Minor Victim-3
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Perpetrator victim |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Groomer victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Abuser victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Alleged victim perpetrator |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Perpetrator victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Perpetrator victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Perpetrator victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Perpetrator victim alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Investigator witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Criminal conspiracy |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial criminal |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Abusive |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Recruiter victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Defendant accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Victim abuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Victim accused |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Accused abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Groomer recruiter to victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
|
Non existent |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Alleged groomer victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Adversarial defendant victim |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Milestone | Minor Victim-3 turned 25 before 2003, making a substantive count based exclusively on conduct inv... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual abuse of Minor Victim-3 | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Crime | MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3, who was under 18, to provide massages to Epstein in London, kn... | London, England | View |
| N/A | Sexual abuse | Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3 during massages that MAXWELL encouraged. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | Alleged instances of sexual abuse took place over a three-year period beginning approximately 27 ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Minor Victim-3 traveled to the United States. | United States | View |
| N/A | Grooming | MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3, knowing she was under the age of 18. | London, England | View |
| N/A | Crime | Alleged sex acts between Epstein and Minor Victim-3. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Recruitment | MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3, then under 18, to provide massages to Epstein, knowing Epstein... | London, England | View |
| N/A | Recruitment and sexual abuse | JEFFREY EPSTEIN enticed and recruited multiple minor victims (Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, Min... | Manhattan, New York; Palm B... | View |
| N/A | Sexual abuse | Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3 during massages that were arranged and encouraged by MAXWELL. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conspiracy | The defendant allegedly participated in a conspiracy by recruiting and grooming Minor Victim-3 to... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A trial where Minor Victim-3 is expected to testify about her subjective experience of the allege... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Grooming | MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3 while she was under the age of 18. | London, England | View |
| N/A | Introduction | MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and arranged multiple interactions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Crime | Minor Victim-3 was abused by Epstein in the United States. | United States | View |
| N/A | Sexual abuse | Minor Victim-3 provided massages to Epstein, during which he sexually abused her. MAXWELL was awa... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | The defendant is charged with conspiring to transport and entice minors for the purpose of sexual... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Grooming | MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3 while knowing she was under 18. | London, England | View |
| N/A | Sexual abuse | Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3 during massages that MAXWELL encouraged her to provide. | London, England | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal act | The defendant's alleged efforts to recruit and encourage Minor Victim-3 to engage in sex acts wit... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding / testimony | Victims are expected to testify about sexual abuse. The Government has requested that Minor Victi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Facilitation of abuse | MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein, knowing Epstein intended to sex... | London, England | View |
| N/A | Grooming | MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3. | London, England | View |
| N/A | Crime | Allegations of a conspiracy involving grooming a minor girl (Minor Victim-3) to engage in sex act... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002992.jpg
This page is from a government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The text asserts that the Ex Post Facto Clause is not violated because the limitations period had not expired for Counts One through Four when it was extended in 2003. Footnotes address the specific ages of Minor Victims 1, 2, and 3 in relation to the 2003 extension and discuss the 'Landgraf' Supreme Court precedent regarding legislative retroactivity.
DOJ-OGR-00002977.jpg
This document is a page from a Government legal filing opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss her indictment. The Government argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein in Florida cannot logically grant Maxwell immunity for future crimes (specifically perjury) committed a decade later, nor grant her broader immunity than Epstein himself received. A footnote clarifies the scope of the original Florida investigation, noting that while Minor Victim-2 was interviewed then, Minor Victims 1 and 3 were not interviewed and did not speak to law enforcement until 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00002664.jpg
This page from a legal filing in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell argues against the retroactive application of extended statutes of limitations in criminal cases, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause and cases like Landgraf and Stogner. A crucial footnote asserts that the government is barred from prosecuting Maxwell for offenses against Minor Victim-3 because the statute of limitations had already expired when the victim turned 25 (year redacted) prior to the 2003 Amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00005787.jpg
This document is a Preliminary Statement from a Government memorandum filed on October 29, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues against thirteen motions in limine filed by the defense, asserting the admissibility of expert testimony, evidence regarding Minor Victim-3 and Minor Victim-4, co-conspirator statements, and the use of the terms 'victim' and 'rape' during trial. The Government also notes it will not introduce evidence of the defendant's flight or false statements in its case-in-chief unless the defense opens the door.
DOJ-OGR-00002855.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 29, 2021. It details specific allegations of Maxwell facilitating the sexual abuse of three unnamed minors (Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4) for Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2002. The alleged incidents occurred in various locations, including New Mexico, London, and Florida, and form the basis for Count Two of the indictment, 'Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts'.
DOJ-OGR-00005569.jpg
This document is page 15 of a Government filing dated October 29, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It discusses the Government's proposal to protect the identities of Minor Victims 1, 3, 4, and 6 through the use of pseudonyms or first names only during testimony. The text explicitly links the 'intimate details of childhood sexual abuse' to both the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005565.jpg
This page is an excerpt from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on October 29, 2021. It contains a section header for 'Minor Victim-3', but the substantive content describing this individual or events related to them is entirely redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005556.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal motion filed by the government on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The motion outlines arguments to protect the privacy of minor victims by allowing testimony under pseudonyms and sealing exhibits. It also seeks to preclude the defense from introducing what the government deems irrelevant evidence and improper arguments, including prior investigations of the defendant and the government's alleged motives.
DOJ-OGR-00005410.jpg
This document is page 17 of 54 from a court filing (Document 380) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. It argues for the sealing of exhibits containing the names or last names of specific minor victims (Minor Victim-1, 3, 4, 6) and Witness-1 to prevent harassment and protect privacy, citing various legal precedents. A footnote also argues that courtroom sketch artists should be precluded from drawing the faces of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00005404.jpg
This is a legal document filed on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. In this filing, the Government argues for protective measures for victims who are expected to give sensitive testimony about sexual abuse that occurred when they were minors. Specifically, the Government requests that 'Minor Victim-1' and 'Minor Victim-3' be allowed to testify under pseudonyms to protect their well-being and prevent harassment.
DOJ-OGR-00005398.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 380 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated October 29, 2021. In it, the Government requests that the Court implement protective measures for several minor victims and related witnesses, such as using pseudonyms or first names only during trial and sealing exhibits containing their full names. The filing argues that these measures are necessary to protect the victims from harassment and are legally permissible limitations on the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights.
DOJ-OGR-00002877.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (BSF) to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated March 22, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. BSF objects to a subpoena issued by Maxwell's defense, arguing it is overly broad and lacks clarity on which victims require notice, while clarifying that the firm represents victims Annie Farmer (Minor Victim-2) and Virginia Giuffre. The firm states its intention to notify all Epstein victims it represents about the subpoena out of an abundance of caution.
DOJ-OGR-00002680.jpg
This document is a preliminary statement from a legal motion filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell on February 4, 2021. The defense requests that the Court strike allegations related to 'Accuser-3' from the indictment, arguing that the alleged conduct occurred in England where Accuser-3 was above the age of consent and did not involve travel. The motion claims the government is improperly using these allegations to bolster its case regarding Mann Act violations involving 'Accuser-1' and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005838.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a portion of a government motion arguing against the defense's proposed jury instruction. The Government contends that the defense's instruction regarding sexual activity with 'Minor Victim-3' is wrong on the law and that the relevance of United Kingdom's age of consent law should be disregarded. The document also states that the Government has already provided the defense with discovery materials, including the identities of alleged co-conspirators, making the defense's request to preclude their statements baseless.
DOJ-OGR-00005837.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 29, 2021. It argues for the admissibility of the terms 'minor' and 'sexual abuse' regarding Minor Victim-3, noting she was 17 when sexual contact with Epstein began. The prosecution asserts that the defendant knew of Epstein's preference for underage girls and rejects the defense's request for jury instructions regarding United Kingdom law.
DOJ-OGR-00005836.jpg
This document page discusses legal arguments regarding the admissibility of testimony from "Minor Victim-3" in a case involving Jeffrey Epstein and a defendant. The text argues against the defense's claim that such testimony would be unfairly prejudicial or cause confusion regarding United Kingdom law, asserting that jury instructions will be sufficient.
DOJ-OGR-00005835.jpg
This document is page 52 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 29, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of 'Minor Victim-3's' testimony under Rule 404(b) to establish the defendant's intent and modus operandi regarding grooming and recruitment. It cites three legal precedents (Vickers, McDarrah, and Brand) to support the admission of evidence regarding grooming, email communications, and interest in minors.
DOJ-OGR-00005834.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a prosecution argument asserting that evidence related to the defendant's involvement with "Minor Victim-3" is admissible in court. The prosecution argues these actions are direct evidence of the defendant's role in a conspiracy to provide minors to Jeffrey Epstein for sexual abuse. The document dismisses the relevance of United Kingdom law and clarifies that this evidence is crucial for demonstrating the defendant's knowledge and participation in the scheme, even if a conviction cannot be based solely on this victim's testimony due to the statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00005833.jpg
This legal document is a court filing, page 50 of 84, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the defense's argument to dismiss allegations concerning "Minor Victim-3," claiming the defendant's conduct with her was lawful in the United Kingdom and that she was an adult when she was later abused by Epstein in the U.S. The defense contends the government mistakenly charged the defendant, believing Minor Victim-3 was a minor at the time of the alleged sex acts with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005831.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against precluding the testimony of 'Minor Victim-3' in the trial of the defendant, Maxwell. The prosecution contends that even if the acts against this victim were uncharged, her testimony is crucial to establish a pattern of abuse, show the defendant's relationship with Epstein, and prove her knowing participation in a conspiracy. The document cites legal precedent to support delaying any decision to strike this evidence until after the government has presented its case at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005830.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues for the admissibility of testimony from 'Minor Victim-3' and other victims as direct evidence in a conspiracy case. The prosecution contends this evidence, including overt acts detailed in the indictment, is probative of the defendant's intent and not inadmissible 'other-acts' evidence. The document cites legal precedents, such as United States v. James, to support the argument that acts like drug possession can be considered direct evidence of a conspiracy when charged as overt acts.
DOJ-OGR-00005827.jpg
This page is from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 397) filed on October 29, 2021. The visible text discusses the Court's previous denial of the defendant's motion to strike indictment language regarding 'Minor Victim-3,' stating it was premature. The majority of the document page is heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005826.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, details allegations against a defendant concerning their involvement with 'Minor Victim-3' and Epstein in London between 1994 and 1995. The defendant is accused of befriending the minor, introducing her to Epstein, and encouraging her to give him massages, which led to sexual abuse by Epstein. The document also outlines the government's opposition to the defendant's motion to strike these allegations from the indictment, arguing they are evidence of a broader criminal scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00005825.jpg
This document is page 42 of a legal filing (Document 397) from October 29, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number). The Government argues that the testimony of 'Minor Victim-3' is admissible as direct evidence of the charged offenses, specifically citing the sexual abuse committed by the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. It also addresses procedural arguments regarding Rule 404(b) notices.
DOJ-OGR-00005785.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 397) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The filing argues for the admissibility of testimony from expert witness Dr. Lisa Rocchio regarding abuse dynamics and from 'Minor Victim-3.' It also argues for the admission of evidence from an October 11, 2021 Government letter and co-conspirator statements at trial.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-01-01 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein (... | Minor Victim-3 | $0.00 | Reference to 'paid sex acts' and 'commercial se... | View |
Minor Victim-3's life and family
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
Scheduling appointment
Scheduled appointment for Minor Victim-3 to engage in paid sex acts with Epstein.
Scheduling appointment
Scheduling appointment for Minor Victim-3 to engage in paid sex acts with Epstein.
Minor Victim-3's life and family
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
Scheduling appointment
Scheduled appointment for Minor Victim-3 to engage in paid sex acts with Epstein.
Email Chain
Email Chain between Jeffrey Epstein and Minor Victim-3# (GX-406)
Unknown
Email Chain between Jeffrey Epstein and Minor Victim-3 (GX-406)
Scheduling appointment
Scheduling appointment for Minor Victim-3 to engage in paid sex acts with Epstein; Employee-2 was in NY calling FL.
No Subject
Scheduling appointment for sex acts with Epstein (Call placed to Florida).
No Subject
Scheduling appointment for sex acts with Epstein.
Grooming
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor Victim-3.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity