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 | Rodgers visited Maxwell's 59th Street apartment | 59th Street near Columbus C... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding 'similar acts' evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing of Ms. Maxwell | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell talking to Virginia Roberts after a treatment. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell sat for two depositions. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal indictment alleging Ms. Maxwell committed perjury. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell met Ms. Roberts at Mar-a-Lago. | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transportation of Jane | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged mistreatment including sleep deprivation, constant surveillance, and lack of food/water. | Detention Facility | View |
| N/A | N/A | Isolation and Surveillance of Ghislaine Maxwell | Detention Facility (New York) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Targeting of Virginia at Mar-a-Lago. | Mar-a-Lago parking lot | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge (The moment the judge read these instructions to the jury). | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Instruction No. 21 regarding Count Four | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transportation of an Individual Under the Age of 17 to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity | Interstate commerce | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing where the judge discusses factors for punishment. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell obtained expert reports on extradition law | United Kingdom / France | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding Counts Two, Four, and Six. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Carolyn and Virginia arrive at Jeffrey Epstein's house for the first time and are greeted in the ... | Jeffrey Epstein's house (Ki... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Security Sweep | Ms. Maxwell's house | View |
| N/A | N/A | Guards shine flashlights into cell every 15 minutes. | MDC Cell | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell moves to various apartments. | New York (implied by 59th st) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Arrest of Ms. Maxwell | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussions regarding divorce between Maxwell and spouse. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Change in circumstance leading to decision not to divorce (context heavily redacted). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transportation of Jane in interstate commerce | Interstate commerce / Acros... | 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 |
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.
CorrLinks emails
Ms. Maxwell's CorrLinks emails were allegedly erased by guards.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
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.
Video conference
Session reduced by 90 minutes; severe audio/video technical issues impacting confidentiality and visibility.
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.
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.
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
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.
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