the Defendant and Epstein) and the objectives (acquiring underage girls for Epstein to abuse) overlapped substantially, the counts should be considered the same conspiracy. It explicitly describes the Defendant's role as procuring girls for Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020983.jpg
This document is a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 1, 2022, signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order denies the Defendant's motion for a new trial, concluding that 'Juror 50' harbored no bias, orders a presentence investigation report, and confirms sentencing is scheduled for June 28, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00020978.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that addresses and rejects the Defendant's arguments for juror bias. The Defendant claims that Juror 50 was biased due to his personal history of sexual abuse, which she argues resonated with the victims' testimony and improperly shaped his views. The Court refutes these claims, stating that the juror's post-trial interviews do not prove pre-trial bias and that it is a foundational principle for jurors to rely on their life experiences to evaluate evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00020966.jpg
This document is page 23 of a court ruling (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressing a motion regarding Juror 50's conduct. The Court concludes that Juror 50's failure to disclose sexual abuse history on his questionnaire was inadvertent rather than intentional deception. Furthermore, applying the 'McDonough' legal standard, the Court determines that even if the juror had answered accurately, he would not have been struck for cause, as evidenced by his credible responses during a post-trial hearing.
| 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