Epstein
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Sanchez
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-1
|
Abuser victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Narrator
|
Abuser victim |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Malyshev
|
Business associate |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Co conspirator |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Predatory |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie's mom
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
USAO Managers (Acosta, Menchel, Lourie)
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alfredo Rodriguez
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Tatum Miller
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Accomplices |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sarah Ransome
|
Victim perpetrator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
YL
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Co implicated |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Richard M. Berman
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Deborah Anaya
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Adversarial defendant victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Co involved in investigation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Association |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lesley Groff
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Criminal association |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-1
|
Adversarial defendant victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Victim |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Provision regarding USAO's efforts to obtain Epstein's computers and the safeguarding of these co... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's alleged sexual molestation of minor girls on a daily basis for many years, including at... | West Palm Beach mansion | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion about Ghislaine Maxwell's relationship with Epstein continuing and her responsibilitie... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Litigation involving Epstein where his lawyers attacked the credibility of the girls. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discovery process blocked by Epstein and co-conspirators, leading to the need for alternative inv... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ghislaine Maxwell began looking for real estate for her dad and Epstein asked for help finding an... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein asked Ghislaine Maxwell to continue helping him (find a house, etc.) after her father's d... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's alleged criminal scheme and the defense's efforts to secure non-prosecution and immigra... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Agreement provisions precluding criminal charges and immigration proceedings against certain indi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Federal investigation resolved through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's plea agreement and sentencing for an 18-month incarceration, reduced from a 'non-negoti... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Plaintiffs' motion to deny a protective order, which seeks to exclude Epstein from depositions, i... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Minor girl (Jane Doe #5) was taken to Epstein's mansion on El Brillo Way for massages and/or sex ... | Epstein's mansion on El Bri... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein serving 12 months of house arrest at his Palm Beach home, with curfew, no unsupervised co... | Palm Beach home | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court's findings and application of sentencing guidelines, including a four-level leader... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | 11-month investigation by Palm Beach police into Epstein paying underage girls for massages and s... | El Brillo Way home | View |
| N/A | N/A | State Attorney Barry Krischer declined to prosecute Epstein on unlawful sex acts with minors, ins... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Notification received by OPR from FBI and USAO regarding federal investigation and Epstein's plea. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's state plea hearing. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Menchel made substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter concerning Epstein's plea deal, incl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's plea deal (non-prosecution agreement) for two prostitution charges. | state court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein served 13 months in Palm Beach County jail with work release privileges. | Palm Beach County jail | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI investigation into Epstein's international sex trafficking organization was quashed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Relocation of victims from Palm Beach to other places in the U.S. (including Southern District of... | Palm Beach, other places in... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's attempt to get out of the NPA after it was signed. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00003105.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion to sever charges. The prosecution contends that perjury charges from 2016 (Counts Five and Six) are directly connected to earlier charges of victim abuse from 1994-1997 and 1999-2002 (Counts One through Four). The connection is based on the defendant's broad, false denials in 2016 of the very conduct alleged in the earlier counts, including a scheme involving Giuffre, Epstein, and Minor Victim-2.
DOJ-OGR-00003098.jpg
This legal document is a filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss a perjury charge. The prosecution contends that the defendant's false statements in a deposition for the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil suit were material, as truthful answers could have corroborated claims that the defendant and Epstein recruited Giuffre and could have led to other victims or witnesses. The filing asserts that the issue of materiality is a question for the jury and should not be decided by the court at this stage.
DOJ-OGR-00003094.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss perjury charges. The prosecution contends that the defendant understood the plain meaning of questions asked during a July 2016 deposition regarding her relationship with Epstein and her knowledge of his activities, and that her answers were knowingly false. The document cites specific deposition questions and answers, including one about massages, as evidence that a jury should be allowed to determine the truthfulness of her statements.
DOJ-OGR-00003089.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on April 16, 2021, presents an argument that a jury could find the defendant's testimony to be false. The prosecution argues that the defendant, likely Maxwell, falsely claimed to be unaware of any minors at Jeffrey Epstein's properties besides Giuffre, contradicting an indictment alleging interactions with 'Minor Victim-1'. The document refutes the defense's claims that the questions were ambiguous or improper, citing the defendant's own statements that the events in question 'never happened'.
DOJ-OGR-00003080.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, dated April 16, 2021, concerning a defendant's motion to dismiss two counts of perjury. The charges stem from depositions in April and July 2016, where the defendant was ordered to answer questions about her involvement with Epstein and Giuffre in a prior defamation case. The document outlines the court's previous orders and introduces the applicable law for perjury, citing legal standards for determining if a statement is knowingly false.
DOJ-OGR-00003078.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, provides the factual background for a case, detailing how Virginia Roberts Giuffre joined a lawsuit concerning a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Giuffre alleged that the defendant was a "primary co-conspirator" who procured underage girls for Epstein and participated in sexual abuse. The document cites Giuffre's specific allegations that the defendant persuaded her to go to Epstein's mansion and was involved in a sexual encounter there.
DOJ-OGR-00003025.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, recounts events from 2016 concerning the civil litigation between Giuffre and Maxwell. It details the process of establishing a protective order for discovery materials, initiated by Maxwell's motion on March 2, 2016, contested by Giuffre's counsel (Boies Schiller), and ultimately entered by Judge Robert W. Sweet on March 18, 2016. The document also asserts that the USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwell in 2016 and that the government has no record of email communication between AUSA-1 and Boies Schiller attorneys after May 3, 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00003024.jpg
This legal document describes a February 2016 meeting where attorneys presented information to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA-1) about individuals connected to Epstein, with a focus on Maxwell. It asserts that because this meeting pre-dated the depositions central to the current indictment, the attorneys could not have alleged perjury related to those specific depositions at that time. The document also notes AUSA-1's lack of recall regarding specific perjury discussions involving Maxwell and details the government's subsequent review of AUSA-1's emails for related communications.
DOJ-OGR-00003022.jpg
This legal document, filed by the prosecution, refutes the defendant's (Maxwell's) motion which alleges collusion between the law firm Boies Schiller and the U.S. Government. The prosecution argues that the defendant's narrative is false, stating that the perjury investigation began in late 2018, years after the meetings between Boies Schiller and a former AUSA, and that this AUSA had no involvement in the decision to open the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003015.jpg
This legal document is a section of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss charges due to pre-indictment delay. The government contends that the defendant has not shown the delay was an intentional strategic tactic, citing legal precedents like Lovasco to support that investigative delays are permissible. The filing refutes the defendant's timeline, stating the relevant investigation into Epstein and his co-conspirators began in late 2018, not decades prior.
DOJ-OGR-00003010.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) outlines the Government's argument that the defendant has failed to prove prejudice regarding the unavailability of Detective Recarey and various unnamed 'Epstein employees.' The text argues that fading memories and lost witnesses do not automatically justify dismissing the indictment. A footnote clarifies that Minor Victim-2 was interviewed by the FBI, but not by Detective Recarey.
DOJ-OGR-00003009.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against the admissibility of certain evidence in the case against Epstein. It cites multiple legal precedents establishing that proof of lawful conduct on some occasions is irrelevant to disproving a specific criminal charge. The document applies this to the Epstein case, asserting that a prior investigation's findings about his conduct in the 2000s are irrelevant to the current charges from 1994-1997, and notes that two key victims were only interviewed for the first time in late 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00003008.jpg
This legal document is a filing that argues against a defendant's motion. The defendant claims that testimony from Michael Casey (agent for Minor Victim-1) and Detective Recarey would have been exculpatory. The filing counters that this proposed testimony is speculative, unsubstantiated, likely inadmissible hearsay, and ultimately irrelevant to the charges that the defendant assisted Epstein in the grooming and abuse of other victims.
DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion for an evidentiary hearing. The author contends that the defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as affidavits, to establish a genuine factual dispute that would warrant a hearing. The filing contrasts the current defendant's lack of evidence with several precedent cases (Aleman, Sattar, Feldman) where hearings were granted because defendants submitted supporting affidavits or made uncontested assertions.
DOJ-OGR-00002982.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues against a defendant's motion for discovery related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It heavily cites an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report which concluded that prosecutors, including Alex Acosta and Villafaña, did not intend the NPA's 'co-conspirator' clause to protect Epstein's influential associates. Instead, the provision was meant for four specific women, as prosecutors viewed Epstein as the primary target and were not interested in prosecuting others.
DOJ-OGR-00002976.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) does not immunize the defendant, Maxwell, from prosecution. The argument is based on two points: the NPA's scope is strictly limited to specific federal crimes committed between 2001 and 2007, and the mere mention of "co-conspirator" does not automatically include Maxwell within the agreement's protections.
DOJ-OGR-00002975.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion. The central issue is whether a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and Epstein also prevents other districts from prosecuting Epstein's co-conspirators. The government contends that the defendant has provided no evidence to support this claim and that legal precedent within the circuit confirms that the NPA does not bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00002974.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited to the Southern District of Florida (SDFL). It cites a 2013 brief from the USAO-SDFL, an OPR Report, and Department of Justice guidelines to establish that the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to, and did not intend to, prevent Epstein's prosecution in any other federal district. The central theme is that the NPA was not a 'global resolution' and did not provide nationwide immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
This legal document details communications and events following the signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It reveals internal dissent within the Department of Justice, citing an OPR Report where official Oosterbaan described the NPA as overly advantageous to Epstein. The document also notes that Assistant Attorney General Fisher denied any role in reviewing or approving the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00002971.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330) arguing that the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) was not involved in Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The Government asserts that communications between the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and SDNY were solely regarding an old civil lawsuit from the 1990s, not plea negotiations. The text refutes defense claims involving 'Main Justice' and provides context on an AUSA who left the SDNY in April 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00002970.jpg
This legal document argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is binding only on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and not on other districts, such as the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The author contends that the defendant has failed to provide any evidence to support the claim that the NPA binds other districts, dismissing a privilege log from an investigation into Epstein as irrelevant to this specific point. The document concludes that the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law because the text of the NPA does not support a broader application.
DOJ-OGR-00002965.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is not enforceable in the Southern District of New York. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the position that plea agreements are binding only in the district where they are made, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The document concludes that the defendant has failed to provide evidence that the USAO-SDFL's NPA with Epstein was intended to bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00032371.jpg
This Palm Beach Police incident report from April 2006 details an interview with Johanna Sjoberg regarding her interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, including sexualized massages and financial benefits like tuition payments. The report also documents police research into a vehicle (Florida tag X88-EFF) linked to a young woman with the MySpace handle 'pinkpetals', and a review of seized video surveillance footage showing Epstein with Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and possibly Haley Robson.
DOJ-OGR-00032370.jpg
This Palm Beach Police Department incident report, dated April 20, 2006, documents ongoing investigative activities related to a case involving Epstein. It includes details of vehicle surveillance, background checks on associated individuals, and a scheduled interview with Janusz Banasiak. The main part of the document is a narrative from a January 19, 2006 interview with Johanna Sjoberg, who describes being recruited by Ghaline Maxwell to work for Epstein while in college, a job that evolved from running errands to providing massages to Epstein, his assistant Sarah, and Nadia Marcinkova.
DOJ-OGR-00032364.jpg
This Palm Beach Police Department incident report, dated February 17, 2006, documents an interview with an 18-year-old woman who alleges Jeffrey Epstein sexually assaulted her multiple times during paid massage sessions at his home, beginning in May 2005. The woman claims Epstein touched her breasts, masturbated during the sessions, and digitally penetrated her on one occasion. The report also states the woman admitted to receiving money for bringing other people, including a girl and her friend Tory Bean, to Epstein's house to "work."
| 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 |
Recruitment
Epstein told Dobbs 'You can bring girls.'
Second thoughts about public figure status
Epstein called Carter to say he was having second thoughts about being a public figure.
Discovery/Deposition Questions
Questions regarding allegations Epstein contends Edwards 'ginned up' or 'fabricated'.
Second Amended Complaint
Allegations that Edwards 'should have known' about the Ponzi scheme.
Socializing
Copperfield called Epstein frequently and left messages indicating they socialized together.
Important Message
A message from 'Epstein' for Vanessa Grigoriadis of NY Magazine, to be delivered at 5:10 P.M. The message itself is simply 'Epstein'.
Unspecified
A conversation between Epstein and the witness's mother is mentioned by Ms. Menninger as something that could be testified to by the mother herself.
Civil Case
Complaint styled 'Jane Doe 102 versus Epstein'.
Bitcoin
Update on rapid Bitcoin price swings
Resignation/Leaving
Narrator told Epstein she wasn't coming back because she had fallen in love.
Phone records / Thank you notes
The speaker notes the absence of these records as evidence
Decision not to prosecute
Epstein personally met with Capt. Elmer Gudger and advised him that he no longer wished to prosecute Juan Alessi for burglary and theft.
Disclosure of Agreement
Notice to be provided if a FOIA request or compulsory process commands disclosure of the agreement.
No Subject
Email communication regarding Eva being in Paris and flying back, suggesting a close relationship with Epstein.
Complaint
Epstein filed a complaint which Edwards alleges was done without probable cause for the purpose of extortion.
General conversation
The witness, A. Farmer, testified that she spoke with Epstein by phone approximately two or three times after her trip to New York.
Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA)
The central subject of the document, an agreement whose scope and binding effect on other districts is being debated.
FOIA Request Notice
Notice to be provided if the US receives a FOIA request for this agreement.
Contact Information
Before the witness left, Epstein asked her to leave her phone number.
Arranging a trip
The speaker states that Epstein, not Ghislaine, called Annie's mom to arrange the trip.
Freedom of Information Act Notice
United States will provide notice to Epstein before disclosing agreement under FOIA.
Annie's trip
Discussion regarding Annie's trip to New Mexico
Invitation to New Mexico
Epstein called Annie's mom to invite Annie to New Mexico, falsely claiming that 20 to 25 other girls and his wife, Ghislaine, would be there.
Invitation to New Mexico
Epstein called Annie's mom to invite Annie to New Mexico, falsely claiming that 20 to 25 other girls and his wife, Ghislaine, would be there.
Ongoing communication
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity