Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-12-17 | Trial | A jury instruction (No. 48) was filed, limiting how the jury can consider 'Similar Act Evidence' ... | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-17 | N/A | Filing of Jury Instruction No. 8 regarding Reasonable Doubt in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. | Court (implied) | View |
| 2021-12-17 | N/A | Alleged recruitment, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing, or obtaining a person for comm... | Unspecified in this page | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Court filing | This document (549-1) was filed in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-17 | N/A | Filing of Court Document 562 (Jury Instructions) | Court | View |
| 2021-12-17 | N/A | Filing of Document 562 (Jury Instructions) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Court proceeding | The Court outlines its ruling on the scope of cross-examination, permitting the defense to questi... | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Legal proceeding | Filing of Document 562, which contains jury instructions for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. This specifi... | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-17 | N/A | Filing of Jury Instruction No. 26 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Legal proceeding | Filing of jury instructions in the criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. This specific instruction, No... | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-15 | N/A | Submission of legal arguments regarding witness testimony | Court | View |
| 2021-12-13 | Legal motion | Ms. Maxwell's legal team requests permission from the Court to call Mr. Scarola, Mr. Edwards, and... | Court | View |
| 2021-12-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion regarding jury ... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2021-12-08 | Court proceeding | A legal argument is being made regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52 in a trial. | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-08 | Testimony | Ms. Maxwell is questioned about her knowledge of a document, its creation, its storage on her com... | Court proceeding | View |
| 2021-12-03 | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's side submitted a letter regarding Attorney Glassman's testimony. | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-03 | Court proceeding | Counsel for Ms. Maxwell stated that she does not object to the exterior photographs of the apartm... | Court | View |
| 2021-11-30 | N/A | Jury Trial | SDNY Court | View |
| 2021-11-16 | N/A | Delivery of hard drive to MDC | MDC (Metropolitan Detention... | View |
| 2021-11-15 | Legal filing deadline | Proposed deadline for Ms. Maxwell to file her Rule 412 motion. | N/A | View |
| 2021-10-29 | N/A | Filing of Document 385 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2021-10-18 | N/A | Date the legal document was signed/dated. | Unknown | View |
| 2021-10-14 | Delivery to inmate | Ms. Maxwell finally received the hard drive late in the morning. | MDC | View |
| 2021-10-14 | N/A | Ms. Maxwell received her hard drive (missing some .pdf disclosures). | MDC | View |
| 2021-07-12 | N/A | Scheduled trial date mentioned in arguments. | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008795.jpg
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing that the jury in Ms. Maxwell's trial is confused. The author contends that the court's response to a jury note improperly allows them to consider conduct that occurred in New Mexico as a basis for conviction on counts requiring a violation of New York law. The filing cites legal precedent to argue that New York lacks jurisdiction over conduct occurring entirely out-of-state and that this issue could warrant vacating a potential conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00008794.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 2021, presents an argument from Ms. Maxwell's defense to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense contends that a supplemental jury instruction given by the court was incorrect and prejudicial, citing multiple Second Circuit precedents to argue that confusing or misleading instructions at a critical stage of deliberation can be grounds for reversal. The filing asserts that this error applies to multiple counts and requests a curative instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00008791.jpg
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that without specific jury instructions, there is a risk of the jury convicting Ms. Maxwell based on a 'constructive amendment' to the indictment, which would be a per se violation of her constitutional rights. The argument is supported by citing several legal precedents from the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00008786.jpg
This document is page 80 of a court filing (Document 565) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 19, 2021. It contains the concluding remarks and jury instructions for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically instructing jurors on the standard of proof (reasonable doubt), the necessity of ignoring sympathy, and the conduct expected during deliberations. The text emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00008784.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, is a specific instruction (No. 58) from a judge to a jury in a criminal case. The judge explicitly directs the jurors not to consider any potential punishment for the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, during their deliberations. The document clarifies that the jury's only role is to determine guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence presented by the Government, while the duty of sentencing belongs exclusively to the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00008775.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 49, from a legal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 19, 2021. It informs the jury that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, did not testify and that they are legally prohibited from drawing any negative conclusions or adverse inferences from her silence. The instruction emphasizes that the burden of proof lies entirely with the Government and never shifts to the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00008774.jpg
This document is a limiting instruction (Instruction No. 48) issued to the jury in the criminal trial of Ms. Maxwell on December 19, 2021. The instruction clarifies that evidence of 'similar acts' introduced by the Government cannot be used as direct proof of the charged crimes or as evidence of bad character or a propensity to commit crimes. The jury is only permitted to consider this evidence for the limited purpose of determining if Ms. Maxwell acted knowingly and intentionally or utilized a common scheme or plan.
DOJ-OGR-00008771.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 45, from a legal case filed on December 19, 2021. It directs the jury on how to handle evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statements, specifying that such evidence should only be used to assess the witness's credibility and not as direct evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt. The jury is tasked with determining the reason for any inconsistency and how much weight to give the testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00008766.jpg
This document is page 60 of a court filing (Document 565) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 43 regarding 'Inferences,' defining what an inference is and explaining the jury's role in drawing them from evidence. The instruction explicitly warns the jury that they cannot infer Ms. Maxwell's guilt solely based on her presence at a crime scene or knowledge that a crime was being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008763.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Instruction No. 40) for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It defines the legal concept of 'Venue' within the Southern District of New York and lists the specific counties included in that jurisdiction. The instruction clarifies that the Government must prove venue by a 'preponderance of the evidence' rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' stating that Maxwell must be acquitted of any specific offense if venue is not established for it.
DOJ-OGR-00008758.jpg
This document is a page of jury instructions from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. The instructions detail the legal standards for a jury to find a defendant guilty of conspiracy, specifically regarding 'overt acts'. It explicitly states that for Counts One and Three, the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, cannot be convicted based solely on the testimony of a witness named Kate, requiring additional evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008755.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 19, 2021, appears to be jury instructions related to the case against Ms. Maxwell. It carefully defines what constitutes membership in a criminal conspiracy, clarifying that mere presence, knowledge, or association with conspirators is not sufficient for a conviction. The text emphasizes that the prosecution must prove the defendant actively participated with knowledge of the conspiracy's unlawful goals and an intent to help achieve them.
DOJ-OGR-00008754.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing, likely jury instructions, from a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. It outlines the legal standards for proving her involvement in a conspiracy, stating that the Government must establish her knowing participation but does not need to prove she knew all details, knew all other members, or was involved from the beginning. The text clarifies that even a limited role or a single act could be sufficient for a guilty verdict if she was aware of the conspiracy's criminal aims.
DOJ-OGR-00008753.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (No. 35) from a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It explains the second element of a conspiracy charge, requiring the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, knowingly and willfully joined the conspiracy. The instruction defines these terms as deliberate and purposeful actions, distinguishing them from mistake, negligence, or carelessness, and notes that knowledge must be inferred from evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008752.jpg
This document is page 46 of a court filing (Document 565) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. The text contains jury instructions explaining the burden of proof for Count Five of the indictment regarding conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. It clarifies that the objective is proved if the jury finds Maxwell agreed with at least one other person to commit the elements of the offense.
DOJ-OGR-00008747.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 31) from a federal court case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It explains the legal definition of conspiracy as it pertains to charges against Ms. Maxwell in Counts One, Three, and Five of an indictment, referencing Title 18, Section 371 of the United States Code. The instruction clarifies that a conspiracy is a separate crime from the underlying offense and can be found even if the object of the conspiracy was never committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008746.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing, likely jury instructions, dated December 19, 2021. It outlines the legal criteria for finding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty as an 'aider and abettor' in a criminal venture. The text specifies that guilt depends on whether she knowingly associated with the venture and acted to make it succeed; otherwise, she must be found not guilty under this theory.
DOJ-OGR-00008743.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, contains jury instructions for a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. Specifically, it is Instruction No. 29, which defines the fourth element of Count Six, "Sex Trafficking of an Individual Under the Age of 18." The instruction explains the legal definition of "interstate commerce" and clarifies that the Government must prove Ms. Maxwell's conduct affected it, even minimally, but does not need to prove she intended to do so or that actual travel occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00008741.jpg
This document is Instruction No. 27 from a legal case, filed on December 19, 2021, pertaining to Count Six: Sex Trafficking of an Individual Under the Age of 18. It specifies that the Government must prove Ms. Maxwell knew Carolyn was under eighteen years of age, and directs the application of a previously provided definition of 'knowingly' in this determination. The document is part of a larger court filing, page 35 of 83.
DOJ-OGR-00008736.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (No. 22) from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It specifies the third element the Government must prove for Count Four of an indictment: that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, knew the individual referred to as 'Jane' was under seventeen years old at the time of the alleged criminal acts.
DOJ-OGR-00008735.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction for Count Four in the case against Ms. Maxwell, concerning the transportation of an individual under 17 for illegal sexual activity. It details the second element the government must prove: that Ms. Maxwell knowingly transported 'Jane' across state lines with the intent for her to engage in sexual activity. The instruction clarifies that this illegal purpose need not be the sole reason for the travel, but must be a 'significant or motivating purpose' and not merely incidental.
DOJ-OGR-00008734.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, is a jury instruction for 'Count Four' in the criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. It outlines the first element the Government must prove: that Ms. Maxwell knowingly transported an individual named Jane across state lines for illegal sexual activity. The instruction clarifies that direct personal transportation is not required; arranging the travel, such as by purchasing tickets, is sufficient, and the defendant's intent is a key factor.
DOJ-OGR-00008731.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, outlines the jury instructions for Count Two against Ms. Maxwell, which alleges a violation of New York Criminal Law. The count specifies that between 1994 and 1997, Ms. Maxwell enticed a minor named Jane across state lines for sexual activity, constituting Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree under New York Penal Law § 130.55. The document defines "sexual contact" and clarifies that under New York law, a person under seventeen is legally incapable of consent, but the prosecution must prove Ms. Maxwell knew of Jane's age.
DOJ-OGR-00008730.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, provides jury instructions for Count Two against Ms. Maxwell, specifically focusing on the third element: "Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity." It defines what constitutes acting "intentionally" and clarifies that the government must prove that a "significant or motivating purpose" for encouraging an individual named Jane to travel across state lines was for illegal sexual activity, not that it was the sole purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00008728.jpg
This document is page 22 of 83 from a court filing (Document 565) dated December 19, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 15 regarding 'Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity,' specifically defining the 'First Element' and the legal definition of acting 'Knowingly.' It outlines the burden of proof on the government to establish that Maxwell persuaded or coerced individuals to travel in interstate commerce.
| 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