Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Alleged trafficker victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Counsel for Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Defendant juror |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell's spouse
|
Marital |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Visoski
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged co conspirators |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Association |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Friend |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
SARAH KELLEN
|
Supervisory |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Acquaintance |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Alleged trafficker and victim |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Client |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Acquaintance |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
opponent in the Civil Litigation
|
Adversarial |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Foot massage | A foot massage where Ms. Maxwell (Ghislaine) massaged one of Jeffrey's feet and instructed A. Far... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conversation | A conversation between Mr. Alessi and Ms. Maxwell regarding a booklet and associated work, which ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The District Court failed to hold a hearing on the scope of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | Ms. Maxwell can file an unredacted copy of the Motion to Consolidate only under seal in the crimi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Pandemic | The COVID-19 pandemic, which created harsh conditions for incarcerated individuals and is argued ... | federal prisons | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Conviction of Ms. Maxwell on Mann Act counts, which is being challenged on the basis that it may ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Observation | A witness observed Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and Ms. Maxwell's mother talking together. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The witness, a driver, drove a group to the airport and onto the tarmac. | the airport | View |
| N/A | Flight | The witness saw Jane get on a plane with others. | the airport | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | Alleged physical contact occurred, which the Court instructed was not 'illegal sexual activity' a... | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Civil case cited as 'Brown v. Maxwell', where the Court released summary judgment material. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Civil case cited as 'Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413'. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Deposition | Ms. Maxwell testified at two depositions instead of invoking her Fifth Amendment right. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Criminal investigation | A concern is mentioned that Ms. Giuffre would use documents from the civil action to support a cr... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Questioning/examination | An examiner asked Ms. Maxwell if she was aware of “sex toys” or “devices” used in “sexual activit... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Inmate check | MDC staff conduct targeted flashlight checks on Ms. Maxwell every 15 minutes during the night, wa... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Flight | A return flight from New Mexico, which Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have aided in. | from New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | The document provides instructions for the jury on how to deliberate on the six separate counts a... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Service visit | Witness would visit Ms. Maxwell's residences to pick up and return first aid kits that needed to ... | Ms. Maxwell's residences | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The document discusses preserving Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate an issue concerning the governm... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Discussion of the legal standards and burdens for pre-trial detention in the case against Ms. Max... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Ongoing criminal case, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, against Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | The future trial for which the defense is preparing and requesting information. | Court | View |
| N/A | Speech | Ms. Maxwell delivered a speech at the United Nations on topics related to ocean conservation. | United Nations | View |
| N/A | Public speaking | Ms. Maxwell gave TED Talks on topics related to ocean conservation. | 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 |
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
Defense Preparation
Reference to Maxwell's need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for defense.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Legal matters
The document alleges that all of Ms. Maxwell's legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system.
Needing something
Early on, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness by beeper if she needed something.
Status/Indictment
Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, allegedly to stave off indictment, but did not provide whereabouts.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
A booklet/checklist
Mr. Alessi recalls telling Ms. Maxwell that he would not confirm or do the work required by a booklet/checklist because it was too much work on top of his daily duties.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
Press approaching the house
The security guard radioed Ms. Maxwell to alert her that he believed the press was on the grounds and approaching the house.
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
Travel arrangement for Jane
The document mentions an incident where 'allegedly Ms. Maxwell got on the phone and somehow arranged for Jane to get back to Palm Beach'.
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Legal Emails
MDC allegedly prematurely deleted legal emails.
Civil Deposition
Testimony where the judge concluded dishonesty/perjury occurred.
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.
Divorce
Discussed divorce to create distance and protect him from consequences of association.
Withdrawal of HMF
Mr. Markus informed HMF that he discussed HMF's withdrawal with Ms. Maxwell, and she consents to it.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
Discovery in Giuffre v. Maxwell
Two depositions designated confidential.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity