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-00017223.jpg
This document is a page from a legal proceeding, specifically a judge's charge to the jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the first element of Count Four, which accuses the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, of knowingly transporting a minor named Jane in interstate commerce between 1994 and 1997 for illegal sexual activity. The charge clarifies that the prosecution must prove Ms. Maxwell was actively involved in arranging the travel, but not necessarily that she physically transported Jane herself.
DOJ-OGR-00013935.jpg
This document is a page from the direct examination transcript of a witness named Espinosa, filed on August 10, 2022. The witness testifies about visitors to Jeffrey Epstein's office, stating that female visitors appeared to be 'eighteen and over.' Espinosa names Celina Midelfart, Shelly Lewis, Jane, and Gwendolyn Beck as women they recall visiting Epstein's office.
DOJ-OGR-00013929.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness is questioned about an envelope (exhibit CE3) and a photograph (exhibit CE4). The witness identifies the person in the photograph as 'Jane' and is about to describe an inscription on it when an attorney, Mr. Everdell, interjects.
DOJ-OGR-00013928.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell is questioning a witness, Ms. Espinosa, about an exhibit labeled CE3. Ms. Espinosa identifies CE3 as a manilla envelope sent by a person named Jane to a Ms. Cimberly, care of Epstein & Co. at 457 Madison Avenue, but notes that the date on the postage is illegible.
DOJ-OGR-00013877.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a judge's ruling. The judge denies the government's motion to preclude testimony from Dr. Loftus, an expert on 'suggestive activities,' on the condition that she testifies as a 'blind expert' without applying her opinions to the specific facts of the case. The judge finds that the defense has established a proper foundation for this testimony by cross-examining a witness, Jane, about the government's own potentially suggestive questioning tactics.
DOJ-OGR-00013834.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues against a defendant's motion to dismiss enticement charges. Rohrbach contends that the defendant, along with an associate named Epstein, manipulated a person named Jane by building a multi-year relationship and playing on her 'hopes and desires' to entice her to travel to New York. This conduct, Rohrbach argues, squarely meets the legal definition of enticement, and therefore the charges should stand.
DOJ-OGR-00013830.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An unnamed speaker makes a legal argument to a judge, defining the terms "persuade, induce, entice" as words of causation by citing the legal precedent U.S. v. Broxmeyer and definitions from the Random House Dictionary. The argument is framed in the context of testimony from a witness named Jane regarding Ms. Maxwell's alleged involvement in her travel to New York.
DOJ-OGR-00013495.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on discrepancies in Rodgers' personal flight logbook, specifically missing entries between flight 818 and 821. The questioner probes whether a person named Jane could have been on these unrecorded flights, but Rodgers states they have no information to confirm or deny this.
DOJ-OGR-00013488.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. An attorney questions Rodgers about his certainty regarding the presence of a passenger named "Jane" on a flight, establishing that Rodgers cannot definitively say whether she was on board. Rodgers admits he could have been given a name for the flight manifest without ever meeting the person, and that the person he knows with that name could not have been the passenger in question.
DOJ-OGR-00013487.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The testimony confirms several relationships connected to Epstein, including his attorney Jeff Shantz, his former girlfriend Eva Anderson (who later married Glenn Dubin), and a fill-in pilot named Russ Kippus. The questioner probes whether Glenn Dubin, a billionaire hedge fund manager, was one of Epstein's clients, but the witness states they are not sure.
DOJ-OGR-00013480.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on Rodgers' past interviews with the FBI in 2006 and with prosecutors in 2020 regarding flights he piloted for Epstein. The interrogator specifically asks about an entry in Rodgers' flight log for a person named 'Jane' and whether she was discussed in the initial FBI interview.
DOJ-OGR-00013448.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript, dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of Mr. Rodgers. The testimony focuses on his observations during over 1,000 flights he piloted for Mr. Epstein between 1994 and 2004, specifically regarding Virginia Roberts and Jane, whom he believed to be 18 or over, and his assertion that he never witnessed any sexual activity, particularly with underage girls, on these flights.
DOJ-OGR-00013447.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on whether Rodgers, a pilot, ever saw females who appeared to be under the age of 18 or 19 on flights he piloted for Epstein between 1994 and 2004, and also after 2004. Rodgers denies seeing any such individuals and confirms his recollection that a woman referred to as "Jane" appeared to be at least 18 when he met her.
DOJ-OGR-00013431.jpg
This document is an excerpt from the court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The witness confirms, by reviewing a specific entry, that Ghislaine Maxwell, Virginia Roberts, Jeffrey Epstein, and an individual named Jane were all passengers on a flight from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to Palm Beach, Florida, on March 31, 2001. The testimony also confirms the presence of other, unnamed passengers on the same flight.
DOJ-OGR-00013415.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where a witness named Rodgers testifies about a flight on November 15, 1996. The witness confirms that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were passengers on this flight from Teterboro, New Jersey, to Columbus, Ohio. The testimony also identifies Juan Alessi as Jeffrey Epstein's house manager in Palm Beach for approximately 12 years.
DOJ-OGR-00013413.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers. Rodgers testifies that he first met a passenger, referred to as 'Jane', on a flight on November 11, 1996, and saw her a total of four times on Jeffrey Epstein's planes. He also states that Jane flew with both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00010660.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated June 24, 2022, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter responds to a court order about the defendant's objections to victim statements, identifying six victims by their first names (Jane, Annie, Kate, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa). It also notes that two of the victims, Kate and Annie, plan to attend the upcoming sentencing hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00010442.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from June 15, 2022, argues against applying a sentencing enhancement for 'undue influence'. The text asserts that the evidence does not support the claim that a witness named Carolyn was unduly influenced by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. To support this, it cites Carolyn's own testimony that she actively sought out massage appointments, recruited other minors for money, and refused offers to travel to Epstein's island, indicating her actions were voluntary.
DOJ-OGR-00010437.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, argues that Ms. Maxwell should not receive an aggravating role sentencing enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1. The core argument is that there is no evidence she supervised any other criminal participant in the offenses involving victims like 'Jane' and Annie Farmer. In fact, the document asserts that the trial record shows Ms. Maxwell was directed and managed by Epstein, making her ineligible for the enhancement.
DOJ-OGR-00010403.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion denying a defendant's post-trial motions. The court rejects the defendant's argument that a witness's (Jane's) testimony caused "ultimate prejudice" leading to improper convictions on Mann Act counts. The court also denies the defendant's claim of prejudicial pre-indictment delay, stating that the defendant failed to meet the stringent two-part legal test required to prove such a claim.
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, defends the court's decision to reject the defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues the requested instructions were unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate, particularly the claim that sexual activity outside New York could not form the basis for the charges. The document asserts that the existing jury charge correctly focused the inquiry on the violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, specifically concerning the overt act of transporting the victim, Jane, from Florida to New York for the purpose of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010390.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated April 29, 2022. It addresses the Defendant's argument that her conviction was based on a 'constructive amendment' to the indictment, because a jury note suggested they found her guilty of intending a crime in New Mexico, rather than New York as charged. The court refutes this claim, concluding there is no 'substantial likelihood' that the Defendant was convicted of an offense different from the one in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00010387.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, is a court ruling denying a defendant's motions for acquittal and to vacate convictions. The ruling summarizes testimony from witnesses named Annie, Carolyn, and Kate, which established the Defendant's role in a conspiracy with Epstein to transport minors for illegal sexual activity. The evidence included the Defendant paying for sexualized massages, inappropriately touching a witness, and inviting underage girls to locations like New Mexico and Epstein's Caribbean island.
DOJ-OGR-00009867.jpg
This Reuters news article, dated January 5, 2022, reports on the jury deliberations in the Ghislaine Maxwell sex abuse trial. A juror, Scotty David, revealed that some jurors initially doubted the credibility of two accusers, Jane and Carolyn. David explained that he shared his own experience of childhood sexual abuse to help the other jurors understand the nature of memory and trauma, which ultimately swayed them and led to a unanimous guilty verdict on December 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00009861.jpg
This document is a news article detailing the perspective of a juror, 'Scotty,' from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Scotty explains that the defense team's aggressive tactics, particularly attorney Laura Menninger's questioning of a victim, backfired and helped convince the jury of the defense's lack of respect for the victims. The article also contains a sidebar about a separate, 'brutal' court hearing for Prince Andrew in New York concerning a lawsuit filed by his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.
| 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 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Strategy
Communications regarding the impact of criminal testimony on the civil case.
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...'
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity