Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Sale of London Home | London | View |
| N/A | N/A | Initial sexual interaction/abuse of Jane (age 14). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Recruitment of massage therapists. | Legitimate hotels | View |
| N/A | Detention | Ms. Maxwell's period of detention has passed the nine-month mark. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell challenged the strength of the government's case in pretrial motions pending before t... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Law enforcement action | FBI agents walked up the driveway to Ms. Maxwell's house, leading to her being alerted and moving... | the house | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An initial bail hearing where an explanation was given for why Ms. Maxwell's phone was wrapped in... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal discovery review | Defense counsel conducted an evidence view with Ms. Maxwell over the past three days to review ph... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Grooming activities (movies and shopping). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial in which the jury is being instructed on how to evaluate witness testimony. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | Ms. Maxwell objected to the government’s Confidential designation under paragraph 9 of the Protec... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | Ms. Maxwell requested that the government withdraw the 'Confidential' designation. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Mistreatment | Ms. Maxwell is allegedly being subjected to harsh prison conditions, including constant flashligh... | prison | View |
| N/A | Jury selection (voir dire) | The process of screening prospective jurors for Ms. Maxwell's trial, during which Juror No. 50 al... | Court | View |
| N/A | Claim | The witness, Jane, made a claim against Ms. Maxwell through a claims program. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A contested trial of Ms. Maxwell where the central issue was the credibility of the accusers. The... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | During jury selection (voir dire) for Ms. Maxwell's trial, Juror 50 failed to disclose his claime... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Delivery of Instruction No. 36 regarding Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Mr. Pagliuca summarizes testimony from four witnesses (Carolyn, Jane, Kate, Mr. Alessi) regarding... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's trial, which is the subject of a motion for a new trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A proposed evidentiary hearing regarding Juror No. 50, which is being debated by the government a... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal act | Ms. Maxwell encouraging Jane to travel across state lines with the intent that she engage in ille... | Across state lines | View |
| N/A | Transition of duties | Sarah Kellen took over the responsibility of scheduling massage appointments from Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Alleged transportation of 'Jane' from Florida to New York, arranged by Ms. Maxwell. | from Florida to New York | View |
| N/A | Travel | An unnamed male subject frequently traveled with assistants and a gourmet chef. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018692.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of direct testimony by a witness named Carolyn. She describes her first visit to Jeffrey Epstein's house, accompanied by a person named Virginia. Upon entering the kitchen, they were greeted by Ms. Maxwell, whom the witness describes as an older lady with an accent and shoulder-length black hair.
DOJ-OGR-00018584.jpg
This is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about the admissibility of evidence. The court establishes that photographs found during a 2019 search are relevant because they demonstrate a relationship between Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The judge rules that defense arguments concerning metadata are for the jury to consider and do not prevent the evidence from being admitted, as the bars for authentication and relevance are low.
DOJ-OGR-00018581.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues to the Court (outside the presence of the jury) regarding the admissibility of government exhibits (specifically GX304 and GX309), which contain photographs of Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein. Menninger objects to the lack of foundation for these photos, specifically mentioning a photo of Maxwell lying on a boat at an unknown time and location.
DOJ-OGR-00018365.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It portrays the Judge instructing the jury that the current witness is not a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment and that testimony regarding sexual conduct with Jeffrey Epstein should not be used to judge the character or propensity of Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. Additionally, the Judge orders courtroom sketch artists not to draw the exact likeness of witnesses testifying under pseudonyms to protect their anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00016909.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The transcript captures the conclusion of the government's case, as confirmed by Ms. Comey, and the subsequent colloquy between the judge and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge formally advises Ms. Maxwell of her right to testify or not to testify, stressing that the decision is hers alone, despite any advice from her attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00016893.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) and government counsel (Ms. Moe). The core issue is the admissibility of a deposition from Ms. Maxwell, which the government wishes to use to rebut a 'last minute' issue raised by the defense concerning Kinnerton Street property records. The defense offers to stipulate to the property records to avoid the deposition being entered and to negate the need for an additional witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. Mr. Everdell argues against admitting evidence provided by the government, stating it is new information that his client, Ms. Maxwell, was not shown during her deposition. He suggests that any confusion in her testimony about her past addresses in London could be due to the vagueness of questioning and her having lived in many different places.
DOJ-OGR-00016890.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe before a judge. Mr. Everdell seeks to admit land registry records for the Kinnerton Street and Stanhope Mews residences to challenge a witness's testimony about Ms. Maxwell's whereabouts in 1992-1993. In exchange for admitting these records, he suggests the prosecution should be allowed to admit deposition testimony from Ms. Maxwell on the same subject.
DOJ-OGR-00016883.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a dispute between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding the late disclosure of a witness. The defense introduces Kevin Moran, the owner of the Nags Head Pub located across the street from Ms. Maxwell's residence at 44 Kinnerton Street, as a witness regarding the timing of her residence there. The prosecution objects, citing a lack of prior notice and missing '26.2 material' (witness statements).
DOJ-OGR-00016362.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named A. Farmer. The questioning centers on an incident where Ghislaine Maxwell massaged one of Jeffrey Epstein's feet and instructed the witness to massage the other. While the witness confirms there was no touching of private parts, they state they considered the event to be 'sexualized'.
DOJ-OGR-00016207.jpg
This document is a transcript from the direct examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. Visoski provides a detailed description of the layout of Mr. Epstein's office, including rooms for accounting, investment personnel, an attorney, and personal assistants. The witness explicitly states that Ms. Maxwell and Sarah Kellen both had desks in the personal assistant's room.
DOJ-OGR-00016195.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Visoski, likely a pilot, regarding passengers on Mr. Epstein's private planes. Visoski testifies that his interaction with passengers was minimal, and it was not his primary job to record every passenger's name, especially on domestic flights. He states that passenger information would typically come from Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, or secretaries at the office.
DOJ-OGR-00016194.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. Visoski testifies about the travel habits of Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein between 1994 and 2004, stating they primarily used private jets. The witness also recounts that Ms. Maxwell claimed partial ownership of a private jet and describes the conveniences of private air travel compared to commercial flights.
DOJ-OGR-00016169.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of an opening statement delivered by Ms. Sternheim on August 10, 2022, in a case against Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Sternheim argues that the government is mischaracterizing lawful conduct as 'grooming' and highlights that witnesses testifying for the government have received substantial payments from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, suggesting a potential motive for their testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00015681.jpg
This document is an email from 'G. Max' to a property manager, Ms. Maxwell, regarding issues at a Palm Beach residence. G. Max discusses the work and payment for an employee named Jerome and complains about unresolved maintenance problems, such as a broken TV. The email is a reply to a detailed message from Ms. Maxwell (which is quoted) outlining her efforts to manage another staff member, John, and the creation of household checklists and a manual.
DOJ-OGR-00002431.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, defends testimony given by Ms. Maxwell. It argues that her denial of awareness of "sexual activities" was truthful because the question's timeframe, "2000s," is ambiguous and can refer to a whole millennium. The document also asserts that questions about "massages" were immaterial and inadmissible in the defamation action because the term was not clarified as sexual or professional.
DOJ-OGR-00002428.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, describes a question posed to Ms. Maxwell regarding her awareness of "sex toys" or "devices" at Epstein's Palm Beach house. The document argues that the question was improper—being compound, vague, and lacking foundation—which led to an objection and Ms. Maxwell's predictable response, "No, not that I recall."
DOJ-OGR-00002420.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated February 4, 2021. It outlines Counts Five and Six of the indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, citing specific testimony from April and July 2016 depositions alleged to be perjury regarding her knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's recruitment of underage girls and the presence of sex toys at his Palm Beach home. The text also notes a potential violation of a protective order by Giuffre's lawyers in sharing confidential deposition contents with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00002341.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 1, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim regarding her client, pretrial detainee Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim argues that allowing Maxwell to use a laptop on weekends and holidays is a necessary and reasonable accommodation for reviewing extensive electronic discovery for her trial. The letter asserts this poses no burden to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) and requests the court's existing order for access remain in effect.
DOJ-OGR-00002341(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on February 1, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim arguing that her client, pretrial detainee Ms. Maxwell, should continue to be allowed laptop access on weekends and holidays. Sternheim contends this is a reasonable accommodation necessary for reviewing extensive electronic discovery for trial preparation and that it imposes no burden or security risk on the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC).
DOJ-OGR-00002331.jpg
This is the conclusion page of a legal motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on January 25, 2021, arguing for the dismissal of her indictment. The defense claims a Sixth Amendment violation due to the systematic underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic jurors in the selection pool and alleges the government rushed her arrest for publicity reasons to coincide with the anniversary of the Epstein indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00002328.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text argues that the jury selection process in White Plains systematically underrepresented Black and Hispanic individuals, thereby violating Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a fair cross-section. The argument relies on the three-part test established by the Supreme Court in Duren v. Missouri to demonstrate a prima facie violation.
DOJ-OGR-00002328(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, is a portion of a legal argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It contends that her Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to the systematic underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals in the jury selected from White Plains. The document cites the three-part test established by the Supreme Court in *Duren v. Missouri* to support the claim of a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement.
DOJ-OGR-00002327.jpg
This legal document is an argument on behalf of defendant Ms. Maxwell, challenging the composition of the grand jury that indicted her. It cites an analysis by jury expert Jeffrey Martin from a similar case, United States v. Balde, which found significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic persons in the White Plains jury wheel. The argument posits that since Ms. Maxwell's grand jury was drawn from the same system, her Sixth Amendment right to a grand jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community was violated.
| 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
Ms. Maxwell's CorrLinks emails were allegedly erased by guards.
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).
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.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
Video conference
Session reduced by 90 minutes; severe audio/video technical issues impacting confidentiality and visibility.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
Upcoming flight information
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via beeper to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
Status/Indictment
Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, allegedly to stave off indictment, but did not provide whereabouts.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Defense Preparation
Reference to Maxwell's need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for defense.
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
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
Location tracking
Government located Maxwell by tracking her primary phone.
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Video conference
Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.
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.
Legal consultation
Guards are described as feverishly writing while observing Ms. Maxwell during videoconferencing with her counsel.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity