Accuser-1
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Alleged sexual encounter |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Accuser-2
|
Co victims alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Indirect |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant victim alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Accused accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Accused accuser indirect |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Accuser-3
|
Unrelated |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Alleged perpetrator and victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Accused perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Accused perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Alleged perpetrator and victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Alleged enticement |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Alleged victimizer victim |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Witness informant |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Alleged travel of Accuser-1 from Florida to New York | Florida to New York | View |
| N/A | Trip | Ms. Maxwell allegedly enticed or caused Accuser-1 to travel from Florida to New York for the purp... | Between Florida and New York | View |
| N/A | Crime | Alleged violations of the Mann Act by Ghislaine Maxwell, including enticement and transportation ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Crime | Alleged group sexual encounters. | New York | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | An alleged rape of Accuser-1 by Jeffrey Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | Mr. Epstein allegedly raped Accuser-1. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Accuser-1 was allegedly enticed and caused to travel from Florida to New York to engage in sex ac... | Between Florida and New York | View |
| N/A | Trip | Alleged conspiracy to cause individuals (Accuser-1, Accuser-2, or anyone else) to travel for unla... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal conduct | A specific allegation of travel by Accuser-1 mentioned in the indictment. | N/A | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Legal action | A defamation suit was brought against Ms. Maxwell by Accuser-1. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2015-01-01 | N/A | Defamation suit brought against Ms. Maxwell by Accuser-1 ([Accuser-1] v. Maxwell, 15-CV-07433). | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2014-01-01 | Legal action | Accuser-1 filed a motion to join a lawsuit challenging the validity of Epstein’s Non-Prosecution ... | N/A | View |
| 2006-01-01 | N/A | Accuser-1 gave a statement to the government | Unknown | View |
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Alleged conspiracy and overt acts violating the Mann Act involving Maxwell, Epstein, and three ac... | New York, Florida, New Mexi... | View |
EFTA00028974.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting a motion to dismiss counts 1-4 of the superseding indictment. The defense argues that the indictment lacks specificity regarding names, dates, and details of the allegations, preventing Maxwell from preparing an adequate defense. The filing criticizes the government for using vague categories like 'Minor Victims' and 'multiple minor girls' without clarification and cites legal precedents to argue that the lack of specificity violates due process.
EFTA00023329.pdf
Defense counsel Christian Everdell writes to Judge Alison Nathan opposing the government's request to delay the disclosure of evidence (photographs and documents) regarding alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues these materials are exculpatory under Brady because they relate to post-1997 allegations where witnesses do not implicate Maxwell, thereby supporting her defense against perjury charges that she was unaware of Epstein's abuse. The letter also argues the government has failed to show 'good cause' under Rule 16 to delay this discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00002357(2).jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, discusses a July 2016 deposition of Maxwell. It states that a superseding indictment alleges Maxwell committed perjury during this deposition by providing false testimony about her knowledge of sexual activities at Epstein's Palm Beach house. The document notes that a district court had previously compelled her testimony over privacy objections, believing a protective order was sufficient.
DOJ-OGR-00002284.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 120) dated January 25, 2021, from the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the 'Mann Act Counts' (Counts One through Four) of the indictment, detailing allegations that Maxwell conspired with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 1997 to transport individuals for illegal sexual activity in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London. It specifically notes the involvement of three accusers (Accuser-1, -2, and -3) and argues for the severance of Counts Five and Six to avoid juror confusion.
DOJ-OGR-00001797.jpg
This legal document, dated October 14, 2020, is a filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues that the prosecution must disclose evidence from victims abused by Epstein after 1997, claiming this evidence is exculpatory under the Brady rule because it contradicts the government's theory that Maxwell was Epstein's sole "madam" and principal facilitator. The filing also details how the perjury charges against Maxwell originated from her depositions in a 2015 defamation lawsuit brought by a victim identified as "Accuser-1."
DOJ-OGR-00002682.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, summarizes the allegations against Ms. Maxwell from an indictment. It details four counts related to violations of the Mann Act between 1994 and 1997, including substantive violations and conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein and others. The allegations specify that Maxwell enticed and caused 'Accuser-1' to travel from Florida to New York for illegal sex acts with Epstein.
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-00005762.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a motion arguing to exclude evidence of an alleged rape committed by Mr. Epstein from the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The argument posits that such evidence is not part of the charged conspiracy (which is limited to securing "sexualized massages"), is highly inflammatory and unduly prejudicial, and would confuse the jury, leading to a conviction on an improper emotional basis. The document cites several legal precedents to support the exclusion of this evidence under Rule 403.
DOJ-OGR-00005761.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on October 29, 2021, presents an argument to exclude testimony about Mr. Epstein allegedly raping 'Accuser-1' from Ms. Maxwell's trial. The filing contends that such evidence is irrelevant to the specific charges against Maxwell and that its potential for creating unfair prejudice against her substantially outweighs any probative value, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403.
DOJ-OGR-00005760.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on October 29, 2021, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell to exclude any testimony related to an alleged rape of 'Accuser-1' by Jeffrey Epstein. The motion argues that such testimony is irrelevant and prejudicial because the indictment against Maxwell does not include charges of rape, and the accuser has never implicated Maxwell in the alleged rape. The defense contends that admitting this evidence would violate Maxwell's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00002687.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell's alleged conduct with 'Accuser-3' in England falls outside the scope of the charged conspiracy. It cites the case 'United States v. Hsia' as precedent for distinguishing between a core conspiracy and separate acts of concealment or cover-up. The document contends that the object of the conspiracy was to cause individuals to travel for unlawful acts with Epstein, and Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3 did not further this specific goal.
DOJ-OGR-00002686.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 146) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated February 4, 2021. The defense argues that allegations regarding 'Accuser-3' are time-barred because the statute of limitations expired before the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, and retroactive application would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Furthermore, the defense contends that allegations involving Accuser-3 are irrelevant to the conspiracy charges, which should only pertain to Accuser-1 and Accuser-2.
DOJ-OGR-00002684.jpg
This document is a page from a legal motion filed by the defense in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on February 4, 2021. The defense argues that all references to 'Accuser-3' in the indictment should be stricken as 'surplusage' because they are irrelevant to the specific charges of interstate transportation for illegal sexual activity and are unduly prejudicial. The text cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(d) and case law to support the argument that these '20-year-old allegations' do not meet the legal requirements for inclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00002683.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues against allegations in an indictment concerning Ms. Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3. The defense contends that the alleged events, including Maxwell introducing Accuser-3 to Epstein, occurred in London between 1994 and 1995, by which time Accuser-3 was 16, the legal age of consent in England. Therefore, the document posits that the alleged "sexual abuse" by Epstein was lawful conduct and cannot be considered an "overt act" in furtherance of a conspiracy, especially as no travel was alleged to have been caused by Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00002681.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues for the removal of allegations concerning 'Accuser-3' from her indictment. The defense contends that these allegations are irrelevant to the charges of enticing travel for unlawful sexual activity, as there is no claim Accuser-3 ever traveled for such a purpose, and that the alleged activity with Epstein was not unlawful because Accuser-3 was over the age of consent in England. The filing asserts that the government's inclusion of these claims is a prejudicial attempt to demonstrate a propensity for wrongdoing, in violation of federal evidence rules.
DOJ-OGR-00002702.jpg
This document is a page from a legal motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on February 4, 2021. The defense argues that the government has failed to provide a 'bill of particulars' specifying the dates and details of alleged interactions with 'Accuser-1' (Minor Victim 1), including travel from Florida to New York for sexual encounters with Jeffrey Epstein. Citing the legal precedent *Bortnovsky*, the defense claims Maxwell cannot adequately prepare for trial because the allegations span a four-year period without specific dates, despite the government claiming to possess corroborating flight and business records.
Statement
Accuser-1 gave a statement to the government in 2006.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity