Accuser-3
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged abuser victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Accuser-1
|
Unrelated |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Alleged grooming facilitation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Defendant accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Victim perpetrator alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Alleged sexual contact |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Alleged victim perpetrator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant victim alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Alleged facilitator victim |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Alleged criminal conduct | Alleged "sexual abuse" of Accuser-2 and Accuser-3 by Epstein, in which the government alleges Ms.... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged 'sexual abuse' involving Accuser-3 | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | Alleged sex acts between Epstein and Accuser-3 while Accuser-3 was underage. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged massages of Epstein by Accuser-3 | England | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal act | Accuser-3 was purportedly “encouraged” to provide massages to Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Ms. Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3. | England | View |
| N/A | Alleged conduct | Alleged conduct between Ghislaine Maxwell and Accuser-3. | England | View |
| 2021-11-19 | Court filing | Issuance of an ORDER that GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Defendant's motion to exclude evi... | null | View |
| 2021-10-29 | Legal filing | Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence related to Accuser-3. | Court | View |
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Alleged conspiracy and overt acts violating the Mann Act involving Maxwell, Epstein, and three ac... | New York, Florida, New Mexi... | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Introduction | Ms. Maxwell allegedly introduced Accuser-3 to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions. | London, England | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Alleged abuse | Epstein allegedly "sexually abused" Accuser-3 during massages that Ms. Maxwell encouraged. | London, England | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Milestone | By 1994 at the earliest, Accuser-3 had reached age 16, the legal age of consent in England. | England | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Interaction/grooming | Ms. Maxwell allegedly "groomed and befriended" Accuser-3. | London, England | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002703.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is part of a defense argument for Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the indictment is vague and lacks crucial information, citing redacted "flight records" and "diary entries" as examples of information that leads to a dead-end. The filing argues that the absence of specific dates for alleged events, such as when 'Accuser-3' provided massages to Epstein, and the failure to explain how Ms. Maxwell's statements constituted perjury, make it impossible for her to prepare an adequate defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002690.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal motion filed on January 25, 2021, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. Her attorneys request that the Court either strike all references to 'Accuser-3' from specific paragraphs of the indictment or compel the government to provide advance notice before introducing any evidence related to that accuser. The document is signed by her legal team from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00002689.jpg
This legal document is a motion arguing that the government must demonstrate the admissibility of any evidence related to 'Accuser-3' under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The filing asserts that this evidence constitutes 'other acts' evidence, which is typically inadmissible to prove character, and therefore its relevance and purpose must be formally litigated before being introduced at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002687.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell's alleged conduct with 'Accuser-3' in England falls outside the scope of the charged conspiracy. It cites the case 'United States v. Hsia' as precedent for distinguishing between a core conspiracy and separate acts of concealment or cover-up. The document contends that the object of the conspiracy was to cause individuals to travel for unlawful acts with Epstein, and Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3 did not further this specific goal.
DOJ-OGR-00002686.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 146) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated February 4, 2021. The defense argues that allegations regarding 'Accuser-3' are time-barred because the statute of limitations expired before the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, and retroactive application would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Furthermore, the defense contends that allegations involving Accuser-3 are irrelevant to the conspiracy charges, which should only pertain to Accuser-1 and Accuser-2.
DOJ-OGR-00002684.jpg
This document is a page from a legal motion filed by the defense in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on February 4, 2021. The defense argues that all references to 'Accuser-3' in the indictment should be stricken as 'surplusage' because they are irrelevant to the specific charges of interstate transportation for illegal sexual activity and are unduly prejudicial. The text cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(d) and case law to support the argument that these '20-year-old allegations' do not meet the legal requirements for inclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00002683.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues against allegations in an indictment concerning Ms. Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3. The defense contends that the alleged events, including Maxwell introducing Accuser-3 to Epstein, occurred in London between 1994 and 1995, by which time Accuser-3 was 16, the legal age of consent in England. Therefore, the document posits that the alleged "sexual abuse" by Epstein was lawful conduct and cannot be considered an "overt act" in furtherance of a conspiracy, especially as no travel was alleged to have been caused by Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00002681.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues for the removal of allegations concerning 'Accuser-3' from her indictment. The defense contends that these allegations are irrelevant to the charges of enticing travel for unlawful sexual activity, as there is no claim Accuser-3 ever traveled for such a purpose, and that the alleged activity with Epstein was not unlawful because Accuser-3 was over the age of consent in England. The filing asserts that the government's inclusion of these claims is a prejudicial attempt to demonstrate a propensity for wrongdoing, in violation of federal evidence rules.
DOJ-OGR-00002788.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 23, 2021, argues that the government's case against Ms. Maxwell is weakening, thereby diminishing her flight risk. The filing points to several weaknesses, including a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that may immunize Maxwell, the government's concession that it cannot prove Maxwell or Epstein caused 'Accuser-3' to travel, and evidence that prosecutors misled a judge. The document suggests that despite the government's escalating claims about her flight risk, the deteriorating case against her warrants a reevaluation of her detention.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity