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-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 |
CorrLinks emails
Ms. Maxwell's CorrLinks emails were allegedly erased by guards.
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.
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
Session reduced by 90 minutes; severe audio/video technical issues impacting confidentiality and visibility.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Divorce
Discussed divorce to create distance and protect him from consequences of association.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
In-person legal conference
Four-hour legal conference marked by restrictions on water, earbuds, and privacy.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
Status/Indictment
Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, allegedly to stave off indictment, but did not provide whereabouts.
Video conference
Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.
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
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
Location tracking
Government located Maxwell by tracking her primary phone.
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Discovery relevant to motions
Ms. Maxwell asked the government for documents relevant to these motions, but was denied.
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).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity