| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Business associate |
26
Very Strong
|
25 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
30 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Business associate |
12
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
SDNY
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Jack Goldberger
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Abuser victim |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Edwards
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Friend |
11
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
56 | |
|
person
Juan Alessi
|
Employee |
11
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Co conspirator |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Prosecutor defendant |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Lefcourt
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Friend |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Abuser victim |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Co conspirators |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
location
Palm Beach residence
|
Ownership |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
USAO-SDFL
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Acosta's decision to employ Petite policy analysis in Epstein's case, aiming to avert a 'manifest... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dobbs massaging Epstein | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Employee worked for Epstein at East 71st Street residence. | New York residence at East ... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation of an agreement allowing Epstein to resolve federal investigation in return for an 18... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Grooming and abuse | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of video disks extracted by PBSO Computer Crime Unit showing Epstein, Sarah Kellen, Nadia ... | Epstein's Office (on video) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein agreed to plead guilty in Florida state court to soliciting minors for prostitution and s... | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to charge Epstein with federal crimes and not to bring criminal... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | The last call made by Epstein. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Broader investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, covering periods beyond the Indictment. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Agreement for deferred prosecution of Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, contingent on ... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation of Epstein's offenses and background by State and Federal law enforcement agencies. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential initiation of prosecution for Epstein if he violates agreement conditions, within 60 da... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of charges against Epstein if all terms and conditions of the agreement are fulfilled, ... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Local teenaged females visiting Epstein's residence | Palm Beach, Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's plea hearing in state court. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Virginia's first encounter with Epstein, involving a massage in a bedroom. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Virginia being 'trained' to entertain Epstein's friends. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Young females traveling on private aircraft | Private Aircraft | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein calling Virginia at her Palm Beach apartment to arrange for her to fly to his island. | Palm Beach apartment | View |
| N/A | N/A | Virginia being sent to meet men on Epstein's private island in the Caribbean or his ranch in New ... | Caribbean private island, N... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual assault/misconduct incident where Epstein masturbated during a massage by YL. | Epstein's House | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein pleading guilty to protect associates from federal prosecution, effectively closing the f... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proposal for Epstein to serve 15 months. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Decision to allow Epstein to plead to one of three charges and reduce sentencing from two years t... | N/A | View |
This document is a news article from the Daily Mail reporting on statements from 'Scotty,' a juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Scotty expresses satisfaction with the guilty verdict, stating the jury was convinced Maxwell's life was 'intertwined' with Epstein's and that she was 'every bit as culpable' as him. The juror also affirmed that the prosecution proved its case 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that the evidence convinced the panel she was a 'predator'.
This document is a screenshot of a Daily Mail Online news article from January 26, 2022, related to legal case 1:20-cr-00330-RA. It features a photograph from the U.S. District Attorney's Office showing Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein together. The caption states that Maxwell faced six sex trafficking counts based on the testimony of four victims.
This document is a news article detailing the perspective of a juror, 'Scotty,' from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Scotty explains that the defense team's aggressive tactics, particularly attorney Laura Menninger's questioning of a victim, backfired and helped convince the jury of the defense's lack of respect for the victims. The article also contains a sidebar about a separate, 'brutal' court hearing for Prince Andrew in New York concerning a lawsuit filed by his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.
This legal document argues against a defendant's claim that Juror 50 intentionally lied on a juror questionnaire about being a victim of sexual abuse in order to serve on the jury. The filing contends that Juror 50's other disclosures, such as his knowledge of the defendant's connection to Epstein, are inconsistent with an intent to deceive. It cites legal precedents to support the idea that juror questionnaires should be viewed in context and suggests the matter of credibility should be resolved in a formal court hearing.
This legal document excerpt details the conviction of 'the defendant' on multiple counts related to sex trafficking and exploitation. It outlines evidence showing the defendant's involvement in transporting and abusing Jane with Epstein, arranging sex acts for Carolyn with Epstein for money, and recruiting Virginia, all while they were minors. The document emphasizes that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict despite defense arguments regarding victim credibility.
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the sufficiency of evidence to uphold a defendant's conviction on multiple counts. It details the defendant's role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation, specifically by making travel arrangements for a victim named Jane and recruiting another victim, Virginia. The document cites trial testimony and legal precedents to assert that a rational jury could and did find the defendant guilty.
This document, a legal filing from February 25, 2022, discusses the defendant's arguments regarding the availability and completeness of phone records and flight manifests in a criminal case. The defendant claims that Carolyn's testimony could have been disproven by phone records and that flight manifests would have helped challenge Jane's recollections, but the document refutes these claims, citing testimony from Visoski and Rodgers about the handling and incompleteness of flight manifests.
This legal document is a filing that argues against a defendant's motion claiming prejudice. The defendant alleges that the unavailability of 'critical documentary records'—such as flight, financial, and property records related to Epstein—prevented her from challenging government assertions and testimony from a witness named Jane. The filing contends that the defendant's claims are speculative and fail to demonstrate what the missing records would have shown or that they would have been favorable to her defense.
This legal document is a court filing arguing against a defendant's claim of prejudice due to the unavailability of certain witnesses. The filing contends that the defendant has failed to prove these witnesses (architects Pinto and Salhi) were 'key' or that their testimony would have been irreplaceably helpful. It further points out that the defendant had the opportunity to, and did, cross-examine other employees of Epstein, such as Juan Alessi and pilots Larry Visoski and David Rodgers, to establish facts about the defendant's role and time spent at Epstein's residences.
This legal document is a court filing in which the defendant argues for the case to be dismissed due to substantial prejudice caused by pre-indictment delay. The defendant claims the deaths of several witnesses, including architects, a property manager, and a housekeeper who worked for Epstein, as well as others like Jeffrey Epstein himself, prevent a fair trial. The document indicates the Court has previously rejected these arguments as speculative and lacking evidence of actual prejudice.
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's motion to vacate her conviction and dismiss the indictment. The Government contends that the conspiracies were distinct from those of Epstein, despite shared methods like grooming, and that the defendant has failed to prove her due process rights were violated by any pre-trial delay, as she has not shown actual prejudice.
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) argues against a claim of multiplicity by distinguishing between two separate conspiracies involving the defendant. It details a 1990s scheme focused on grooming and mentoring victims for abuse at Epstein's properties, and a separate 2000s 'pyramid scheme' where victims were paid to recruit others for massage appointments.
This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, analyzes the overlap in time and geographic scope between two criminal charges, Count Three and Count Five. It argues that the overlap is minimal, with Count Three primarily covering conduct in the 1990s involving transporting minors from Florida to New York, while Count Five covers a sex trafficking conspiracy in the 2000s. The document references an overt act involving efforts by a defendant and Epstein to solicit a person named Carolyn to travel, and mentions that someone named Kellen took nude photographs of Carolyn for Epstein.
This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, argues that two criminal charges, Count Three and Count Five, are substantially different and not redundant. It distinguishes them based on different underlying statutes (including the Mann Act and Trafficking Victims Protection Act), differing ages of consent (17 in New York vs. 18), geographic locations (New York vs. Florida), and the specific victims involved, including Jane, Annie Farmer, and Virginia Roberts. The document cites flight records and testimony from pilot David Rodgers as evidence of Virginia Roberts traveling with the defendant and Epstein at age 17.
This legal document presents the defendant's speculation on a jury's split verdict, arguing that the conviction was based on a trip to New Mexico. The defense contends the jury acquitted on an enticement charge because flight logs, while placing the defendant on the trip, offered no proof she induced the victim, 'Jane', to go. The document contrasts this with a trip to New York, where Jane's testimony was corroborated by a flight record, and discusses the lack of evidence regarding the defendant's involvement in Jane's return travel from New Mexico.
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a jury note submitted during Ms. Maxwell's trial was ambiguous. The defense claimed the note referred to a specific 1997 flight to New Mexico, but this document contends the jury could have been referencing other flights or asking a different question entirely. The document concludes that the defendant's interpretation is 'mere conjecture' and supports the court's decision to reject the defense's arguments on this point.
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing, dated February 25, 2022, detailing the Government's arguments in a criminal case. It focuses on the alleged enticement and transportation of individuals, specifically 'Jane,' by Maxwell, Epstein, and the defendant across state lines to New York for abuse, emphasizing the intent behind these actions as sufficient for a Mann Act violation. The document also mentions the alleged grooming of 'Annie' by the defendant after she had visited Epstein in New York, and the intent of the defendant and Epstein to abuse 'Carolyn' and 'Annie'.
This document is page 8 of a court filing (Document 621) from February 25, 2022, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines the Government's argument regarding Mann Act convictions, detailing how the defendant aided and abetted Epstein in transporting minors (specifically 'Jane' and Virginia Roberts) to New York for illegal sexual activity. The text specifically cites a 2001 flight from Maine to Teterboro involving Epstein, the defendant, and Virginia Roberts.
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, specifically page 7 of Document 621 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 25, 2022. The prosecution argues that there was no improper variance between the S2 Indictment and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that the proof of a scheme with Epstein to transport minors to New York for criminal sexual activity directly matched the charges. The document cites legal precedents to support the argument that the defendant was not prejudiced.
This document details the conflicting communications and actions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's work release following his June 30, 2008 plea. It reveals that while federal prosecutors (USAO) and Epstein's own attorney indicated he would not get work release, a Palm Beach Sheriff's Office official stated he was eligible, and he was ultimately placed in the program without the USAO's knowledge. The document also highlights Epstein's false statements to the court about his employment at the non-existent "Florida Science Foundation."
This document details communications from late June 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It begins with a letter from Roth to Epstein's counsel, Starr and Lefkowitz, confirming that federal prosecution is appropriate, and then shifts to prosecutor Villafaña's efforts to enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Villafaña expresses strong suspicion that Epstein's attorneys are misrepresenting the terms of his confinement, telling her he would be in a jail 24/7 while planning for him to be at a less restrictive 'stockade', which she reports to a colleague, Sloman, as a violation of their agreement.
This document details events in early January 2008 concerning the Jeffrey Epstein case, starting with the postponement of a plea hearing due to issues with the state charge. It describes a meeting where defense attorney Sanchez alleged a media leak by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and pushed for a lenient plea deal, followed by a phone call where Epstein's full legal team reiterated their desire for a 'watered-down resolution'. Amid these negotiations, USAO personnel expressed concern about delays and initiated a full internal review of the investigation.
This document, a page from a legal filing, details the contentious negotiations between federal prosecutors (led by Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Lefkowitz) regarding an addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in October 2007. It describes the defense's successful request to postpone Epstein's state guilty plea and the prosecution's growing frustration with the defense for revisiting settled issues. The prosecutors also express suspicion that the defense's delay tactics were motivated by a new civil lawsuit filed against Epstein in New York.
This document details communications between U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, in late 2007 regarding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It focuses on a controversial breakfast meeting and subsequent letters where Lefkowitz claimed Acosta promised non-interference by federal authorities, a claim Acosta's office refuted in a draft response as "inaccurate" and tantamount to a "gag order." The text highlights conflicting accounts and the external criticism surrounding Acosta's handling of the case, contrasting his version of events with media reports.
This document details discussions among prosecutors regarding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It covers the rationale behind a broad non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators and focuses on communications from September 21, 2007, between prosecutor Villafaña and State Attorney Krischer, who were finalizing Epstein's sentence and confirming that sexual offender registration was a non-negotiable term.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | $0.00 | Epstein paid for a lot in Ghislaine Maxwell's l... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Unspecified recip... | $0.00 | Mention of a 'donation' Epstein had made on a d... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | underprivileged g... | $200.00 | Payment for massages | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | underprivileged g... | $300.00 | Payment for massages | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Defense Attorneys | $0.00 | Cost of Epstein's defense | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | victim | $300.00 | Payment for services (massage) | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Bill Richardson (... | $0.00 | Campaign donations from Epstein that Richardson... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | [REDACTED] | $350.00 | Payment for massage | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Harvard | $30,000,000.00 | Donation for a theoretical physics research cen... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | MD | $200.00 | Payment for providing a massage (first incident). | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | MD | $200.00 | Payment for providing a massage (second incident). | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Jane Doe #5 | $200.00 | Payment for giving a massage. | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | $0.00 | Epstein paid Ghislaine Maxwell millions and mil... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | The Defendant (Gh... | $10,000,000.00 | Bequest included in defendant's assets for dete... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Edwards' clients | $0.00 | Settlement amounts Epstein voluntarily agreed t... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $10,000,000.00 | Bequest listed as an asset | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $10,000,000.00 | Bequest from estate | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Interlochen Arts ... | $0.00 | Alleged payment for 'Jane'. The document text s... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | [REDACTED] | $300.00 | Payment for massage services | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Victims (implied) | $0.00 | Reference to 'Epstein's agreement... to provide... | View |
| N/A | Received | Edwards | Epstein | $0.00 | Epstein is attempting to force Edwards to pay '... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Unknown (Construc... | $0.00 | Purchase or construction of a cabin at Interloc... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Interlochen School | $0.00 | Possible donation of the cabin to the school (w... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | the defendant | $0.00 | Receipt of funds mentioned in context of missin... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | victims | $0.00 | General reference to victims' right to seek dam... | View |
Epstein filed a complaint which Edwards alleges was done without probable cause for the purpose of extortion.
Epstein personally met with Capt. Elmer Gudger and advised him that he no longer wished to prosecute Juan Alessi for burglary and theft.
Epstein called Annie's mom and talked to her about Ghislaine being present for a trip.
Accusers offered to send photos to Epstein while he was in jail.
Burt Fields or Eileen Guggenheim spoke to Epstein about Maria to help advance her artistic career.
Epstein encouraged girls to find other girls interested in performing massages for him.
If a girl had not been to his home before, Epstein asked for her phone number to contact her in the future.
Message pads entered at trial show Carolyn called Epstein several times in the summer of 2004: once in late April or early May, again on July 6, and again on July 30.
Epstein called Carter to say he was having second thoughts about being a public figure.
The witness, Kate, describes her communications with Epstein during her twenties and early thirties as having a 'friendly' tone. She continued communicating because she did not want to admit what had happened to her and was fearful of disengaging.
Message pads entered at trial show Carolyn called Epstein several times in the summer of 2004: once in late April or early May, again on July 6, and again on July 30.
Epstein told Dobbs 'You can bring girls.'
Email communication regarding Eva being in Paris and flying back, suggesting a close relationship with Epstein.
Epstein called Maria and offered her a job at his mansion in New York City.
A message from 'Epstein' for Vanessa Grigoriadis of NY Magazine, to be delivered at 5:10 P.M. The message itself is simply 'Epstein'.
Epstein consistently notified Detective Deborah Anaya, a New Mexico official, whenever he spent time at his residence in New Mexico.
Copperfield called Epstein frequently and left messages indicating they socialized together.
After the alleged assault, Epstein told Jane Doe to write down her name and phone number.
A shipment from Epstein’s address in New York to Minor Victim-4, reflected in Federal Express records.
A shipment from Epstein’s address in New York to Minor Victim-4, reflected in Federal Express records.
A photograph was sent to Epstein with a note saying 'Thanks for rocking my world'.
Epstein was on the phone at the beginning of the massage session with ML.
Epstein told ML to leave her telephone number with his assistant so she could be contacted for work again.
During the second massage, JS told Epstein she didn't want to be touched after he attempted to touch her breasts.
The witness, A. Farmer, testified that she spoke with Epstein by phone approximately two or three times after her trip to New York.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity