Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Maxwell's spouse
|
Friend |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Alessi
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Judge Preska
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
her counsel
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Adversarial |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
|
Client |
9
Strong
|
3 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Friend |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Association |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Alleged trafficker victim |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Business associate |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Friend |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Alleged perpetrator victim |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirator |
8
Strong
|
3 |
| 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-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 |
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