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 | 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-00032387.jpg
This document consists of four handwritten phone message slips from June 2004 for Jeffrey Epstein. The messages record calls from Ghislaine Maxwell, Francis Ward, and an individual named Tony. The notes, likely taken by an assistant identified as 'R', detail routine communications, including a non-urgent call from Maxwell, a request for a callback from Ward, and notification of an impending visit from Tony.
DOJ-OGR-00032381.jpg
This document contains four telephone message slips, two of which are dated in 2004. The messages are for individuals including 'Gm' (likely Ghislaine Maxwell), 'MS. MAXWELL', and 'Jeffrey'. One significant message from 'Ghislaine' to 'Jeffrey' requests that a redacted individual come to Palm Beach to help her train new staff, indicating operational and staffing activities.
DOJ-OGR-00032342.jpg
This police report documents interviews with former Epstein employees Juan and Maria Alessi, conducted on November 21, 2005, regarding their employment and observations at Epstein's Palm Beach residence. The Alessis described their duties, the frequent visits of young female masseuses (estimated by Mr. Alessi to be as young as 16 or 17), and specific details regarding massage preparations and the cleaning of sex toys.
DOJ-OGR-00004811.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 2, 2021. The defense argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's indictment should be dismissed by citing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision to vacate Bill Cosby's conviction due to a violation of a non-prosecution promise. The defense asserts that the government is similarly reneging on a formal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Maxwell from over 25 years prior, violating fundamental fairness and due process.
DOJ-OGR-00004746.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court concerning her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim complains about the recurring problematic conditions, over-management, and hyper-surveillance Ms. Maxwell faces at the MDC, arguing it impedes trial preparation and violates attorney-client privilege. The letter supports its claims by quoting Judge McMahon from another case, who strongly condemned the "disgusting, inhuman" conditions at the MCC and MDC and blamed the incompetence of the Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons.
DOJ-OGR-00002664.jpg
This page from a legal filing in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell argues against the retroactive application of extended statutes of limitations in criminal cases, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause and cases like Landgraf and Stogner. A crucial footnote asserts that the government is barred from prosecuting Maxwell for offenses against Minor Victim-3 because the statute of limitations had already expired when the victim turned 25 (year redacted) prior to the 2003 Amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00002663.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues against the retroactive application of a 2003 Amendment to the alleged offenses of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that Congressional intent was clear in rejecting retroactivity and that applying the amendment would have impermissible effects. The argument is supported by legal precedents, including Landgraf, Toussie, and Gentile, which favor interpreting criminal statutes of limitation in a way that provides 'repose' for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00014745.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The judge thanks and discharges the jury, acknowledging their service during the pandemic. Following the jury's dismissal, the court and counsel (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) discuss post-verdict logistics, including a briefing schedule and the presentence report, concluding with Ms. Sternheim requesting a court order for Ms. Maxwell to receive a COVID-19 booster shot.
DOJ-OGR-00014723.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorney Mr. Everdell and the presiding judge. Mr. Everdell argues that conduct and travel occurring solely in New Mexico cannot legally form the basis for a conviction of his client, Ms. Maxwell, under New York law, and he requests a supplemental jury instruction to this effect. The judge rejects the request, stating the proposed instruction is incorrect and that Mr. Everdell failed to seek to exclude the related testimony earlier.
DOJ-OGR-00014722.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell argues his interpretation of a recent note from the jury, contending that they are confused about whether they can convict his client, Ms. Maxwell, on Count Four based solely on events in New Mexico and are unclear on the jury instructions. The Court acknowledges his position but expresses skepticism about the assumptions being made.
DOJ-OGR-00014702.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal discussion regarding jury deliberations, specifically concerning whether Ghislaine Maxwell arranged flights to or from New Mexico for a person named 'Jane' for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. Attorney Ms. Moe argues that a note from the jury is confusing and that the parties are guessing at the jury's hypothetical questions regarding Count Four.
DOJ-OGR-00014701.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding a jury note. The debate centers on whether Ghislaine Maxwell can be held criminally liable for arranging a return flight from New Mexico for a victim named 'Jane,' distinguishing the intent of the return flight from the initial flight to the location where sexual abuse allegedly occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00014692.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion regarding the legal definition of the word "entice" and a procedural matter of marking a note as a court exhibit. Additionally, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim raises a concern that Ms. Maxwell was provided an N95 mask but restricted to wearing it only in the courtroom, to which the Judge clarifies the rule applies to the whole courthouse.
DOJ-OGR-00014646.jpg
This document outlines jury instructions for deliberations in the case of Ms. Maxwell, advising jurors not to consider punishment and detailing procedures for electing a foreperson and communicating with the court. It specifies that requests for testimony or other communications must be in writing, signed by the foreperson, and submitted via marshals. The document also provides contact information for Southern District Reporters, P.C.
DOJ-OGR-00014637.jpg
This document is page 237 of a court transcript (filed 08/10/22) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions delivered by the judge, specifically addressing the use of pseudonyms for witness privacy due to media attention, and 'Instruction No. 45' regarding the credibility of witnesses and impeachment by prior inconsistent statements. The judge instructs the jury that prior inconsistent statements should be used to evaluate credibility, not as affirmative evidence of Maxwell's guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014634.jpg
This document is page 234 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions regarding the burden of proof, specifically noting that guilt cannot be inferred solely from association with wrongdoers. It also begins 'Instruction No. 44,' detailing how jurors should evaluate the credibility, demeanor, and honesty of witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00014633.jpg
This legal document is a jury charge from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It provides the jury with the legal definition of an 'inference' and instructs them on how to properly use inferences when weighing evidence presented by the government and the defense. The document specifically prohibits the jury from inferring that Ms. Maxwell is guilty of criminal conduct solely based on her presence at the scene of the crime.
DOJ-OGR-00014632.jpg
This document is page 232 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains jury instructions (the Charge) regarding the definition and weight of circumstantial evidence versus direct evidence, and Instruction No. 43 regarding inferences. The judge explicitly instructs the jury that they must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting her.
DOJ-OGR-00014620.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically a judge's charge to a jury in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The text outlines the legal requirements for finding someone guilty of conspiracy, emphasizing that mere presence, association, or knowledge of the plan is insufficient. The judge instructs that the jury must find that Ms. Maxwell actively and knowingly participated with the intent to further the conspiracy's unlawful goals, regardless of whether she stood to gain financially.
DOJ-OGR-00014619.jpg
This document is page 219 of a court transcript (Document 767, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains the judge's charge to the jury regarding the legal standards for conspiracy as applied to the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The text explains that the government must prove knowledge and intent, but clarifies that Maxwell did not need to know every detail or member of the conspiracy, nor did she need to be involved from the beginning to be held responsible for the conspiracy's activities.
DOJ-OGR-00014618.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely jury instructions, in the criminal case against Ms. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The text defines the legal standards for 'willfully and knowingly' entering a conspiracy, stating that the actions must be a 'conscious objective' and not accidental. It instructs that Ms. Maxwell's knowledge must be inferred from evidence, such as conversations she was party to or present for.
DOJ-OGR-00014617.jpg
This document is page 217 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Court is providing jury instructions regarding Count Five, charging Ghislaine Maxwell with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors between 2001 and 2004. It details Instruction No. 35, which explains the burden of proof required to establish Maxwell's membership in the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00014612.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a charge or jury instruction from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It defines the federal crime of conspiracy by quoting States Code, Section 371, and explains the legal concept to the jury. The document specifies that Ms. Maxwell can be found guilty of conspiracy even if the intended crime was not completed and outlines the elements the government must prove for a conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00014611.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing, specifically a jury charge in the criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE against Ms. Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the legal definition and tests for 'aiding and abetting' by presenting three specific questions for the jury to consider. The document also introduces Instruction No. 31 concerning conspiracy charges under Title 18 for Counts One, Three, and Five of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00014607.jpg
This document is page 207 of a court transcript (Jury Charge) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It details 'Instruction No. 29' regarding 'Count Six: Sex trafficking of an individual under the age of 18.' The judge instructs the jury that the consent or willingness of the victim, identified specifically as 'Carolyn,' is not a valid defense if she was under 18. The text also outlines the 'Fourth element' of the charge, defining 'interstate commerce' and the government's burden of proof regarding Maxwell's conduct affecting it.
| 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 |
Denial of request
Judge Nathan denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska.
Request for permission to share information
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
Request to stay unseal proceedings
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Preska to stay the unseal proceedings to allow her to get permission to share confidential information from a criminal case.
Something that happened between her move from a large apa...
The document references prior conversations between the witness (Rodgers) and Ms. Maxwell, which are the basis for a question from the attorney.
Detention conditions
Ms. Maxwell filed written complaints through internal prison procedures to her unit counselor, the warden, and the regional office to seek remediation for her conditions, but to no avail.
Discovery relevant to motions
Ms. Maxwell asked the government for documents relevant to these motions, but was denied.
Location tracking
Government located Maxwell by tracking her primary phone.
Something that happened between her move from a large apa...
The document references prior conversations between the witness (Rodgers) and Ms. Maxwell, which are the basis for a question from the attorney.
Video conference
Session reduced by 90 minutes; severe audio/video technical issues impacting confidentiality and visibility.
Performance of duties at the residence
Ms. Maxwell provided instructions to Alessi regarding his duties at the residence, which involved tasks in various rooms and areas of the property.
Needs/requests
Communication via beeper if she needed something
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
After beepers were no longer used, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via cell phone to provide information about an upcoming flight.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
In-person legal conference
Four-hour legal conference marked by restrictions on water, earbuds, and privacy.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.
Video conference
Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.
Household duties
Ms. Maxwell gave the witness, Juan, many instructions on how to perform his duties, including cleaning the house, serving, managing the kitchen, preparing shopping lists, and maintaining cleanliness.
Upcoming flight information
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via beeper to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.
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.
General communication
Communication via cell phones
CorrLinks emails
Ms. Maxwell's CorrLinks emails were allegedly erased by guards.
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).
Legal consultation
Guards are described as feverishly writing while observing Ms. Maxwell during videoconferencing with her counsel.
Denial of stay
Judge Preska denied Ms. Maxwell's request for a stay, stating there was no factual basis.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity