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 | 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-00016466.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Judge schedules a charging conference for 'Saturday the 18th' and ensures Maxwell's presence. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell then raises a concern that potential defense witnesses are requesting to testify anonymously or using pseudonyms due to safety or privacy concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00016457.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on August 10, 2022. A speaker, likely a defense attorney, argues that their client, Ghislaine Maxwell, did not illegally 'entice' a witness named Jane to travel. The argument asserts that arranging a return flight does not qualify as enticement, that Jane's travel was typically handled by Jeffrey Epstein's office, and that there is no testimony Maxwell encouraged, convinced, or even offered to arrange the travel in question.
DOJ-OGR-00016456.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) where a defense attorney argues that the testimony of a witness named 'Jane' is insufficient to prove Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement in enticing travel. The attorney summarizes Jane's testimony, noting that she traveled with Epstein and Maxwell, that Maxwell sometimes made arrangements, and specifically details an incident where Maxwell helped a 15-year-old Jane board a flight from New York to Palm Beach despite having no identification.
DOJ-OGR-00016455.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney argues the legal definitions of "persuade," "induce," and "entice." Citing the case U.S. v. Broxmeyer and the Random House Dictionary, the speaker asserts these words imply causation, requiring an action by the defendant to bring about an effect. The attorney concludes by stating that the only evidence linking their client, Ms. Maxwell, to a trip taken by "Jane" to New York is Jane's own testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016454.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring defense attorney Mr. Everdell moving for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a). Everdell argues that the government's evidence is insufficient to convict Ms. Maxwell, specifically addressing Counts One and Two (enticement and conspiracy) which rely on the testimony of a witness named 'Jane.' He asserts the government failed to prove Maxwell enticed Jane to travel to New York for illegal sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00013286.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about jury instructions concerning an alleged victim named Kate. The judge clarifies their view on the instruction, avoiding complexities of New Mexico law. An attorney for the government, Ms. Sternheim, then informs the court that their next witness will be Janine Gill, an employee of the Trump organization since 2007, and that they will introduce two government exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00013271.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and a judge about scheduling witnesses for an upcoming hearing. The primary issue raised is a request by attorney Ms. Menninger for the court to order a witness named Jane and her attorney not to discuss her testimony with another subpoenaed witness, who is Jane's younger sibling. The judge also proposes several dates for the hearing to avoid interfering with jury time.
DOJ-OGR-00013270.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge (The Court), government counsel (Ms. Moe), and another counsel (Mr. Everdell) about scheduling a charging conference and determining when the defense will rest its case. The parties discuss potential dates, including December 18th, and the possibility of the defense resting on the upcoming Thursday, with the timing contingent on the length of witness cross-examinations.
DOJ-OGR-00013260.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on discrepancies between lawsuits she filed against Epstein and Kellen in 2008-2009 and a subsequent claim to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Carolyn denies including Ms. Maxwell in her claim and corrects the compensation amount she received from $3.25 million or $3.9 million to $2,804,000.
DOJ-OGR-00013252.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on Carolyn's past mental health counseling with Dr. Susan Pope and a meeting with Dr. Serge Thys, establishing that she never mentioned a "Ms. Maxwell" to either of them. The questioner also challenges Carolyn on whether her story has changed since 2007-2009 and her lack of contact with the government between 2007 and 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00013251.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on establishing that Carolyn had never previously mentioned a 'Ms. Maxwell' in several key instances: to FBI agents in 2007, in two lawsuits involving Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, or in a 2009 deposition. The witness is also questioned about a 2007 meeting in Florida with a 'Ms. Villaflana,' whom she claims not to recall.
DOJ-OGR-00013227.jpg
This court transcript page from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, attempts to introduce evidence (paragraphs 207 and 208) concerning Sarah Kellen, arguing it constitutes 'impeachment by omission' because Ms. Maxwell's name is absent. The Court sustains the objection, ruling the evidence inadmissible because, unlike previously discussed documents, it does not reference 'unnamed individual employees and assistants'.
DOJ-OGR-00013211.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Mr. Pagliuca argues that a legal complaint is inconsistent due to factual omissions, specifically citing that paragraph 8 fails to mention the witness's testimony of being subjected to penetration and intercourse by Epstein. The judge acknowledges this "omission theory" and states an intention to hear from a Ms. Comey on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00013209.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, involving Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Comey, and The Court. The discussion centers on an objection regarding a document's consistency with witness testimony and the potential admission of the document or its factual paragraphs. A key point of inquiry was whether Ms. Maxwell is mentioned in the complaint, to which the answer was confirmed as no, leading to a plan to identify inconsistencies with testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013195.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a cross-examination. Mr. Pagliuca is questioning a witness, possibly named Carolyn, about a complaint that was 91 pages long with 209 paragraphs and did not mention Ms. Maxwell's name. They also discuss an Exhibit C4 and the filing of the complaint by Mr. Willits in state court.
DOJ-OGR-00013194.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning revisits her prior deposition, confirming her trust in her attorneys. It is also established that a complaint she previously filed in federal court was not against a Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00013128.jpg
This court transcript details the testimony of a witness named Carolyn. She states that Ms. Maxwell paid her $300 in cash after she engaged in a "sexualized massage" with Jeffrey Epstein. Carolyn also testifies to receiving lingerie as a gift from Jeffrey Epstein, which was delivered via FedEx from Manhattan, New York, to her home in West Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00013107.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. She testifies about her first visit to Jeffrey Epstein's house, stating she went inside with a person named Virginia. Upon entering the kitchen, they were greeted by Ms. Maxwell, whom Carolyn describes as an older lady with an accent and shoulder-length black hair.
DOJ-OGR-00013070.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney named Ms. Pomerantz questions a witness, Mr. Flatley, about an email from May 25, 2001. The email, sent by "Sally" to "Ms. Maxwell," inquires about the status of a "PB manual" and mentions a specific conversation with someone named "John".
DOJ-OGR-00013001.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of photographs in a trial. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, argues that the photos are relevant to prove the long-term, close relationship between Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein, countering the defense's claim that she was merely a personal assistant. After a brief exchange where the defense (Ms. Menninger) questions the evidence, the judge overrules the objection, allowing the photographs to be admitted.
DOJ-OGR-00010531.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated June 21, 2022. The defense argues that the sentencing hearing should not be an 'open forum' for alleged victims who were not part of the trial record, specifically naming Ms. Ransome and Ms. Stein as individuals who should not qualify as 'crime victims' under the CVRA for this specific case. The letter distinguishes Maxwell's case from the abatement of the Epstein case and requests advance notice of who will be permitted to speak at sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00009219.jpg
This document is page 29 of a defense filing (Document 616) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues for a hearing and discovery regarding potential juror misconduct, specifically alleging that a second juror (in addition to Juror No. 50) failed to disclose a history of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire. The defense cites a New York Times article and statements by Juror No. 50 as evidence, while rebutting the government's objections to post-trial discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00009218.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal filing (Document 616) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. It argues that Rule of Evidence 606(b) should not prevent an inquiry into juror misconduct, citing constitutional rights and the precedent of *Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado*. The text specifically alleges that 'Juror No. 50' showed bias and lied during *voir dire*, and reveals that a 'second juror' contacted the *New York Times* admitting they were a victim of childhood sexual abuse but failed to disclose this on the jury questionnaire (Question 48).
DOJ-OGR-00009216.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that the questioning of 'Juror No. 50' should be broad and encompass any topic related to actual bias, citing legal precedents like Greer and United States v. James. It asserts that due to the juror's alleged pattern of giving false answers, Ms. Maxwell is not required to accept the juror's denial of acting deliberately and should be allowed to investigate the totality of the circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00009213.jpg
This legal document discusses the government's arguments in a case, referencing previous cases like United States v. Torres and United States v. Daugerdas. It focuses on whether a new trial is warranted based on juror bias and concealed personal background information, arguing that the current case is stronger than in Torres.
| 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 |
Upcoming flight information
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via beeper to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.
Video conference
Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.
General communication
Communication via cell phones
Discovery relevant to motions
Ms. Maxwell asked the government for documents relevant to these motions, but was denied.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
Legal Emails
MDC allegedly prematurely deleted legal emails.
In-person legal conference
Four-hour legal conference marked by restrictions on water, earbuds, and privacy.
Location tracking
Government located Maxwell by tracking her primary phone.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
Needs/requests
Communication via 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 Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Divorce
Discussed divorce to create distance and protect him from consequences of association.
Video conference
Session reduced by 90 minutes; severe audio/video technical issues impacting confidentiality and visibility.
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
Civil Deposition
Testimony where the judge concluded dishonesty/perjury occurred.
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)
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity