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 | 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-00018868.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge, defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding witness strategy. The defense is undecided about recalling 'Jane' or calling 'Brian', while the prosecution flags the possibility of calling 'victim 2' to the stand that day.
DOJ-OGR-00018856.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about scheduling a future court session, with the judge suggesting evening or weekend dates to avoid conflicting with the jury. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, also makes a formal request to the court to order a witness named Jane and her attorney not to communicate about her testimony with another witness, who is Jane's younger sibling and is also under subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00018853.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about witness scheduling. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, informs the court that an investigation could not be completed and they will not call a witness named Brian. In response to a request from defense counsel, the court directs that an updated witness list be provided that evening.
DOJ-OGR-00018609.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and two counsels, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the scheduling and scope of testimony for a witness named Brian, who has a flight planned for the next day. The court directs the government to first inquire about what Brian learned from another individual, Jane, before he testifies.
DOJ-OGR-00018607.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a potential sequestration order violation has occurred. She expresses concern that a witness, Brian, was told information by another person, Jane, about a document shown during testimony. Ms. Menninger requests that the court question Brian under oath, outside the jury's presence, to determine the extent of the communication before he testifies.
DOJ-OGR-00016879.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, clarifies for the record that discovery materials related to an individual named Jane contain very few names (five or fewer), not hundreds. The court then questions another attorney, Ms. Menninger, about the contact information for a witness, who confirms the witness was personally served and given the necessary contact details.
DOJ-OGR-00016876.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion between the Court and counsel (Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe) regarding witness testimony. Ms. Menninger explains why the defense did not seek anonymity for a witness, while Ms. Moe argues they had other options. The Court notes that the defense has been aware since October of another individual, Kelly, who was implicated by a witness named Jane in "sexualized massages" and subsequently noticed as a defense witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016847.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a specific flight log entry (916) and a passenger named "Jane." Dr. Dubin states he cannot fully read the entry and does not recall the flight or meeting anyone named Jane on it.
DOJ-OGR-00016224.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal discussion about evidence. The prosecution seeks to introduce rebuttal evidence to clarify that a person named 'Jane' listed in a pilot's (Mr. Rodgers) log from flights in the 1990s is not the same 'Jane' the defense has been referring to. The judge ('THE COURT') overrules an objection from Mr. Pagliuca and allows the evidence, stating it is relevant to counter the defense's suggestions to pilot witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00016170.jpg
This document is a transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim in a legal case involving claims against Epstein. Sternheim argues that the claims, unlike those in the September 11th compensation fund, are based on unreliable memories that will be challenged during the trial. She begins to describe the relationship between Epstein and an accuser named Jane, portraying him as a generous benefactor who financially supported Jane's musical education and living expenses in New York City.
DOJ-OGR-00016160.jpg
This document is a court transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim, likely the defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim argues that the four accusers, using pseudonyms, have fabricated or altered their stories decades after the alleged events, particularly after Epstein's death, in order to get a "payday." She urges the jury to focus on the themes of memory, manipulation, and money, and states that expert testimony will be presented to show how memory is unreliable and can be contaminated over time.
DOJ-OGR-00016145.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz in a criminal case. The prosecution alleges that the defendant conspired with Jeffrey Epstein to recruit multiple underage girls for sexual abuse, detailing specific instances involving victims known as 'Jane', a 16-year-old, and a 17-year-old. The abuse and recruitment allegedly occurred in various locations, including New York, Florida, and a ranch in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00030436.jpg
This legal document, part of a lawsuit, details the sexual assault of a 14-year-old minor named Jane by Jeffrey Epstein around 2005. It describes how Epstein paid Jane $300 after the assault and paid Ms. Robson $200 for bringing Jane to him. The document outlines the first count of the lawsuit, Sexual Assault, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages from Epstein for the severe trauma inflicted upon the victim.
DOJ-OGR-00021900.jpg
This legal document page addresses two arguments from the defendant, Maxwell. First, it refutes her claim of 'substantial prejudice' from evidence of her conduct in New Mexico, noting she received the evidence weeks before trial. Second, it introduces Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable due to a leadership enhancement, an argument the court states it will disagree with.
DOJ-OGR-00021898.jpg
This page from a legal document discusses whether a constructive amendment to an indictment occurred during a trial. The court concludes that neither the Government's evidence, including Jane's testimony, nor an ambiguous jury note constituted such an amendment. The court agrees with the lower District Court, finding that its jury instructions properly captured the "core of criminality" of the charged offense.
DOJ-OGR-00021892.jpg
This legal document, part of an appellate court opinion, addresses arguments made by a defendant named Maxwell. The court rejects a 'categorical approach' for determining if offenses involved sexual abuse, citing testimony from a victim, 'Jane', about being abused as a minor across state lines. The document then introduces Maxwell's second argument: that certain counts are barred by the statute of limitations because a 2003 amendment to § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
DOJ-OGR-00021817.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, addresses Ghislaine Maxwell's claims that her trial was unfair and her sentence unreasonable. The court rejects her argument that evidence of her conduct in New Mexico was prejudicial, noting the evidence was disclosed weeks before trial. The document also affirms that her 240-month sentence, which included a leadership enhancement, was procedurally reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00021809.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses two key arguments. First, it affirms that charges involving the sexual abuse of a minor ("Jane") transported across state lines fall under § 3283. Second, it addresses an argument by Maxwell that certain counts are time-barred because a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations in § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court's test in 'Landgraf v. USI Film Products'.
DOJ-OGR-00021767.jpg
This legal document argues that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing unreasonable limitations on the questioning of Juror 50 during a post-verdict hearing. The filing contends that this prevented the defense for Ms. Maxwell from fully exploring the juror's potential bias, which was evidenced when he disclosed his own history of sexual assault to fellow jurors, thereby influencing their deliberations and the final verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021735.jpg
This legal document, page 75 of a filing dated June 29, 2023, presents arguments defending the conviction of Maxwell. It counters Maxwell's claims by stating the jury's verdict was plausible and not based on speculation, and that there was no variance between the indictment and the trial proof regarding events in New Mexico. The document asserts Maxwell had 'fair and adequate notice' of the charges, citing the government's disclosure of an interview with the victim, Jane, weeks before the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021734.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 22-1426), argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's interpretation of a jury note from her trial. The prosecution contends the jury's question about her guilt based on events in New Mexico was a valid inquiry into her intent, not a misunderstanding of the law. The document also refutes Maxwell's claim of insufficient evidence regarding her arrangement of a victim's (Jane's) return flight from New Mexico, suggesting the jury could have reasonably convicted her on that basis despite a lack of specific documentary proof.
DOJ-OGR-00021729.jpg
This legal document excerpt from a court case details a judge's decision to reject a jury instruction proposed by the defendant, Maxwell. Judge Nathan ruled that Maxwell's requested instruction was incorrect, explaining that alleged sexual activity with the victim, Jane, in New Mexico could be relevant to proving intent for the charges under New York law. The judge ultimately decided to redirect the jury back to the original charge rather than adopt the defense's proposed language.
DOJ-OGR-00021727.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, details the Government's arguments during the trial of Maxwell, focusing on the legal requirement that the criminal conduct was directed at New York. The prosecution argued that transporting victims like Jane to New York and intending for abuse to occur there was sufficient for conviction, even if the abuse itself happened elsewhere. The document also mentions the District Court's jury instructions, which focused on Maxwell's intent for sexual activity to take place in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021554.jpg
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, details a court's decision to overrule objections in Case 22-1426. The objections concerned the defendant's identification and isolation of minor girls, and a scheme developed by the defendant and Epstein to recruit girls for sexualized massages. The court found that trial evidence and testimony from witnesses like Annie and Jane supported the existence of this recruitment scheme, which involved a chain of recruitment from the defendant to Virginia, then to Carolyn, and further to Carolyn's friends.
DOJ-OGR-00021552.jpg
This court transcript page, dated June 29, 2023, documents a judge overruling several objections from attorney Mr. Everdell. The judge upholds evidence against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, including testimony that she targeted a victim named Virginia, metadata suggesting she authored an essay, and the assertion that she received approximately $23 million from co-conspirator Epstein.
| 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 |
Benefit of testifying
Communication that testifying would benefit her in the criminal case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity