Jane
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Abuser victim |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Perpetrator victim |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Association |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Acquaintance |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Alleged perpetrator victim |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Jane's mother
|
Friend |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Matt
|
Friend |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Glassman
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Perpetrator victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Friend |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jane's father
|
Friend |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Michelle
|
Acquaintance |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Association |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Relationship development | The defendant and Epstein built a relationship with Jane over a multi-year period, which involved... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of Jane, during which she denied knowing Mr. Glassman went back to the EVCP to ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Settlement negotiation | A series of settlement negotiations involving Jane's claim, including an offer from the EVCP and ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Incident | Witness "Jane" describes being summoned by Jeffrey from a house or pool area to his bedroom or ma... | A house with a pool, bedroo... | View |
| N/A | Meeting | An 'initial meeting' between the witness Jane and Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | A flight log entry shows Jane went to Santa Fe when she was 21, at the time the big house was there. | Santa Fe | View |
| N/A | Residence | Jane lived in the same three-bedroom house in Bear Lake Estates for three years, from when she me... | Bear Lake Estates | View |
| N/A | Legal action | After reading the news, Jane hired a lawyer to cancel news about her, not to report her claim. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony | A witness named Jane gave testimony in court. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trip | Jane visiting Epstein's house. The speaker claims she was accompanied by her mother or mother and... | Epstein's house | View |
| N/A | Crime | Jane experienced sexual abuse when she was 15 or 16 years old. | Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Flight | Witness Visoski is questioned about three specific flights where a passenger named 'Jane' may hav... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Jane was transported to New York. | New York | View |
| N/A | Flight | Epstein flew Jane to New York. | New York | View |
| N/A | Hike | An event mentioned in Jane's prior statement, which is deemed not inconsistent with her testimony. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Crime | Jane suffered sexual abuse. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Trial | A criminal trial where the Government presented evidence and a summation, and the jury was given ... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Jane was questioned by the defense about an application and a legal document (an interrogatory) i... | courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Crime | The sexual abuse of Jane, which Maxwell allegedly facilitated and was frequently present for. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Lawsuit | Witness 'Jane' confirms she filed a lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell at some point after her FBI... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Activity | Witness engaged in sexualized massages with Jeffrey Epstein during her senior year of high school. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial occurred where it was demonstrated that six individuals were harmed by the defendant's cr... | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Flight | A hypothetical or past flight of a person named Jane to New Mexico, which is the subject of the l... | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Travel for sexual abuse | Jane was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the N... | Florida to New York | View |
| N/A | Trip | Her first trip to New York was to just go and have fun. | New York | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009612.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009611.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009602.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009591.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009586.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant was not legally prejudiced regarding witness testimony. It outlines that the defense received notes on witness Jane more than three weeks before trial and that the court's decision to permit witness Kate to testify came almost two weeks after notes were received, providing ample time for preparation. The filing cites legal precedents to assert that the court did not err in its handling of limiting instructions and that any failure to request them was the defendant's own, not a basis for a prejudice claim.
DOJ-OGR-00009579.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes a question posed by a jury during a trial. The core issue is whether sexual activity involving the defendant and a minor named Jane in New Mexico could be considered as evidence for a conviction on a charge related to transporting Jane to New York. The text argues that the jury's question is legally valid and references a prior statement by the Court from the trial transcript to support the relevance of the New Mexico events to the defendant's intent.
DOJ-OGR-00009578.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg
This legal document details a court's rejection of the defense's proposed jury instructions in a criminal case. The core dispute revolves around whether sexual activity with a minor named Jane in New Mexico is relevant to proving intent for a charge under New York law. The Court dismisses the defense's arguments as legally incorrect and refuses to alter its instructions to the jury based on the defense's interpretation of a jury note.
DOJ-OGR-00009571.jpg
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'.
DOJ-OGR-00009569.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00003035.jpg
This document is a page from a 2021 court filing detailing the procedural history regarding the unsealing of documents in the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil case. It describes Magistrate Judge Netburn's 2019 denial of a Government application to modify a protective order, citing a lack of compelling need, and notes the subsequent reassignment of the case to Judge Preska, who ordered materials unsealed in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00003028.jpg
This document describes the Government's efforts to obtain materials from the law firm Boies Schiller via grand jury subpoenas for a criminal investigation (implied U.S. v. Maxwell). Due to the covert nature of the investigation, the defendant was not notified. Boies Schiller complied with non-protected materials but required court intervention (from Judges Sweet and Netburn) to modify protective orders in civil cases (including Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein) to release protected documents, which the Government argued for in sealed letters submitted around February 28, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00004839.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing (Document 310-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. However, the text itself is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion ([J-100-2020]) regarding *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, discussing the non-prosecution agreement and civil depositions of Bill Cosby. The defense in the Maxwell case likely submitted this to argue legal precedent regarding Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) and Fifth Amendment rights, drawing parallels between the Cosby and Epstein/Maxwell situations.
DOJ-OGR-00014719.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about jury instructions. An attorney argues that the existing instructions are sufficient and that sending new, confusing ones would be a mistake. The judge ('THE COURT') then critiques the defense's newly proposed instruction, stating it addresses a count the jury didn't ask about and contains a legally incorrect paragraph concerning sexual activity involving a person named 'Jane' in states other than New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014704.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger. They are discussing the legal standard required for a jury to find a defendant guilty of aiding in the transportation of a person named 'Jane' to New Mexico. The central issue is whether the flight must have had a 'significant or motivating purpose' related to illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00014660.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel while the jury is not present. The conversation centers on two notes from the jury requesting testimony transcripts for individuals named Jane, Annie, and Carolyn, as well as an FBI deposition of Carolyn. The counsel confirms they are finalizing redactions before sending the documents to the jury via court staff.
DOJ-OGR-00014578.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal rebuttal by Ms. Comey, dated August 10, 2022. She argues for the credibility of several witnesses, including Juan Alessi and the ex-boyfriends (Matt, Dave, Shawn) of female accusers, stating they have no motive to lie. Comey highlights that Alessi's testimony is corroborated by external evidence, such as flight records confirming that minors named Jane and Virginia flew on Jeffrey Epstein's planes.
DOJ-OGR-00014575.jpg
This document is a transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in a criminal case against a defendant named Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues against the defense's theory that lawyers fabricated stories about Maxwell for financial gain. She presents evidence that three victims—Jane, Carolyn, and Annie—had reported Maxwell's involvement to friends, boyfriends, and the FBI years prior (in 2006 and 2007), long before any compensation fund or financial incentive existed, thus making the defense's theory untenable.
DOJ-OGR-00014573.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal rebuttal by Ms. Comey, filed on August 10, 2022. Comey argues that the defense is focusing on 'peripheral details' to distract the jury from the core fact that a witness, Carolyn, has consistently and without prompting identified Maxwell as a key figure involved in scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein, citing Carolyn's 2009 deposition. The argument aims to reinforce the credibility of Carolyn's memory against defense suggestions that it was contaminated or implanted.
DOJ-OGR-00014565.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey's) rebuttal in a criminal trial, likely against Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues that the jury should rely on the powerful and consistent testimony of multiple victims, as sexual abuse crimes rarely produce documentary evidence. She highlights that three separate victims gave similar accounts of the defendant touching their breasts and using massage as a prelude to sexual abuse, which serves as strong corroboration of guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014564.jpg
This document is a page from a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey) rebuttal in a criminal trial, filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor argues that the defendant was knowingly complicit in a sexual abuse scheme, citing a list of masseuses, a Palm Beach house, and a $30 million payment characterized as 'we-molested-kids-together money'. The prosecutor urges the jury to focus on the powerful testimony of victims like Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie, and dismisses the defense's arguments about missing evidence as a distraction.
DOJ-OGR-00014488.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger in a criminal case. Menninger argues that the testimony of a witness, "Jane," is unreliable, claiming her memory has been manipulated by "post-event suggestion" and money over 25 years. Menninger highlights inconsistencies in Jane's story, such as her age and how she met Epstein, contrasting her account with testimony from Juan Alessi and Larry Visoski to discredit the prosecution's narrative and absolve "Ghislaine" of targeting Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00014487.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court summation given by Ms. Menninger, likely the defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues that the testimonies of accusers like Carolyn, Jane, and Annie are unreliable because their memories have been manipulated and have changed over time. She suggests this shift is motivated by a desire to hold someone accountable for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein's actions and cites expert testimony from Professor Loftus to support her claim about the nature of memory.
DOJ-OGR-00014473.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Moe in the trial of a defendant named Maxwell. Ms. Moe refutes the defense's arguments regarding Maxwell's London residence and counters the claim that four key witnesses (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) are lying for financial gain. She asserts the witnesses have no financial stake in the current trial's outcome, as their civil suits are concluded and they have already received compensation from the Jeffrey Epstein Victim Compensation Program.
DOJ-OGR-00014472.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Moe in a criminal case. Ms. Moe argues that the defense has deliberately misled the jury by taking a witness's, Jane's, statements out of context. She provides two examples: one involving a question about orchestra music and another where the defense selectively quoted from a legal document, omitting a key sentence that states the defendant, Maxwell, facilitated and was present for Jane's sexual abuse.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Jane | $200.00 | Payment for her time visiting his mansion while... | View |
| N/A | Received | Unknown | Jane | $0.00 | Settlement award discussed in the context of cr... | View |
| N/A | Received | defendants | Jane | $0.00 | Discussion of a plan to 'get more money from th... | View |
Abuse suffered in New Mexico
Maxwell received notes from Jane's interview, which recorded the abuse she suffered in New Mexico, over three weeks before her trial.
No Subject
A photograph was sent to Epstein with a note saying 'Thanks for rocking my world'.
Trip to New Mexico and sexual abuse
Jane previously told the FBI about a trip to New Mexico but denied being sexually abused there.
Question regarding testimony
The government communicated a question to Jane through her attorney.
Timeline of 'The Lion King'
The government communicated to Jane through her attorney that 'The Lion King' Broadway show did not come out until 1997.
Information for the government
Jane communicated information to Mr. Glassman with the knowledge that he intended to share it with the government.
Photographs from soap opera
Jane, a soap opera star, sent photographs of herself and other cast members in an envelope to her fan, Ms. Espinosa.
Unknown content
The content of this communication is the subject of the legal debate; Menninger wants to exclude the specific content while allowing the witness to state how she felt.
Legal Strategy
Communications regarding the impact of criminal testimony on the civil case.
Benefit of testifying
Communication that testifying would benefit her in the criminal case.
Receiving financial help from Jeffrey Epstein
Jane told the witness that she had received financial help from Jeffrey Epstein. The exact timing and details of the conversation are not fully specified in this excerpt.
Request to take extra classes
The questioner refers to a letter the witness (Jane) had submitted asking to take extra classes the next summer.
Confirming Maxwell's identity
After Matt learned that Maxwell had been arrested, he called Jane to ask if she was the woman Jane had told him about years ago. Jane confirmed that she was.
Harassment
People calling and harassing Jane.
Jane's family living in her house
The witness is questioned about telling Matt that her family was living in her house.
A woman making her feel comfortable
Jane told her boyfriend from a decade ago, Matt, about the woman who would make her feel comfortable in the room.
Advice about boyfriends
Maxwell advised Jane that once she has a sexual relationship with a boyfriend, she can always have one again because they are 'grandfathered in'.
Potential abuse in New Mexico
The document describes how the government repeatedly questioned Jane about abuse in New Mexico, despite her initial statements of having no memory of such events.
Making arrangements
The questioner alleges that the witness, Jane, previously told the government she recalled Emmy calling her home phone in Florida between the ages of 14 and 16 to make arrangements. The witness denies ever making this statement.
Involvement in sexualized massages
Jane testified to the government that she was involved in sexualized massages with multiple people and provided their first names.
The case
The speaker states, 'You heard that Jane and Annie gave some interviews themselves...'
Post-event discussions
Jane spoke with her family and ex-boyfriend Matt, which the speaker claims contaminated her memory of events.
Her experience with Epstein
Jane told the government that she was in the same house for three years when she met Epstein until she moved to New York.
Exhibit CE3
A manilla envelope (exhibit CE3) was sent by 'Jane' to 'Ms. Cimberly' at 457 Madison Avenue. The date from the postage machine was not legible.
Sexual abuse by Maxwell and Epstein
The document recounts Jane's testimony about being sexually abused by Maxwell and Epstein, including being forced to touch Epstein, being touched by both, and being involved in group encounters.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity