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-00021148.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing arguing that all counts in an indictment should be vacated and dismissed. It alternatively argues that if only some counts are reversed, a new trial should be ordered for any remaining counts due to prejudicial spillover from inadmissible evidence. The argument highlights that different counts are based on distinct facts, time periods, and complainants (Jane and Carolyn), making the evidence from one set of counts inadmissible for proving the others.
DOJ-OGR-00021143.jpg
This legal document argues for vacating Maxwell's convictions on Counts Three and Four due to a variance between trial proof and indictment allegations. It notes that Jane initially denied sexual abuse in New Mexico to the FBI but later claimed sexual activity with Epstein at a ranch, which was not included in the Mann Act counts. The document concludes that a new trial is necessary for these counts.
DOJ-OGR-00021139.jpg
This legal document argues that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant, Maxwell, was convicted on Counts Three and Four based on conduct that was not charged in the indictment, specifically conduct in New Mexico. The filing contends that the jury was not properly instructed that the charged offense required travel from Florida to New York, potentially leading to an improper conviction based on uncharged acts. This would constitute a constructive amendment of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021137.jpg
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, is a page from a court filing discussing a legal argument related to a criminal case. It outlines the requirements for a "constructive amendment claim," citing the precedent set in *United States v. D'Amelio*. The context is an appeal or motion by a defendant named Maxwell, who was charged under Count Four with transporting a person named Jane across state lines for sexual activity in violation of New York Penal Law.
DOJ-OGR-00021136.jpg
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, discusses the conviction of Maxwell on Count Four, which was based on Jane's testimony about sexual activity with Epstein in New Mexico. It argues that the Court's failure to address the jury's misunderstanding, as revealed by a 'Jury Note' concerning the transportation count, warrants vacating Maxwell's convictions on Counts Three and Four and granting a new trial. The document highlights the distinction between the original indictment and the basis for conviction, implicitly linking the 'defendant' in the jury note to Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019114.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the redirect examination of a witness named Rodgers, filed on August 10, 2022. Rodgers testifies about purchasing a G2B aircraft on February 2, 1994, and discussing its interior renovations with Mr. Epstein around that time. Rodgers also identifies Juan Alessi and his wife as individuals who worked at the Palm Beach house during the 1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00019079.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on missing entries in Rodgers' personal flight log, specifically a jump from flight 818 to 821, and whether a person named Jane was on these unrecorded flights. Rodgers states he has no information and cannot confirm or deny Jane's presence on those flights.
DOJ-OGR-00019076.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on Rodgers' knowledge of individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein, including his friends Henry Drecky and Marvin Minsky, and a decorator named Alberto Pinto. The witness confirms knowing these individuals' connections to Epstein but denies awareness of Drecky's or Minsky's alleged academic positions at Yale and MIT, respectively.
DOJ-OGR-00019074.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on identifying the passengers of a flight (1105) that took place on May 3, 1998, from Palm Beach to Teterboro. The witness confirms the identities of several passengers, including Emmy Taylor as Ghislaine's assistant, Glenn and Eva Dubin with their children, and Gwendolyn Beck as a friend of Jeffrey's.
DOJ-OGR-00019065.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on a prior interview with prosecutors on February 7, 2020, during which Rodgers allegedly stated he first recalled meeting a person named Jane around the year 2000. When confronted with this previous statement during the cross-examination, Rodgers responds, 'I don't recall.'
DOJ-OGR-00017214.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, likely jury instructions, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge is summarizing the indictment, explaining that it contains six counts and that the jury must not infer guilt from the indictment itself. The document details the charges in Count One (conspiracy with others to entice multiple victims for sexual activity across state lines from 1994-2004) and Count Two (enticing a specific individual, 'Jane', for similar purposes).
DOJ-OGR-00017200.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a rebuttal argument given by Ms. Comey. She argues that the witnesses—Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie—have no financial motive to lie, as their civil cases are settled and the victim compensation fund they were paid from is finished. Ms. Comey refutes the defense's implication of a financial incentive for Jane by clarifying that a conversation between Jane's lawyer and a prosecutor occurred in 2021, long after Jane had already received her financial award.
DOJ-OGR-00017198.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court rebuttal on August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Comey, argues against the defense's claim that the FBI manipulated witnesses. She asserts there is no evidence for this accusation, citing testimony from witnesses like Special Agent Young, Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie, who all stated they were only asked to tell the truth. Ms. Comey concludes that for the defense's argument to hold, the jury would have to believe that all these witnesses lied about the defendant's role in their abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00017195.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a rebuttal argument delivered by Ms. Comey on August 10, 2022. Comey refutes the defense's theory that witnesses (Kate, Carolyn, Annie, Jane) were manipulated by greedy lawyers to fabricate a story about Maxwell for financial gain from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. She argues there is no evidence for this conspiracy and highlights that one witness's lawyer worked pro bono, which contradicts the alleged financial motive.
DOJ-OGR-00017192.jpg
This document is a legal rebuttal arguing for the credibility of a witness named Jane, asserting that her memory of meeting Maxwell and Epstein and the onset of abuse at age 14 is accurate. It counters defense attempts to discredit her timeline by referencing Interlochen and flight records from 1994 and 1996, which place Jane, Maxwell, Epstein, and the defendant together at key times and locations, including flights to New York. The speaker emphasizes that Jane's memory of the abuse is more significant than minor discrepancies in dating events by public figures' birthdays.
DOJ-OGR-00017189.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a rebuttal by Ms. Comey in a criminal case. She argues against the defense's claim that four women (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) are misremembering their experiences, asserting that their core memories of trauma involving the defendant (Maxwell) and Epstein are solid and reliable. The prosecutor highlights specific, vivid memories of the victims to counter the defense's theory of a 'massive false memory event'.
DOJ-OGR-00017183.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the beginning of the government's rebuttal argument in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecutor, Ms. Comey, argues that the case is about Maxwell's crimes against children she targeted for abuse, specifically naming victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie. She dismisses the defense's arguments as attempts to distract the jury and asserts the government's right to respond to them.
DOJ-OGR-00017143.jpg
This document is a summation from a legal case, discussing inconsistencies and issues related to witness testimony and evidence. It questions the government's ability to corroborate stories, highlights missing diary entries from Annie Farmer, and details the interactions between various lawyers (Boies Schiller firm, Brad Edwards, Jack Scarola) and witnesses (Ms. Farmer, Virginia Roberts, Jane, Kate, Carolyn), suggesting potential 'contamination of memory' due to their communications with each other, family, and media. The document concludes by mentioning Annie Farmer's statement to the FBI regarding her story and a 'money piece' not being sexualized.
DOJ-OGR-00017133.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, arguing that a witness named Jane has an unreliable and deliberately altered memory concerning her time with Epstein. The speaker highlights inconsistencies in Jane's testimony about a property in Santa Fe, contrasting her account with testimony from other witnesses (Annie, Larry Visoski) and a flight log entry. The summation posits that Jane's memory was contaminated by news reports and conversations with family, and that she intentionally falsified her timeline to appear younger.
DOJ-OGR-00017126.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney. Menninger argues against the credibility of a witness named 'Jane' by suggesting her memory of abuse in New Mexico was implanted by the government's repeated questioning. The attorney emphasizes that Jane does not recall Ghislaine being present with Jeffrey Epstein during any of the alleged abuse, which is a central point for the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017122.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, likely a summation, dated August 10, 2022. The speaker, 'I', questions the credibility of 'Jane' regarding alleged sexual abuse, lawsuits, and travel dates, noting inconsistencies in her accounts and her mother's absence from testifying. The document also mentions Jane receiving 'wads of cash' from Jeffrey Epstein and details several of Jane's trips, including one from New Jersey to New Mexico in May '97 and to Europe in January '98.
DOJ-OGR-00017118.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, who is attempting to undermine the credibility of a witness referred to as 'Jane'. Menninger highlights inconsistencies in the witness's statements, such as failing to identify Ghislaine and others in a sworn interrogatory, and contrasts her claims of extreme poverty with evidence that she and her brothers applied to an expensive arts camp costing $12,000 per year.
DOJ-OGR-00017115.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense. She challenges the prosecution's case by questioning the credibility of an alleged victim named Jane and disputing the government's proposed motive for Ghislaine's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. Menninger portrays Epstein as a manipulator who deceived those around him, including Ghislaine.
DOJ-OGR-00017106.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense in a case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues that the testimonies of accusers, specifically 'Carolyn' and 'Jane,' have changed over time and were improperly influenced by their lawyers and the FBI. She highlights that Carolyn's initial lawsuit didn't mention Maxwell and that Jane was allegedly pressured with leading questions to alter her story to implicate Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017098.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, argues for a mistrial. He contends that the government, during its closing argument, improperly used admitted evidence (Exhibit 52, pages from a book) to argue the truth of its contents, specifically to infer that Ms. Maxwell knew individuals were minors. Mr. Pagliuca asserts this violates the court's limiting instruction and, if a mistrial is not granted, asks the court to re-instruct the jury on the evidence's limited purpose.
| 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 |
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.
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.
Filing a claim
Jane filed a claim with the EVCP.
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.
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.
Information for the government
Jane communicated information to Mr. Glassman with the knowledge that he intended to share it with the government.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity