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 | Organization closure | The TerraMar Project was closed after Epstein’s death to spare her partners from invasion of priv... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The upcoming trial for which the government is seeking pre-trial notice of evidence from the defe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Roberts talked to a young girl. The girl and Ms. Maxwell then went inside a s... | spa | View |
| N/A | Bail application | Ms. Maxwell has a renewed bail application, which is being supported by several individuals (sure... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | The witness (Alessi) saw the same girl from the spa arrive at a house and introduced her to Ms. M... | the house in Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial for which jurors were being selected, where the central issue was the credibility of ac... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Medical procedure/inspection | Immediately after receiving two nasal swab COVID tests, Ms. Maxwell was required to remove her ma... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Erasure of data | All of Ms. Maxwell’s legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | A jury selection process in White Plains that is alleged to have resulted in the systematic under... | White Plains | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Argument being made in favor of granting bond to Ms. Maxwell. | United States | View |
| N/A | Proposed action | Ms. Maxwell proposed to renounce her British and French citizenship. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Surveillance | Ongoing 15-minute light surveillance / disruptive flashlight surveillance of Ms. Maxwell's sleepi... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Threat | The MDC has threatened to place Ms. Maxwell in the SHU. | MDC | View |
| N/A | Proposed action | Ms. Maxwell proposed to place her and her spouse's assets into a monitored account. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Targeting of a person | The defendant identified and targeted a person named Virginia after seeing her in the Mar-a-Lago ... | Mar-a-Lago parking lot | View |
| N/A | Targeting of a person | The defendant worked with Epstein to identify and target a person named Jane. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | A trip to New Mexico involving Jane and the defendant. Flight logs showed the defendant was present. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A renewed bail application was submitted for Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A previous bail hearing where the Court expressed concern that Ms. Maxwell lacked significant fam... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The government's case against Ms. Maxwell, which is alleged to be based entirely on the testimony... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the scope of a trial, arguing that introducing certain evidence about gove... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal act | Ms. Maxwell allegedly enticed Jane to travel across state lines with the intent that she would en... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Flight | Visoski describes his general duties during flights on Mr. Epstein's planes, including assisting ... | Mr. Epstein's private planes | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | A questioner (Q) conducts a direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi (A), regarding his recogn... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The transportation of Jane across state lines by Ms. Maxwell, with the alleged purpose of engagin... | Interstate commerce (across... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009749.jpg
This document is page 57 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. In the text, Maxwell's defense requests a specific protocol for a hearing to question Juror No. 50 and potentially a second juror regarding allegations that they gave false answers during voir dire. The defense argues that this inquiry is necessary to prove the jury was not fair and impartial under the Sixth Amendment and asserts that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as they are not impeaching the verdict based on deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009747.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is a request by Ms. Maxwell to the Court for pre-hearing discovery. She asks the court to authorize subpoenas for the communications of Juror No. 50, who is alleged to have answered a question falsely during voir dire. The request seeks emails and other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victims, witnesses, or other jurors in the case to investigate potential juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009746.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial due to material omissions by a juror, identified as Juror 50. The juror failed to disclose his own claimed victim status during jury selection, which prevented the defense from exercising a peremptory challenge and would have been grounds for dismissal for cause. The argument is bolstered by citing the juror's later statements to the media, where he claimed his memory "was like a video" and that he would advocate for the alleged victims' credibility, revealing a bias that tainted the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009743.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that Juror No. 50 was not impartial and failed to honestly disclose his past as a victim of sexual abuse during jury selection. The filing contends that this omission prevented the Court and defense from properly assessing his ability to be fair, particularly regarding the testimony of Dr. Loftus and the defense of Ms. Maxwell. The document suggests that had the juror been truthful, further inquiry would have been made, and his claim of impartiality is not credible.
DOJ-OGR-00009742.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers during voir dire, particularly concerning his use of social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The document contends that this pattern of dishonesty, combined with his post-trial media engagement, casts doubt on the truthfulness of all his answers, including those meant to screen for bias against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It also mentions a letter from the government, published by the media, which is described as an attempt to silence the juror and circumvent court rules.
DOJ-OGR-00009741.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is a page from a motion arguing for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. The argument centers on the post-trial conduct of 'Juror No. 50,' who allegedly engaged in a paid publicity tour, gave interviews for a documentary, and communicated with journalist Annie Farmer, demonstrating bias. The document criticizes the government for publicly filing a letter (Docket No. 568) to stop the juror's tour, arguing this was an improper procedure that alerted the juror to scrutiny, whereas Ms. Maxwell's counsel would have objected and preferred the matter be handled under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00009738.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers to questions during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell has met the burden of proof for this claim, citing legal precedents and suggesting that video evidence of the juror being confronted supports the allegation of intentional falsehood. The ultimate goal is to argue for the juror's implied or actual bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009735.jpg
This document is a page from a legal motion filed on March 11, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for a new trial based on the alleged dishonesty of Juror No. 50 during voir dire, specifically regarding social media usage (Twitter/Instagram) and a failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse. The defense draws a parallel to Juror No. 55, who was dismissed for cause after similar dishonesty regarding Twitter was discovered.
DOJ-OGR-00009734.jpg
This document is legal filing (Page 42 of 66) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, filed on March 11, 2022. It argues that Juror No. 50 demonstrated implied bias and lied during voir dire by concealing his history as a sexual abuse victim and his active use of social media (specifically Twitter) during the trial. The filing notes that the juror communicated directly with victim Annie Farmer via Twitter after the trial and framed the verdict as being 'for all the victims.'
DOJ-OGR-00009720.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal filing (Document 642) dated March 11, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that Maxwell was deprived of a fair trial due to juror misconduct, specifically highlighting that Juror No. 50 and a second anonymous juror disclosed their personal histories of sexual abuse during deliberations, which allegedly influenced the jury's discussions. The page references a New York Times article from January 5, 2022, and contains a significant redaction in the footnotes.
DOJ-OGR-00009712.jpg
This legal document details the perspective of Juror No. 50 from the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The juror explains how his own experience as a victim of abuse informed his view that the victims' delayed disclosure and continued contact with Maxwell and Epstein were irrelevant to their credibility. The document also references a post-trial interview with the Daily Mail on January 5, where the juror called Maxwell a 'predator' and described how he helped fellow jurors understand traumatic memory.
DOJ-OGR-00009711.jpg
This legal document details a post-verdict interview given by Juror No. 50 (using the name Scotty David) to The Independent on January 4, 2022. The juror revealed that he was a victim of sexual abuse, shared this personal story with the jury during deliberations, and used his own experience to validate the accusers' testimonies. He explicitly stated that he disregarded the testimony of defense expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus on memory, influencing the jury based on his personal beliefs.
DOJ-OGR-00009704.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022, detailing the jury selection process for the trial of Ms. Maxwell. It specifically focuses on 'Juror No. 50', listing their responses to questionnaire items 13, 25, 42, 43, and 44, wherein the juror denied being a victim of a crime or having biases that would affect impartiality under penalty of perjury. The document notes that 694 individuals originally answered the questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009701.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues for a new trial for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The basis for the request is the allegation that Juror No. 50 provided a false answer on a jury selection questionnaire regarding personal experience with sexual assault, which was a core issue in the case. This alleged dishonesty is claimed to have resulted in an unfair and impartial jury, thereby depriving Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009694.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. The filing argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was deprived of a fair trial due to juror misconduct. The primary focus is on "Juror No. 50," who allegedly was untruthful during voir dire and subsequently gave media interviews; it also mentions a second juror who disclosed during deliberations that they were a victim of sexual assault.
DOJ-OGR-00009679.jpg
This document is a juror questionnaire for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 9, 2022. Juror 50 states they have not formed an opinion about Ms. Maxwell that would impede impartiality, but they have heard about Jeffrey Epstein from CNN. Specifically, the juror recalls hearing about Epstein's death and that he was in jail awaiting trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009618.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 2, 2022, is a request from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The attorneys, led by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, ask the Court to postpone an important proceeding until a convenient date in May. The reason for the request is to ensure that Ms. Maxwell's lawyers can be present for the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009581.jpg
This legal document presents the defendant's speculation on a jury's split verdict, arguing that the conviction was based on a trip to New Mexico. The defense contends the jury acquitted on an enticement charge because flight logs, while placing the defendant on the trip, offered no proof she induced the victim, 'Jane', to go. The document contrasts this with a trip to New York, where Jane's testimony was corroborated by a flight record, and discusses the lack of evidence regarding the defendant's involvement in Jane's return travel from New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00009578.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a jury note submitted during Ms. Maxwell's trial was ambiguous. The defense claimed the note referred to a specific 1997 flight to New Mexico, but this document contends the jury could have been referencing other flights or asking a different question entirely. The document concludes that the defendant's interpretation is 'mere conjecture' and supports the court's decision to reject the defense's arguments on this point.
DOJ-OGR-00009555.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The court is rejecting the Defense's argument that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 (regarding juror competency as a witness) violates Maxwell's constitutional rights to due process and confrontation. The judge rules that Juror 50 was a factfinder, not a witness against the defendant, and cites Supreme Court precedents (Crawford, Tanner) to uphold the limitations on using juror affidavits to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00003110.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a prosecution filing arguing against a motion by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to sever perjury charges from other substantive counts (Mann Act). The prosecution contends that trying the counts together is judicially efficient, not unduly prejudicial, and that the defendant's claims of prejudice are generalized and can be managed with jury instructions. The filing also dismisses the defendant's concern that her attorneys from a prior civil suit might be called to testify, arguing it does not meet the threshold for disqualification.
DOJ-OGR-00003017.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in which the prosecution (Government) argues against a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss her indictment due to pre-indictment delay. The Government cites several legal precedents (Pierre-Louis, Burke, Carbonaro) to argue that the defendant has failed to show the delay was improper or for a tactical advantage. The document also addresses Maxwell's specific claim that the Government delayed the indictment to benefit from a separate civil litigation involving Giuffre, a claim the Government refutes.
DOJ-OGR-00003012.jpg
This page is from a government legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss. The Government argues that Maxwell's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay and media publicity since 2011 are speculative and insufficient to warrant dismissal. A footnote details a discovery dispute where the defense is requesting names, birth dates of minor victims, and specific details of overt acts.
DOJ-OGR-00032429.jpg
This document consists of three handwritten phone message slips. The first, for Ms. Maxwell from Larry, asks to confirm a 3 PM flight ('Wheels up'). The second, for Mr. Maxwell from Larry, discusses arranging a lunch with someone named JE and references a past business demo. The third message is from Mr. Hervan Pels for 'GM', simply requesting a return call.
DOJ-OGR-00032388.jpg
A page from a spiral-bound message book containing four message slips. One slip documents a call to 'Sarah' on June 12, 2004, from 'Jo Jo' regarding a call from Palm Beach. Another slip records a missed call from 'Ms. Maxwell' to 'Mr. Epstein' asking him to return the call. Two other slips are addressed to 'Tatum' (or Tatura), containing a phone number and a note about an arrival time.
| 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