Jane
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Abusive coercive |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Abusive coercive |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim abuser alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ghislaine
|
Uncertain |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Recruiter victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Dubin
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROSSMILLER
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mom
|
Family |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
He
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Adversarial in this context |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane's lawyer
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane's attorney
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Matt
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Fellow witnesses |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Fellow witnesses |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Fellow witnesses |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alessi
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Victim perpetrator implied |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kelly
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Accuser accused |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Accuser accused |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Crime | Jane was sexually abused at Epstein's residences in New York and New Mexico. | New York and New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Jane testified at trial about being sexually abused by Epstein. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Four women (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, Annie) submitted claims to the Jeffrey Epstein Victim Compensati... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The civil lawsuits of the four female witnesses ended. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The witness 'Jane' went to see 'the Lion King'. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Travel | Jane traveled on Mr. Epstein's dime. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Flight | Jane took one flight on Mr. Epstein's private jet. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Transportation | Epstein transported Jane on his private jet across state lines for prostitution, aided and abette... | across state lines, New York | View |
| N/A | Grooming | The defendant groomed Jane. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Travel | The defendant accompanied Jane on the plane. | on the plane | View |
| N/A | Abuse | The defendant participated in the abuse of Jane. | New York | View |
| N/A | Confrontation | A witness recalls being present when Jane confronted her mother, saying "How could you not know t... | a room | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Jane met with the government in person quite a few times. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal preparation | Jane engaged in a number of trial preparation sessions with the government. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal preparation | Jane engaged in a mock cross-examination with the government. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Enticement and transportation for abuse | Maxwell and Epstein enticed 'Jane' to go across state lines to New York to be abused. The defenda... | New York | View |
| N/A | Sexual assault | Jeffrey Epstein sexually assaulted a 14-year-old minor referred to as Jane. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Crossing state lines (mann act offense) | The defendant, Epstein, and Jane crossed state lines, and Epstein flew Jane to New York with Maxw... | New York | View |
| N/A | Travel | Jane traveled with Epstein, including on his private jet, during her early twenties. She was twen... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Crime | Alleged sexual abuse of children by the defendant and Epstein, involving the use of massage as a ... | massage rooms | View |
| N/A | Living arrangement | The witness's mother and other family members lived in her house due to financial difficulties. | Jane's house | View |
| N/A | Introduction | Mr. Epstein introduced Jane to Donald Trump. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Epstein took Jane to Mar-a-Lago when she was 14. | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Jane met Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Jane previously testified generally about the interior of the New York townhouse. | Courtroom | View |
073.pdf
This document is a Notice of Agreement filed on September 8, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida court case Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff's counsel notifies the court that both parties have agreed to appoint Rodney Romano of Matrix Mediation, LLC as the mediator for the case. The document includes a certificate of service and a service list detailing the contact information for the attorneys representing both the plaintiff and the defendant.
046.pdf
This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated June 7, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe 101 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-KAM). The order grants a motion for the limited appearance of attorney Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. to represent Jeffrey Epstein and authorizes him to receive electronic filing notifications at jay.lefkowitz@kirkland.com.
041.pdf
This document is a Motion for Limited Appearance filed on June 4, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Attorney Robert D. Critton, Jr. moves for the admission of Jay P. Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis LLP to appear as co-counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes certificates of service to opposing counsel and a certificate of good standing for Lefkowitz from the District of Columbia court.
026.pdf
This document is a Motion for Limited Appearance filed on May 21, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:09-CV-80591-KAM). Robert D. Critton, Jr. requests the court to admit Michael D. Shumsky of Kirkland & Ellis LLP as co-counsel for the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The document lists legal counsel for both the plaintiff (Jane Doe 101) and the defendant, along with their contact information.
025.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on May 21, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida case Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Local counsel Robert D. Critton, Jr. requests the court to admit Jay P. Lefkowitz (of Kirkland & Ellis LLP) pro hac vice to represent Jeffrey Epstein. The document outlines Lefkowitz's qualifications, confirms payment of the admission fee, and provides service information for all counsel of record.
025-02.pdf
This document is a court order (specifically Document 25-2 entered on 05/21/2009) from the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe 101 vs. Jeffrey Epstein. The order grants Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. permission to appear and participate in the action on behalf of the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and authorizes the receipt of electronic filings at the email address jay.lefkowitz@kirkland.com. The document appears to be a proposed order as the judge's signature lines are blank.
002.pdf
Summons in a Civil Case issued on April 17, 2009, by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 09-80591 (Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein). The document summons Jeffrey Epstein, noted as being located at the Palm Beach County Stockade, to answer the complaint within 20 days. It lists Epstein's defense counsel (Spicer, Goldberger, Critton) and the plaintiff's attorneys (Josefsberg and Ezell of Podhurst Orseck, P.A.).
EFTA00029465.pdf
An email dated February 5, 2019, from the Government to the Chambers of Judge Netburn regarding the case 'Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al.' The email submits an attached application and proposed order, respectfully requesting that these documents be filed under seal.
EFTA00020699.pdf
This document is an email thread from April 2019 involving Boies Schiller Flexner LLP regarding a Grand Jury Subpoena. The correspondence discusses a sealed order from the Southern District of New York granting BSF permission to produce confidential discovery materials from the case '[Redacted] v. Maxwell' (likely Giuffre v. Maxwell) in response to the subpoena. It explicitly notes that the order does not apply to other litigation such as 'In re Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein'.
EFTA00020697.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 15, 2019, between Peter Skinner (likely representing Boies Schiller Flexner) and a redacted sender (likely a federal prosecutor). The correspondence concerns a Grand Jury subpoena served on BSF regarding the 'Guiffre v. Maxwell' civil case. The redacted sender provides a sealed order granting BSF permission to turn over 'CONFIDENTIAL' discovery materials to the Grand Jury, while explicitly noting this order does not apply to the 'Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein' litigation.
EFTA00019577.pdf
This document is an email chain from March and April 2019 involving an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the chambers of Judge Sarah Netburn regarding the case 'Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al.' The correspondence discusses the submission of a letter providing additional authority for a government application and a request from the Judge's chambers for a Word version of a Sealed Order.
EFTA00019482.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 14, 2019, between a Courtroom Deputy for Judge Sarah Netburn (SDNY) and an Assistant U.S. Attorney. The deputy requests a Microsoft Word version of a 'Sealed Order' for Judge Netburn regarding the civil case 'Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al.' The Assistant U.S. Attorney replies affirmatively and attaches the document titled '2019-03-14, _JE,_unsealing_proposed_order_(as_submitted_2019-02-05).docx'.
DOJ-OGR-00018357.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion in open court regarding the sealing and redaction of defense exhibits, specifically J15 and a proposed J15R. The core issue is the protection of identifying information related to 'Jane,' who was the subject of a recent cross-examination. Various parties, including Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Menninger, debate the necessity and process of sealing these exhibits to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.
DOJ-OGR-00018343.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case, filed on August 10, 2022, concerning Jeffrey Epstein. The judge is discussing the admissibility of photographs taken in 2019 of Epstein's New York apartment, which the government wants to use to corroborate the 1994 testimony of a witness named "Jane". The judge outlines the legal reasoning for determining the relevance and potential prejudice of such evidence, particularly the difference between photos of fixed structures versus movable objects.
DOJ-OGR-00018277.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding the relevance of photographs, prior testimony by Jane, and the submission of evidence binders for upcoming witnesses. The Court also provides a reminder to Ms. Comey about microphone usage.
DOJ-OGR-00018148.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning challenges Alessi on two points: his financial state in 2003 when he was accused of stealing from his former employer, Mr. Epstein, and inconsistencies in his testimony about when he first met an individual named Jane. Alessi defends himself by stating he was not poor but his assets were sequestered due to a divorce, and that he cannot recall the exact year he met Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00018130.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. An unnamed speaker, likely an attorney, is making an objection to the judge regarding the admission of photographs of a New York townhouse taken in 2019. The attorney argues the photos are irrelevant and should not be shown to the jury, as they do not accurately represent the property's condition during the conspiracy period of 1994-2004, citing testimony from witnesses Juan Alessi and Jane about renovations and only general descriptions of the interior.
DOJ-OGR-00017846.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sidebar on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim debate with the judge about the admissibility of a witness's testimony regarding a confrontation between 'Jane' and her mother, where Jane allegedly questioned her mother about money and implicitly acknowledged being abused. The discussion focuses on whether this testimony constitutes a prior consistent statement and its presence in the '3500 material'.
DOJ-OGR-00017844.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Matt. Matt testifies about conversations he had with a woman named Jane regarding her interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. He describes Jane's demeanor during these conversations as 'Ashamed, embarrassed, horrified,' but confirms that she did not provide specific details about what happened.
DOJ-OGR-00017840.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Matt by an attorney, Ms. Moe. The questioning focuses on what a person named Jane told the witness about receiving financial help from Jeffrey Epstein. A key part of the witness's testimony is objected to by opposing counsel, Ms. Sternheim, and the objection is sustained by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017824.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge and several attorneys (Ms. Moe, Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Rohrbach) regarding trial procedures. Key topics include clarifying testimony about Ms. Maxwell, the status of contacts with a witness named 'Jane', and confirming an agreement that victim-witnesses will not observe the trial until after both the prosecution and defense have rested their cases.
DOJ-OGR-00017818.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022. After a witness named Jane is excused, the court calls for a break. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then raises a procedural issue, requesting a proffer from the government regarding the testimony of the next witness, Matt, to ensure it complies with evidence rules and avoids improper statements.
DOJ-OGR-00017811.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on personal information from a summer camp application (height, weight, grade) and her attendance at Interlochen the following year. The transcript also records procedural matters, including an attorney's request for the jury to view a sealed piece of evidence, Defendant's Exhibit J-4.
DOJ-OGR-00017808.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney, Ms. Moe, questions Jane about her application for admission to Interlochen for the summer of 1994. This application is identified as Defendant's Exhibit J-3, which the court permits the jury to view.
DOJ-OGR-00017805.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures the testimony of a witness named Jane. Jane explains to the jury that she spoke to a reporter against her will because he "basically blackmailed" her. The reporter allegedly threatened to publish her name, which he claimed was in unredacted court documents and "Epstein's little black book."
| 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 |
Involvement in sexualized massages
Jane testified to the government that she was involved in sexualized massages with multiple people and provided their first names.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity