Jane
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
agents
|
Professional investigative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
prosecutors
|
Professional investigative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Recommender
|
Professional recommender and applicant |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Perpetrator victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Defendant(s)
|
Criminal |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Accused of sexual abuse |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Brad Edwards
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Accused accuser |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial defendant victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
Palm Beach County
|
Informational |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Groomer victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Association |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mike Wallace
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate's lawyers
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane's younger sibling
|
Friend |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Robson
|
Facilitator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
her counsel/lawyer
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Assaulter victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Michelle
|
Co participants |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
friends
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Her husband (unnamed)
|
Marital |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged encounter |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trip | Jane's trip to New Mexico | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Jane testified in court. | Court | View |
| N/A | Crime | Maxwell transported Jane to New York for sexual abuse and conspired to do the same. | New York | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial of the defendant, Maxwell, where Juror 50 served on the jury. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Crime | Jane was sexually exploited by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein when she was in middle school. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony | The speaker describes the upcoming testimony of four women, Jane, Annie, Kate, and Carolyn, again... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Trip | Women visiting Jeffrey Epstein at his office. | Epstein's office | View |
| N/A | Trial | An opening statement is being given in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A trial involving a defendant named Maxwell, where a jury was charged with Count Four concerning ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Accommodation booking | Cim Espinosa specifically booked Jane and her mother into one of Epstein's apartments. | Epstein's apartments | View |
| N/A | Trip | A trip to New York when Jane was 14, where she allegedly met Epstein to take headshots and was ab... | New York | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | Group sexualized massages in which Ms. Maxwell was allegedly involved, according to testimony fro... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Jane's first trip to New York. | New York | View |
| N/A | Trip | Jane traveled to New Mexico, allegedly for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Trip | Jane took a return trip from New Mexico, during which Mr. Epstein was not present. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Communication | Jane communicated with Brian about a document she was shown on the stand. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Group sexualized massages | Recurring events described as 'group sexualized massages' that would happen 'almost every visit..... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Witness Jane began traveling with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Incident | Incidents occurred while the witness, Jane, was 14, during which Maxwell was present in the room. | a room | View |
| N/A | Incident | Incidents occurred while the witness, Jane, was 16, during which Maxwell was present in the room. | a room | View |
| N/A | Sexual assault | A witness, Jane, describes being taken to a pool house by a man (contextually Epstein), who then ... | pool house | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Jane met with the government/FBI to discuss her case, after having already disclosed details to h... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Interrogation | Lawyers and the FBI repeatedly questioned Jane, suggesting alternative details to her story invol... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Criminal activity | Maxwell and Epstein allegedly selected and targeted vulnerable girls, including Jane, Kate, Annie... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Jane's travel to New York, which the prosecution argues was the result of enticement by the defen... | New York | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014873.jpg
This legal document addresses Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable, detailing evidence of her involvement in transporting Jane for sexual abuse in New York and other conduct in New Mexico. It references allegations that Epstein and Maxwell groomed victims. The document concludes that Maxwell was not unfairly prejudiced and that her above-Guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment was procedurally reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00014870.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by allowing testimony about a sexual abuse incident in New Mexico, claiming this constituted a constructive amendment to her indictment in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The appellate court is reviewing this claim and affirms the District Court's denial, outlining the legal standards for what constitutes a constructive amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00014869.jpg
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing, discusses the District Court's response to a jury note during deliberations in a case against Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight from New Mexico, not the initial flight where the criminal intent was present. The court declined to answer directly, finding the question too complex, and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00014793.jpg
This legal document is a court transcript or ruling where a judge dismisses a defense argument. The judge affirms that an 'undue influence' enhancement applies to the defendant's sex trafficking conviction involving a victim named Carolyn. The judge cites Carolyn's financial vulnerability (drug addiction, newborn son) and the significant age gap with Epstein as clear evidence of undue influence, making the defense's argument 'meritless'.
DOJ-OGR-00014756.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 22, 2022. The judge overrules objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, regarding her role in isolating minor girls and participating in a recruitment scheme with Epstein. The ruling cites trial testimony from witnesses 'Annie' and 'Jane' and details the recruitment chain starting with the defendant recruiting 'Virginia', who then enlisted 'Carolyn', who recruited others.
DOJ-OGR-00008650.jpg
This document is a jury instruction from a federal criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the third element the government must prove for 'Count Four,' which is that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, knew that the victim, 'Jane,' was under the age of seventeen at the time of the alleged crime.
DOJ-OGR-00008590.jpg
This document is a page from jury instructions (Instruction No. 36) in a federal criminal case, filed on December 18, 2021. It details the 'overt act' element required to prove a conspiracy charge, listing specific allegations from the indictment against conspirators Maxwell and Epstein. The alleged overt acts, occurring between 1994 and 2002, involve the sexual abuse and exploitation of underage victims identified as Jane, Annie, Kate, and Carolyn across multiple locations including New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London.
DOJ-OGR-00008507.jpg
This legal document, part of an indictment, details overt acts related to a criminal case against Epstein and Maxwell. It outlines specific instances between 1994 and 2004 where they allegedly conspired to recruit and sexually abuse several minors, identified as Jane, Annie, Kate, and Carolyn, in various locations including New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London. The document describes methods of enticement, such as arranging travel and providing cash payments, and alleges that one victim, Carolyn, was also encouraged to recruit other girls.
DOJ-OGR-00008485.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 21) from a court case filed on December 17, 2021. It pertains to Count Four, the transportation of a minor named Jane by Ms. Maxwell for illegal sexual activity. The instruction clarifies that for a conviction, the government must prove that a 'significant or motivating purpose' of the interstate travel was for illegal sexual activity, not necessarily the 'sole purpose'.
DOJ-OGR-00008477.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 14) from a court case filed on December 17, 2021. It details the three elements the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the Defendant on 'Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity'. The instruction specifies that this charge relates to actions involving an individual named 'Jane' between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00008426.jpg
This legal document, dated December 15, 2021, is an argument from Ms. Maxwell's counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial testimony of a witness named 'Jane'. Counsel argues that because Jane denied the substance of a prior statement in court, they should be allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613, citing legal precedent. The document concludes by noting that due to time constraints, counsel was unable to meet a 10:15 p.m. deadline to list all such disputed statements.
DOJ-OGR-00008377.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 15, 2021, is a motion from the prosecution arguing against allowing testimony from an individual named Scarola. The prosecution contends that Scarola's proposed testimony regarding another witness, Carolyn, is irrelevant and non-impeaching, as the information has already been obtained from Carolyn directly. The document also details over $3.2 million in compensation Carolyn received from claims related to Epstein and Sarah Kellen, and discusses a 2020 meeting where Scarola showed Carolyn a picture of an Epstein associate.
DOJ-OGR-00008371.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that certain communications related to a claimant named 'Jane' are not protected by attorney-client privilege. The argument is based on her representative, Mr. Glassman, sharing her statements and settlement demands with third parties, including the government, the EVCP, and Ms. Maxwell's counsel. The document details specific financial demands, such as a $25 million demand and a $5 million offer, to demonstrate that these communications were not confidential.
DOJ-OGR-00008230.jpg
This legal document, part of a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 5, 2021, presents an argument criticizing the government's handling of photographic evidence. The author contends that the government failed to properly authenticate 2019 photos as representative of a scene from 1994-1996 by not showing them to a witness named Jane during her testimony. The document dismisses the government's rationale that doing so would have diminished the photos' value as independent corroboration, suggesting the real reason was a fear that Jane's response would not support their case.
DOJ-OGR-00008226.jpg
This legal document, dated December 5, 2021, is a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing against the admissibility of interior photographs of Mr. Epstein's apartment. The author contends the photos, taken in 2019, cannot be proven to accurately represent the apartment's state during the charged conspiracy, which ended in 2004. The document highlights that the government's case for the photos' relevance relies solely on the testimony of a witness, "Jane," who described the apartment's interior based on her memory from an alleged visit in the mid-1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00008220.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 4, 2021, is part of a court case where the Government argues for the admissibility of photographic evidence from a search of Epstein's house. The Government intends to use photos of the house's structural features and contents, such as a 'creepy looking' stuffed tiger, to corroborate the testimony of a witness named Jane. Jane testified that the house was 'massive' and 'intimidating,' and the photos are meant to support her claims and counter potential defense arguments about the house's decor.
DOJ-OGR-00008209.jpg
This legal document, dated December 3, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues that Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to call Mr. Glassman as a witness to question him about advice he gave to a person named Jane regarding cooperation with the government. The argument posits that any attorney-client privilege was waived when Mr. Glassman disclosed this advice, and that this testimony is crucial for Ms. Maxwell's defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021073.jpg
This document is the introduction to a legal filing, likely from the defense of Ms. Maxwell, arguing that her prosecution was improper. It alleges the Government used her as a proxy for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein, breached a non-prosecution agreement, and collaborated with complainants' attorneys who had a financial interest in the outcome via the Epstein Victims Compensation Program (VCP). The filing cites a specific instance where a complainant, "Jane," received $5,000,000 from the VCP after cooperating with the government's case against Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00021015.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) appeal regarding jury instructions. The filing asserts that the trial court correctly rejected the defendant's proposed instruction because it was unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate. The core issue revolves around whether sexual activity outside of New York could form the basis for a conviction, with the filing arguing that the existing jury charge sufficiently clarified that the violation had to be under New York Penal Law.
DOJ-OGR-00021001.jpg
This legal document is a court's conclusion that sufficient evidence exists for a jury to find the Defendant guilty on counts of transporting a minor and sex trafficking. The conclusion is based on the testimony of a victim, "Jane," who stated the Defendant facilitated her travel with Jeffrey Epstein from Palm Beach to New York, assisted her in boarding flights, and was present during Epstein's sexual abuse of her when she was a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00020887.jpg
This Reuters article, dated January 5, 2022, reports on the jury deliberations in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. A juror, Scotty David, revealed that some jurors initially doubted the credibility of two accusers' memories. David, a survivor of childhood sexual abuse himself, shared his personal experience with the jury, which helped them understand trauma's effect on memory and ultimately led to a unanimous guilty verdict against Maxwell on December 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00020872.jpg
This legal document excerpt details a juror's, named David, perspective on the acquittal of Maxwell on a specific charge ('count two') involving an accuser named Jane. David explains that while Jane's story was corroborated by flight logs and Epstein's 'little black book', the jury ultimately found insufficient direct evidence to prove Maxwell had 'enticed' Jane to travel, which was required for a conviction on that charge. The decision was based on a lack of evidence for that specific action, not on a disbelief of the victim.
DOJ-OGR-00020864.jpg
This document is a handwritten note dated December 27, 2021, from an unknown individual (likely a juror) to Judge Nathan during the 'US v. Maxwell' trial. The author seeks clarification on Count Four, asking if the defendant can be found guilty for aiding in the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico if the intent to engage in sexual activity was on Jane's part, not the defendant's. The note highlights a point of confusion regarding the legal elements required for a conviction on that specific charge.
DOJ-OGR-00019032.jpg
This document is a transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers, filed on August 10, 2022. Rodgers confirms his prior testimony that he believed Virginia Roberts was at least 18 or 19 years old when he saw her. He further testifies that during more than 1,000 flights he piloted for Mr. Epstein between 1994 and 2004, he never witnessed any sexual activity on the planes, including with underage girls.
DOJ-OGR-00018882.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding dated August 10, 2022, discussing legal arguments related to factual records, employer practices, and the admissibility of evidence. Key points include an objection to Government Exhibit 761, a Professional Children's School application for Jane, due to unverified financial guarantor information, and the Court's ruling on the relevance of Mr. Epstein's alleged financial assistance to a witness's family. The discussion also touches upon legal precedents for adoptive business records.
| 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 |
Filing a claim
Jane filed a claim with the EVCP.
Initial meeting with Epstein
The witness, Jane, confirmed giving an interview to a news source about her initial meeting with Epstein, where she stated she was approached by him.
Names of participants in group massages
The witness confirms that she previously told the government the names of other women who participated in the group massages.
A document shown to Jane on the witness stand.
Jane communicated with Brian about a document she had been shown while on the witness stand. Ms. Menninger wants to know the full extent of this communication.
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.
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.
Publication of witness's name from court documents and Ep...
A reporter called the witness, Jane, and allegedly threatened to publish her name, which he claimed was in unredacted court documents and Epstein's little black book. The witness felt this was blackmail and was the reason she agreed to speak with him.
Trial evidence
Jane's testimony was presented by the Government and analyzed to determine if it resulted in a constructive amendment of the indictment.
Ms. Maxwell's involvement in sexual abuse in New York
The document suggests the jury did not credit Jane's testimony regarding Ms. Maxwell's involvement in sexual abuse in New York, due to a lack of corroborating evidence.
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 the trial.
Cooperating with the government
Mr. Glassman advised Jane on whether cooperating with the government and testifying against Ms. Maxwell would 'help her case.' This advice was later revealed by Mr. Glassman in his communications with the government.
Initial meeting with Epstein
The witness, Jane, was questioned about a conversation with her younger brother where she allegedly told him she only met Epstein.
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.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity