Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
68 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Business associate |
15
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Client |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
12
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Client |
12
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Juror defendant |
12
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
12
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Alleged perpetrator victim |
11
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
55 | |
|
person
Judge Preska
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Defendant victim |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Financial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Association |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Friend |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001-05-25 | Email communication | An email was sent from Sally to Ms. Maxwell at 6:46 p.m. | N/A | View |
| 2001-05-18 | Visit | Ms. Maxwell visited the property and discussed tasks with John. | Palm Beach | View |
| 2001-05-18 | Meeting | Ms. Maxwell and John talked about the importance of details regarding the household tasks. | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Employment/separation | Kellen began working for Epstein, and Ms. Maxwell and Epstein 'went their separate ways'. | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Period of alleged conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of individuals under the age of 18 | Unspecified | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Timeframe of allegations involving the 'just added accuser'. | Unspecified | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Conspiracy to commit sex trafficking (Count Five). | Not specified | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Criminal conspiracy | Ms. Maxwell is charged with participating in a conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of individual... | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Time period of Carolyn's allegations of sexual abuse | Florida/Outside Florida | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Crime | Count Five: Conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of individuals under the age of 18. This coun... | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Crime | Count Six: Sex trafficking of an individual under the age of 18. This count relates solely to Car... | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Time period for Count Five (conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of individuals under 18). | Unspecified | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Time period for Count Six (sex trafficking of an individual under 18). | Unspecified | View |
| 2000-01-01 | N/A | Signing Expense Reports | Ms. Maxwell's Manhattan bro... | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Purported conspiracy involving Epstein and Ms. Giuffre. | Unspecified | View |
| 1999-01-01 | Financial transaction | Epstein transferred approximately $30 million to Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 1997-05-09 | Flight | A trip from New York (Teterboro) to Santa Fe, New Mexico. | Between New York (Teterboro... | View |
| 1997-01-01 | N/A | Registration of title transfer in the land registry. | UK | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Property transfer | Title of a property passed from the O'Neills to Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 1997-01-01 | N/A | Reference date regarding whether Maxwell lived in the house prior to this year | The home | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Property transaction | The deal for the leasehold property closed. | UK | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Flight | A flight from New York to New Mexico. | From New York to New Mexico | View |
| 1997-01-01 | N/A | Closing of the deal for the Kinnerton Street property. | UK | View |
| 1997-01-01 | N/A | Property sale deal closed. | Unknown | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Possession of property | Ms. Maxwell actually took possession of the property, according to witness Kate. | Kinnerton Street property | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001007.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on April 1, 2021, in Case 21-770. The judge begins by confirming that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, has a working audio and video connection. The discussion then turns to a technical issue raised by Ms. Moe, who reports that the public call-in line is full, and the court expresses concern about an alternative listening arrangement involving a speakerphone.
DOJ-OGR-00000982.jpg
This legal document is a page from a bail application for Ms. Maxwell, filed on July 10, 2020. The argument presented is that her proposed bail conditions are consistent with precedents set in other high-profile cases within the same circuit, citing the releases of defendants like Esposito, Marc Dreier, and Bernie Madoff, who were also considered significant flight risks. The document also notes that Maxwell is not relying on her family and friends to co-sign the bond in order to protect their privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00000980.jpg
This document is a legal defense filing arguing that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk because her potential prison sentence is likely only 10 years, contrary to the government's claims of "decades." It outlines significant legal challenges the defense intends to raise, including a prior non-prosecution agreement involving Epstein, statute of limitations issues, and the difficulty of prosecuting decades-old conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00000974.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk, citing prior court decisions where defendants who knew of impending charges did not flee. It emphasizes that the government had no evidence of Ms. Maxwell planning to leave the country and arrested her without warning before a holiday. The document further contends that Ms. Maxwell's actions to avoid public scrutiny after Epstein's arrest do not indicate an intent to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00000973.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, argues that she is not a flight risk and should be granted release. It refutes the government's claim of her 'frequent international travel' by emphasizing that she has remained in the United States since Jeffrey Epstein's arrest in July 2019 and subsequent death in August 2019. The filing contends that her decision to stay in the U.S. despite intense media scrutiny and public calls for her prosecution demonstrates she has no intention of fleeing.
DOJ-OGR-00000972.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 10, 2020, argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. It asserts that she has strong ties to the United States, including being a naturalized citizen since 2002, having close family in the country, and having resided there for almost 30 years. The document also states she has no prior criminal record and has actively participated in U.S. legal proceedings since 2015, demonstrating her intent to remain and fight the allegations against her.
DOJ-OGR-00000971.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, has successfully rebutted the legal presumption that she is a flight risk. It asserts that the government has failed to meet its burden of proving that no set of bail conditions could reasonably ensure her appearance in court. The document cites several legal precedents to support its claim that the Court should order Ms. Maxwell's release under her proposed conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00000967.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing arguing for the release of Ms. Maxwell, citing increased COVID-19 risks in prisons and the inability to adequately prepare a defense while detained. The text references the 'Stephens' case as a precedent where a defendant was released under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) because prison lockdowns prevented necessary legal preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00000963.jpg
This legal document argues for Ms. Maxwell's bail, asserting that the government's position on her danger to the community is inconsistent with its stance on Epstein. It highlights the COVID-19 pandemic as a health risk and an impediment to her defense, and contends that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk due to her strong community ties, U.S. citizenship, lack of criminal record, and continued presence in the U.S. since Epstein's arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00000932.jpg
This legal document page (dated April 1, 2021) argues that the government lacks any contemporaneous documentary evidence (emails, texts, police reports) to corroborate allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell regarding conduct between 1994 and 1997. The defense asserts that Maxwell is being prosecuted as a 'substitute' for Jeffrey Epstein following his 'inexplicable death' at the MCC, noting that she was not named in Epstein's original indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00000931.jpg
This legal document argues that the trial court improperly denied bail to Ghislaine Maxwell by relying on the government's proffer, which was based on an indictment. The author contends that an indictment is merely an accusation and not evidence, citing legal precedent and pattern jury instructions from the Third Circuit to support this claim. The document asserts that the court should order Maxwell's release.
DOJ-OGR-00000930.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the pretrial detention conditions for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, are 'untenable' and prevent her from adequately preparing for trial. The filing cites legal precedents, including United States v. Jackson and United States v. Melendez-Carrions, to assert that prolonged pretrial detention under such circumstances constitutes unconstitutional punishment and violates due process.
DOJ-OGR-00000929.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the temporary release of a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, under statute § 3142(i). It contends that her incarceration prevents her from adequately preparing for her upcoming trial in July, given the millions of pages of discovery documents she cannot effectively review. The argument compares her situation favorably to a precedent case, Robertson, to demonstrate the necessity of her release for a fair defense.
DOJ-OGR-00000920.jpg
This legal document is a page from a filing arguing that the district court erred in denying bail to Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that the court improperly relied on the government's weak and unsubstantiated allegations, which are based on old, anonymous hearsay. The document concludes by asserting that Ms. Maxwell should be granted bail or the case should be remanded.
DOJ-OGR-00000919.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the indictment against Ms. Maxwell is a direct consequence of Jeffrey Epstein's death and the resulting media frenzy, positioning her as a 'scapegoat'. The author contends that the case against her is weak, citing the lack of charges against her in 2019 alongside Epstein or in his 2008 Florida case. The document also notes that the government recently superseded the indictment to add a new anonymous accuser.
DOJ-OGR-00000914.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing for her innocence. It claims the government's evidence is weak and consists of old, untested hearsay, and that the prosecution is motivated by the 'Epstein Effect'—a need for a scapegoat following the public outrage over Jeffrey Epstein's death in custody. The filing asserts that this effect has biased prosecutors, the Bureau of Prisons, and the public against her.
DOJ-OGR-00021073.jpg
This document is the introduction to a legal filing, likely from the defense of Ms. Maxwell, arguing that her prosecution was improper. It alleges the Government used her as a proxy for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein, breached a non-prosecution agreement, and collaborated with complainants' attorneys who had a financial interest in the outcome via the Epstein Victims Compensation Program (VCP). The filing cites a specific instance where a complainant, "Jane," received $5,000,000 from the VCP after cooperating with the government's case against Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00021066.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, details the charges from a second superseding indictment filed on March 29, 2021, against a defendant identified in a footnote as Ms. Maxwell. The charges include sex trafficking conspiracy, enticement of a minor, and perjury. The document states the defendant was acquitted on one count but convicted on the others, and subsequently moved for a new trial after a juror admitted to making false statements during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00021050.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents page (page ii) from a legal appeal filed on February 28, 2023. It outlines arguments regarding the Statute of Limitations (Point II) and allegations that Juror No. 50 made false statements during voir dire, denying Ms. Maxwell a fair trial (Point III). The document specifically references the Mann Act, Section 3283, and the McDonough Test regarding juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00021045.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, capturing the conclusion of a legal proceeding. The judge clarifies the guideline fine range is 20 to 200,000 per count, which is confirmed by counsel. Before adjourning, the judge thanks the victims, their counsel, counsel for Ms. Maxwell, and counsel for the government.
DOJ-OGR-00021031.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which an attorney, Ms. Moe, responds to a judge's question about the hierarchy of a criminal conspiracy. Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence shows the unnamed defendant held a leadership position superior to that of Sarah Kellen, who was an assistant to Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. The argument is based on the defendant's role shifting over time and Kellen taking on tasks like calling victims, placing the defendant higher in the scheme's structure.
DOJ-OGR-00021030.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 29, filed 02/28/2023) involving the sentencing or legal arguments in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues to the Judge that Maxwell qualifies for a sentencing enhancement as an 'organizer or leader' because trial evidence proved she supervised Sarah Kellen. The discussion centers on whether the criminal activity involved five participants or was 'otherwise extensive,' with the government asserting Maxwell's supervision of Kellen satisfies the legal requirements.
DOJ-OGR-00021017.jpg
This legal document page details the court's reasoning for rejecting the Defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues that it correctly instructed the jury on the sole predicate offense under New York Penal Law, avoiding confusion that the Defendant's proposals regarding other jurisdictions' laws and specific witness testimonies (from Kate, Annie, and Jane) would have created. The document concludes that the Defendant's claim of potential jury error, specifically regarding conduct in New Mexico versus New York, is speculative and implausible.
DOJ-OGR-00020932.jpg
This document is a juror questionnaire from a legal case involving Ms. Maxwell, filed on March 9, 2022. Juror 50 indicates they have not formed an opinion about Ms. Maxwell that would impede impartiality, but they have heard about Jeffrey Epstein from CNN, specifically regarding his death and that he was in jail awaiting trial. The juror denies ever publicly stating or posting opinions about either individual.
DOJ-OGR-00020931.jpg
This document is a juror questionnaire for a case involving Ms. Maxwell, filed on March 9, 2022. Juror 50 indicates they have previously heard of Ms. Maxwell from CNN.com, recalling that she was Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend. The juror states they have not formed an opinion on Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence.
| 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 |
Non-legal personal matters
Her non-legal phone calls are monitored in real time, and information from them was used by staff to confront her about a personal matter (the death of someone close to her).
Legal consultation
Guards are described as feverishly writing while observing Ms. Maxwell during videoconferencing with her counsel.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.
Upcoming flight information
After beepers were no longer used, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via cell phone to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.
CorrLinks emails
Ms. Maxwell's CorrLinks emails were allegedly erased by guards.
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
Upcoming flight information
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via beeper to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.
Status/Indictment
Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, allegedly to stave off indictment, but did not provide whereabouts.
Discovery in Giuffre v. Maxwell
Two depositions designated confidential.
Phone Message
Telephoned. (No specific message text written)
Needs/requests
Communication via beeper if she needed something
General communication
Communication via cell phones
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Location tracking
Government located Maxwell by tracking her primary phone.
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
Discovery relevant to motions
Ms. Maxwell asked the government for documents relevant to these motions, but was denied.
In-person legal conference
Four-hour legal conference marked by restrictions on water, earbuds, and privacy.
Video conference
Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.
Video conference
Session reduced by 90 minutes; severe audio/video technical issues impacting confidentiality and visibility.
Defense Preparation
Reference to Maxwell's need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for defense.
Performance of duties at the residence
Ms. Maxwell provided instructions to Alessi regarding his duties at the residence, which involved tasks in various rooms and areas of the property.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity