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-00002178.jpg
This page from a government filing (opposition to bail) argues that the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) is a flight risk. It highlights that her marriage is not a sufficient tie to the US, noting she lived alone while hiding in New Hampshire and that she and her spouse listed themselves as 'single' on bank trust account forms in 2018. The document also dismisses the defense's offer to waive extradition rights, particularly noting that France generally does not extradite its own nationals.
DOJ-OGR-00002175.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 18, 2020, is part of a court case arguing that victims' accounts are corroborated by witnesses and documentary evidence. The prosecution asserts this evidence will prove that the victims met and interacted with both the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. The document also references a 'Renewed Bail Motion' from the defense, which complains that the evidence provided so far is not voluminous enough.
DOJ-OGR-00002175(1).jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Government argues that documentary evidence and witness testimony will 'virtually indisputably' prove that the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein interacted with minor victims at specific times and places. The document also references a 'Renewed Bail Motion' filed by the defense, though the specific arguments regarding that motion are largely redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002174.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues that contrary to the Defense's claims, the case is strong because three independent victims will testify to the specific grooming techniques used by Maxwell and Epstein, including the use of massage to transition to sexual acts and the manipulation of minors by an adult woman. The text notes that these accounts corroborate one another by describing the same course of conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00002174(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the prosecution's argument against the defense. It states that three victims are prepared to testify in detail about the defendant's role in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal scheme to sexually abuse minors. The prosecution asserts that the victims' accounts are consistent and corroborate each other, describing specific techniques of grooming and manipulation used by the defendant, thereby strengthening the government's case.
DOJ-OGR-00002166.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing detailing the background of an indictment against an unnamed defendant. It alleges that between 1994 and 1997, the defendant conspired with Jeffrey Epstein to facilitate the sexual abuse of minors by identifying, enticing, and grooming them. The document lists the specific charges, which include conspiracy, enticement of a minor, transportation of minors for illegal sex acts, and perjury for lying in a civil deposition.
DOJ-OGR-00002163.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal memorandum filed by the government on December 18, 2020, in case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The memorandum is in opposition to the defendant's renewed motion for release. The contents outline the government's arguments, including the background of the case, applicable law, and a discussion of the offense, evidence, the defendant's characteristics, and conditions of confinement.
DOJ-OGR-00001935.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2020, where an attorney argues against the detention of their client. The attorney refutes the government's claim that a perjury charge should warrant detention, framing it as a simple denial of guilt during a deposition and emphasizing the defendant's right to be presumed innocent. The speaker also notes the government has been investigating the case for ten years and requests the proceedings remain open to present more facts.
DOJ-OGR-00001909.jpg
This document is page 32 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues that the defendant is a flight risk because she successfully lived in hiding for a year and purchased real estate using a fake name without detection. The Judge (The Court) interrupts to question why this specific information regarding the evasion was not presented until the government's reply brief.
DOJ-OGR-00001906.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues to a judge that the defendant is not being truthful about her financial situation. The speaker highlights the defendant's lifestyle, which seems inconsistent with her disclosed assets, and points to a specific instance of non-transparency regarding a property in New Hampshire. The government is actively investigating this property transaction, having had an F.B.I. agent interview the real estate agent involved.
DOJ-OGR-00001900.jpg
This document is page 23 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues for the continued detention of the defendant pending trial, citing 'extreme risk of flight,' 'significant financial means,' lack of candor with Pretrial Services regarding finances, and 'strong international ties.' The prosecution emphasizes the seriousness of the charges involving the sexual abuse of minors and the defendant's lack of community ties or stable residence.
DOJ-OGR-00001834.jpg
This document is a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government requested to delay the disclosure of sensitive witness information to the defense to protect an ongoing investigation and encourage victim cooperation. Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the request for delay but rejected the Government's proposed timeline, ordering that the materials be produced by March 12, 2021, to ensure the defense can adequately prepare for trial.
DOJ-OGR-00022130.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) dated May 20, 2021. The text is upside down in the image. It appears to be the signature page of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement involving the SDNY (represented by Audrey Strauss, signed by Jessica Lonergan). The agreement stipulates that if the defendant completes supervision and fulfills terms, the Government will move to dismiss the indictment. The case number corresponds to United States v. Torgerson (involving the prison guards on duty when Jeffrey Epstein died).
DOJ-OGR-00021989.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing dated December 19, 2019 (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT). Ms. Donaleski, representing the government, states no objection to expanding the defendant's travel to the Middle District of Pennsylvania but strongly opposes the defendant possessing a firearm due to safety concerns for Pretrial Services officers who conduct unscheduled home visits. The Court agrees with the government and Judge Netburn's previous ruling, denying the application to keep the firearm as a 'commonsense safety measure.'
DOJ-OGR-00021957.jpg
This document is page 4 of 5 from a court filing filed on December 16, 2019, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. It outlines legal procedures for the defendant regarding the handling of discovery material in public filings, specifically mandating that such material be filed under seal or that the Government be notified to allow for redaction discussions. If the parties cannot agree on redactions, they must seek Court resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00021945.jpg
This document is a court order (Form AO 199B) filed on November 19, 2019, outlining additional conditions of release for a defendant involved in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. The conditions mandate pretrial supervision, the surrender of passports, travel restrictions limited to NY, NJ, and Eastern PA, a prohibition on firearms, and a requirement for mental health evaluation and treatment.
DOJ-OGR-00021815.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal opinion (likely the appeal decision in US v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. The text discusses the legal concept of 'constructive amendment' of an indictment, ruling that the testimony of a witness named 'Jane' and a subsequent jury note did not improperly amend the charges against the defendant. The appellate court affirms the District Court's handling of jury instructions regarding the 'core of criminality' and 'Count Four' of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021592.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely US v. Maxwell appeal records) containing a judge's ruling during sentencing. The judge overrules the defendant's objection and sustains the government's objection regarding the PSR Guideline calculation, explicitly finding that Virginia Roberts and Melissa were minor victims trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein. Consequently, the judge rules that these victims must be included in the sentencing calculation under Section 3D1.4, despite not being named in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021588.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023, discussing the legal definition of 'extensive' criminal activity. The court outlines the scope of the conspiracy, identifying Epstein and the defendant as knowing participants, noting Sarah Kellen joined in 2002, and stating that Virginia and Carolyn recruited minors starting in 2001. It also credits testimony from employee Juan Alessi regarding his role in facilitating massages under the defendant's instructions and identifies Visoski and Rodgers as Epstein's pilots.
DOJ-OGR-00021586.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely United States v. Maxwell) regarding sentencing. The judge is ruling on the application of sentencing guidelines, specifically rejecting the defendant's argument against enhancement 4B1.5(b) regarding public danger. The text also introduces enhancement 3B1.1(a), discussing the defendant's 'leadership role' as an 'organizer or leader' in criminal activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021585.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript (SA-409) from Case 22-1426, filed on 06/29/2023. It records a judge's ruling during a sentencing hearing (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's, given the 'sex crime' and 'minor' context and file codes). The judge explicitly finds the defendant engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct with a minor on at least two occasions and overrules a defense objection regarding sentencing enhancements, stating that the clear text of the Guidelines overrides background commentary or legislative history.
DOJ-OGR-00021568.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) featuring a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the Court regarding the timeline of a conspiracy. Ms. Moe argues that the conspiracy was active throughout 2004 and 2005, citing testimony from a witness named Carolyn who visited Epstein's house continually during that period at ages 17 and 18. The discussion focuses on the legal burden of proof regarding withdrawal from a conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00021557.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023, in which a judge is ruling on objections to a report (likely a Presentence Investigation Report). The judge overrules the defendant's objections, citing credible testimony from witnesses Annie, Jane, Kate, and Mr. Alessi to establish that the defendant personally recruited Virginia (a minor) for sexualized massages with Epstein. The ruling also affirms that the defendant used monetary incentives to have Virginia recruit 14-year-old Carolyn, who subsequently witnessed sexual acts at Epstein's residence.
DOJ-OGR-00021556.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) detailing a judge's rulings on objections to a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) regarding a defendant (likely Ghislaine Maxwell). The text discusses the defendant's role in grooming victims 'Jane' and 'Kate' for Jeffrey Epstein, specifically overruling an objection to exclude Kate's testimony about the defendant's recruitment methods. It also addresses a dispute regarding evidence of Epstein paying for a trip to Thailand for an individual named 'Annie'.
DOJ-OGR-00021544.jpg
This document is a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell), ordering a public hearing to address potential juror misconduct. The court orders Juror 50 to appear on March 8, 2022, to testify under oath regarding answers given to Questions 25 and 48 on the jury questionnaire. The Judge also rules that Juror 50's privacy interests are outweighed by the presumption of public access given his public comments.
| 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