Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Nicole Simmons
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
G. Max
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Juror
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Alleged perpetrator and victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
United States Government
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell's lawyers
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-2
|
Alleged perpetrator and victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
a second juror
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Giuffre
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Interaction |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alessi
|
Witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell's attorneys
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Associational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed participants
|
Alleged criminal association |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Probation and the government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed U.S. Citizen
|
Custodial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Perry
|
Defendant expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed male subject
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell's lawyers
|
Client |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell's Sentencing Proceeding | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding circumstantial evidence and inferences. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Detention Hearing Decision | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Narrator arrives at Jeffrey's, goes to massage room where Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell are waiting... | Jeffrey's residence, massag... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Request by Daily News to unseal documents related to Ms. Maxwell's new trial effort. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Took Minor Victim-2 to a movie | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing regarding fines, restitution, and guideline calculations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Period when alleged events took place (described as 'over 25 years ago') | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing enhancements for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged massages of Epstein by Accuser-3 | England | View |
| N/A | N/A | Witness duties regarding household preparation | Epstein Residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flight to New Mexico | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Last bail hearing where the Court expressed concern about lack of ties. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Mr. Alessi regarding Ms. Maxwell's use of the telephone directory. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell's forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding Count Four | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell visited Mar-a-Lago for potential treatment. | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acts alleged in Count Four of the Indictment (Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexu... | Not specified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal Trial | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transportation of Jane in interstate or foreign commerce. | Interstate/International | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sighting of Virginia Roberts | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| N/A | N/A | Spa Check | Mar-a-Lago (Spa) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Three bail renewal hearings | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009029.jpg
This legal filing from February 2022 argues that Ghislaine Maxwell was deprived of a fair trial due to juror misconduct. It highlights that Juror No. 50 and a second anonymous juror disclosed their own histories of sexual assault during deliberations, which allegedly influenced the jury's discussions. The document cites press interviews and a New York Times article as evidence of these disclosures.
DOJ-OGR-00009021.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, details statements from 'Juror No. 50' in the case involving Ms. Maxwell. The juror explains how his own experience with abuse influenced his perspective on the victims' credibility and how he shared this with the jury. It also describes a post-trial interview the juror gave to the Daily Mail, published on January 5, in which he called Ms. Maxwell a 'predator' and discussed the verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009020.jpg
This document details statements made by Juror No. 50, identified as Scotty David, to The Independent journalist Lucia Osborne-Crowley, published on January 4, 2022. Juror No. 50, a victim of sexual assault, revealed how his personal experience and vivid traumatic memories influenced the jury's belief in Ms. Maxwell's accusers and led him to discredit the testimony of Ms. Maxwell's expert witness, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus.
DOJ-OGR-00009015.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, discusses the jury selection process for Ms. Maxwell's trial, specifically focusing on Juror No. 50. The defense argues that the Court's questioning of this juror, who had a history of abuse but answered 'no' to related questions, was insufficient to determine if he could be fair and impartial. The document suggests the Court failed to probe potential biases that could affect the evaluation of Ms. Maxwell's defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009013.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is a portion of a court filing that details the responses of 'Juror No. 50' to a pre-trial questionnaire. The juror affirmed under penalty of perjury their ability to decide the case based solely on evidence, stated they had never been a victim of a crime, and had no views on relevant laws that would impede their ability to be fair and impartial regarding the allegations against Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00009011.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated February 24, 2022, concerning the trial of Ms. Maxwell. It describes a detailed questionnaire given to potential jurors to assess their ability to be impartial, given the sensitive nature of the allegations which include sexual trafficking and assault. The questionnaire probed jurors' personal experiences with abuse and their views on relevant laws to ensure the selection of an unbiased jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009010.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. The basis for the argument is that Juror No. 50 provided a false answer on a jury questionnaire regarding their personal experience with sexual assault, which was a core issue in the case. This alleged dishonesty is claimed to have undermined the jury selection process (voir dire) and deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009004.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The main argument is that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial because Juror No. 50 allegedly provided untruthful answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document also addresses arguments against Juror No. 50's right to intervene or make discovery requests, citing an ongoing investigation into the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00009003.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The filing argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was deprived of a fair trial due to juror misconduct, focusing on "Juror No. 50," who allegedly was untruthful during jury selection and later gave interviews to media outlets like The Independent, Daily Mail, and Reuters. The document also notes that a second juror disclosed during deliberations that they had been a victim of sexual assault.
DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal memorandum dated January 13, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues that pleadings filed by 'Juror 50' do not meet the legal standard for 'judicial documents' and therefore should not be subject to public access. The argument relies on precedent from Second Circuit cases, including United States v. Amodeo and Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, and notes that Ms. Maxwell intends to move to strike the pleadings, which would further support their exclusion from public view.
DOJ-OGR-00008957.jpg
This legal document argues that the defense was hindered by the unavailability of contemporaneous phone and property records for Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and accusers. It cites two examples: the inability to challenge Carolyn's testimony that Maxwell called her to set up appointments, and the inability to rebut accuser Jane's testimony about the timing of her sexual abuse at Epstein's New York townhouse, which she described in detail.
DOJ-OGR-00008956.jpg
This legal document outlines the defense's argument that it was hindered by the unavailability of old records. Specifically, incomplete travel records from Shoppers Travel prevented them from challenging the testimony of witnesses Annie Farmer and Jane regarding their travel with Epstein. Furthermore, the lack of bank and credit card records from the 1990s and 2000s meant the defense could not contest the government's claims about a $30 million payment from Epstein to Ms. Maxwell or verify other key dates.
DOJ-OGR-00008954.jpg
This legal document is a motion arguing that Ms. Maxwell's conviction should be vacated and the S2 Indictment dismissed. The defense claims that the government's excessive and prejudicial delay in bringing the prosecution violated her due process rights by causing critical documentary evidence and witnesses to become unavailable. The motion reasserts arguments from previously denied pretrial motions, which the Court had granted leave to renew after the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008953.jpg
This page of a court document discusses the legal arguments regarding the conspiracy charges against Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. It argues that despite violating different statutes, the actions constituted a single criminal agreement to groom and abuse minors, rather than separate independent conspiracies, and analyzes the interdependence between the counts.
DOJ-OGR-00008948.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, is a motion from the government following the conviction of Ms. Maxwell on three conspiracy counts. The government argues that since the evidence at trial proved a single, overarching conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein, punishing her for all three counts would constitute double jeopardy. Accordingly, the government requests that the Court impose judgment on only one of the three conspiracy counts.
DOJ-OGR-00008945.jpg
This legal document is a motion arguing for the convictions of Ms. Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four to be vacated. The defense contends that the jury was improperly influenced by evidence of conduct in New Mexico involving a person named 'Jane', which was not part of the original indictment. This created a 'constructive amendment' or a prejudicial 'variance' between the indictment and the proof at trial, warranting a new trial on these counts.
DOJ-OGR-00008943.jpg
This legal document analyzes a jury's deliberation, focusing on how flight logs kept by Epstein's pilot, Dave Rodgers, were used to corroborate testimony from a victim named Jane. The jury appears to have found no corroborating evidence for Ms. Maxwell's involvement in Jane's trips to New York, but did find evidence in the flight logs that Maxwell was a passenger on a trip with Jane to New Mexico. This distinction led the jury to focus its evaluation on Ms. Maxwell's involvement in the conduct that occurred in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00008942.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell's conviction on Count Four was likely improper. The argument centers on a note from the jury, which suggests they based the conviction on sexual abuse that victim 'Jane' experienced in New Mexico, facilitated by Maxwell. However, the charge required the intended sexual activity to be a violation of New York Penal Law, a condition the New Mexico events did not satisfy.
DOJ-OGR-00008940.jpg
This legal document argues that there is a substantial likelihood that Ms. Maxwell was improperly convicted on Mann Act counts. The defense contends the conviction may have been based on testimony about conduct in New Mexico, which does not violate New York law, thereby constituting a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment that broadened the charges beyond what was originally presented by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00008939.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 600) from the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 11, 2022. It outlines legal arguments regarding the Mann Act conspiracy charges, emphasizing that the government is bound to prove a violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55 as the specific criminal object of the conspiracy. The text cites previous court transcripts and filings where the government conceded that the conviction depends specifically on the violation of New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00008938.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, distinguishes between a 'constructive amendment' and a 'variance' in a criminal indictment, citing several legal precedents. It argues that the central element, or 'core of criminality,' of the Mann Act charges against Epstein and Ms. Maxwell was a clear scheme to entice underage girls to travel to New York for the purpose of violating New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00008936.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, details the defense's request for an additional jury instruction concerning Mann Act counts, arguing against conviction based solely on New Mexico conduct. The Court declined this instruction, and the jury subsequently convicted Ms. Maxwell on Count Four, with charges also in Counts One and Three. The document also cites applicable law regarding constructive amendments, defining them and explaining their impact on a defendant's Grand Jury Clause rights.
DOJ-OGR-00008935.jpg
This legal document from a court case, filed on February 11, 2022, details arguments over jury instructions concerning whether an offense must be a violation of New York law, even if events occurred in New Mexico. It highlights a specific note from the deliberating jury asking for clarification on Count Four, questioning if defendant Ms. Maxwell could be convicted for aiding a victim's (Jane's) return flight if the criminal intent was tied to the initial flight to New Mexico. The court declined to provide clarifying instructions, referring the jury back to the original charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008932.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, discusses the background facts regarding jury instructions for Mann Act counts in a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. It establishes that a conviction required proving an intent to violate a specific New York law (Penal Law § 130.55) and includes a court transcript clarifying this point, particularly in relation to the testimony of a witness named Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00008931.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to vacate her convictions and grant a new trial. The argument is that the jury improperly convicted her on charges based on testimony about events in New Mexico, which was outside the scope of the original indictment premised on violations of New York law. The filing contends this constituted a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment, making the conviction invalid.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $10,000,000.00 | Bequest from estate | View |
| N/A | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Court | $0.00 | Judge intends to impose a fine. | View |
| N/A | Received | Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $10,000,000.00 | Bequest listed as an asset | View |
| N/A | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Government/Victims | $0.00 | Restitution (Government is not seeking restitut... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Unspecified | $0.00 | Sale of 69 Stanhope Mews and purchase of Kinner... | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $0.00 | Purchase of a large townhouse. | View |
| N/A | Received | Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $23,000,000.00 | Transfer of funds confirmed by bank statements. | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Court/Government | $0.00 | Discussion regarding a court-imposed fine and M... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | the government | $0.00 | Judge intends to impose a fine; amount not spec... | View |
| 2021-03-22 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Attorney Escrow A... | $0.00 | Funds for legal services presently held in atto... | View |
| 2021-02-23 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Court | $0.00 | Proposed bond (amount not specified on this pag... | View |
| 2021-02-23 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Escrow | $0.00 | Money currently held in escrow for legal fees. | View |
| 2020-12-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | N/A | $22,000,000.00 | Reported assets in support of bail application. | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | N/A (Reporting) | $3,800,000.00 | Assets reported by Maxwell in July 2020 | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | N/A | $3,800,000.00 | Assets reported by Ms. Maxwell in July 2020 | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | N/A | $22,000,000.00 | Assets reported in support of bail application. | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Received | Unknown | Ms. Maxwell | $0.00 | Deal closed for leasehold property. | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Mr. and Mrs. O'Neill | $0.00 | Closing of the deal for property sale. | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Received | Unknown | Ms. Maxwell | $0.00 | Contracts exchanged for leasehold property. | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Mr. and Mrs. O'Neill | $0.00 | Exchange of contracts for property sale. | View |
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
Ms. Maxwell's assets
An interview conducted after Ms. Maxwell's arrest where she reported her assets from memory, stating she believed she had approximately $3.8 million in assets.
Declaration and notice of motion to withdraw
HMF served a copy of the declaration and notice of motion to withdraw on Ms. Maxwell via her new counsel, Mr. Markus.
Newspaper
Received a copy of the New York Times issued in October.
Confirmation of decision not to testify
Judge asks Maxwell directly if it is correct that she has decided not to testify.
Attorney Glassman
A letter from Ms. Maxwell's side regarding the testimony of Attorney Glassman.
Exhibit List
Counsel hand-delivered and deposited exhibit list in the MDC legal mailbox.
Waiver Form Review
Attorneys read the waiver form to Maxwell and received authorization to sign on her behalf.
Request for production of discovery materials
Ms. Maxwell sent a detailed letter requesting the production of discovery materials under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Brady v. Maryland, and Giglio v. United States. The Government has not yet responded.
Request to stay unsealing process
Maxwell asked for a stay claiming awareness of critical new information but could not disclose details due to a protective order.
Denial of stay
Judge Preska declined to stay the unsealing but offered to reevaluate if Judge Nathan modified the protective order.
Request for leave to be excused from publicly filing a re...
This document is a filing by Ms. Maxwell requesting permission to not publicly file a redacted version of Appendix Volume 2, citing confidential material under a criminal protective order related to two ongoing appeals.
Modification of protective order
Request to share information with other judicial officers under seal.
No Subject
Ms. Maxwell used the phone subscribed to 'Terramar Project, Inc.' to make calls as late as May 2020.
No Subject
Ms. Maxwell used the phone subscribed to "Terramar Project, Inc." to make calls as late as May 2020.
Sex toys at Palm Beach house
Maxwell denied recalling sex toys at Epstein's house.
Civil Defamation Action
Testimony provided under oath involved in the perjury counts.
Recruitment of underage girls
Maxwell denied knowing about a scheme to recruit underage girls.
Civil Defamation Action
Testimony provided under oath involved in the perjury counts.
Civil Depositions
Two civil depositions where Maxwell allegedly made materially false statements.
Epstein investigation
Ms. Maxwell called an individual living outside of Sydney to inform them that Mr. Epstein was being investigated and that if they refused to cooperate, they'd be 'taken care of'.
Request for call back
"TELL HIM TO CALL ME"
Called but not very important
At 7:44 AM, Ms. Maxwell called for Mr. Epstein, leaving a message that the call was not very important.
Called, not important
A message for Mr. Epstein from Ms. Maxwell, taken at 7:44 AM, stating she "CALLED BUT NOT VERY IMPORTENT".
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity