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 | Legal hearing | A detention hearing held by the district court where the government argued Ms. Maxwell was a flig... | district court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan denied motion to modify criminal protective order. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | An alleged conspiracy that Ms. Maxwell is accused of being a member of. The document outlines the... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The alleged transportation of Jane in interstate commerce for the purpose of illegal sexual activ... | interstate / across state l... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell moved to consolidate appeals. | Appellate Court | View |
| N/A | Conspiracy | The Indictment charged a conspiracy between Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell during a discrete tim... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the government's burden of proof at Ms. Maxwell's upcoming trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Change in travel pattern | Ms. Maxwell began spending less time flying on Mr. Epstein's planes. | Mr. Epstein's planes | View |
| N/A | Arrest | Arrest of Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Initial bail hearing for Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | The document describes the third element of 'Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Ac... | Across state lines | View |
| N/A | Recruitment | The defendant, Ms. Maxwell, recruited Virginia, which set a recruitment scheme in motion. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A judge overrules objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to paragraphs 79 and 81 of a doc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The criminal trial of Ms. Maxwell, where she is the defendant. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ongoing civil litigation between Ms. Maxwell and many of the government's potential witnesses. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Arrest | Ms. Maxwell's arrest, which occurred prior to the date of this document. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell where the government insists on the secrecy of discovery ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's prosecution, which she argues was barred by a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). | District Court | View |
| N/A | Visit | Mr. Epstein would visit the Palm Beach house, sometimes without Ms. Maxwell and sometimes bringin... | Palm Beach house | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal act | Transportation of an individual (Jane) across state lines for the purpose of illegal sexual activ... | across state lines | View |
| N/A | Grand jury investigation | The government conducted a grand jury investigation and issued subpoenas without notifying Ms. Ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Flight | A flight for Jane to return to Palm Beach, allegedly arranged by Ms. Maxwell. | From New York to Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | Trip | The witness was instructed by either Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell to pick up Virginia Roberts. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Visit | Virginia brought her boyfriend to Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home. Ms. Maxwell told the witness... | Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home | View |
| N/A | Visit | Towards the end of the witness's stay, Virginia brought two other unidentified girls to Mr. Epste... | Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008724.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, contains jury instructions for a criminal trial involving Ms. Maxwell. Specifically, Instruction No. 11 directs the jury on how to handle the six-count indictment, mandating that they consider each count independently and return a separate verdict for each. It reinforces the legal standard that a guilty verdict can only be reached if the Government proves every element of a specific charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00008720.jpg
This document is Page 14 of a court filing (Document 565) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 19, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 8: Reasonable Doubt' for the trial of Ms. Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text defines reasonable doubt for the jury, explaining that it is not sympathy or speculation, and instructs them on their duty to convict if guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, or to acquit if it is not.
DOJ-OGR-00008717.jpg
This document is page 11 of 83 from a court filing dated December 19, 2021, containing Jury Instruction No. 5 regarding 'Improper Considerations.' The instruction explicitly directs the jury to ignore biases related to race, gender, sexual orientation, or the nature of the crimes charged when deciding the verdict for Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00008700.jpg
This document is a page of concluding remarks from a judge to a jury, filed on December 18, 2021, in the criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. The judge instructs the jurors on their duty to deliberate based solely on the evidence and law, to determine if the Government has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and to avoid being swayed by sympathy. The instructions also guide the jurors on how to interact during deliberations, encouraging open discussion while also urging them to hold fast to their own conscientious beliefs.
DOJ-OGR-00008689.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction, numbered 49, from a court case filed on December 18, 2021. It explicitly informs the jury about the defendant's constitutional right not to testify. The instruction directs the jury that they must not draw any negative or adverse inference from Ms. Maxwell's decision not to take the witness stand, as the burden of proof rests solely with the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00008688.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction, specifically "Instruction No. 48," from the trial of Ms. Maxwell, filed on December 18, 2021. It directs the jury on the proper use of "similar act evidence" introduced by the Government, stating it cannot be used to prove bad character or a propensity to commit crimes. The instruction clarifies that this evidence may only be considered for the limited purpose of determining if Ms. Maxwell acted knowingly, intentionally, or as part of a common scheme or plan.
DOJ-OGR-00008681.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically jury instructions in the case against Ms. Maxwell, dated December 18, 2021. The judge instructs the jury that they cannot infer Ms. Maxwell's guilt simply from her association with or knowledge of other guilty parties. The jury is reminded that they must be satisfied of her guilt on each individual count based on the evidence presented before they can convict.
DOJ-OGR-00008680.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 43, from a legal case filed on December 18, 2021. It defines the concept of an "inference" for the jury, explaining it as a logical conclusion based on facts, not guesswork. The instruction clarifies that while both the Government and the defense will ask the jury to draw different inferences, it is solely the jury's decision, and it specifically prohibits the jury from inferring Ms. Maxwell's guilt based merely on her presence at and knowledge of a crime being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008679.jpg
This document is Jury Instruction No. 42 from a legal case, filed on December 18, 2021. It explains the definitions of direct and circumstantial evidence to the jury, stating that both types of evidence hold equal legal value. The instruction concludes by reminding the jury that they must be convinced of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on all evidence before reaching a conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00008672.jpg
This document is page 51 (electronic page 134) of jury instructions filed on December 18, 2021, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text instructs the jury that to convict Maxwell on Counts One and Three, they must find that an overt act of conspiracy involved a witness other than 'Kate,' meaning Kate's testimony alone is insufficient for these specific counts.
DOJ-OGR-00008671.jpg
This legal document, part of an indictment, outlines several overt acts allegedly committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein in furtherance of a conspiracy. The acts include the recruitment and sexual exploitation of a minor named Carolyn between 2001 and 2004, involving payments, encouragement to recruit others, and arranging appointments. The document also mentions a separate 1996 incident involving another victim, Annie, and clarifies the legal standard for proving an overt act in a conspiracy case.
DOJ-OGR-00008668.jpg
This legal document, likely a page of jury instructions from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, outlines the legal standards for finding Ms. Maxwell guilty of participating in a conspiracy. It clarifies that the government does not need to prove she knew all the details or participants of the conspiracy, nor that she was involved from its inception. The document states that she can be held responsible for all acts of the conspiracy during its existence if she knowingly joined at any point, and that even a single act or a limited role could be sufficient to establish her membership.
DOJ-OGR-00008667.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (No. 35) from a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It explains the second element of a conspiracy charge: 'Membership in the Conspiracy.' The instruction defines the terms 'willfully' and 'knowingly' for the jury, clarifying that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, deliberately and consciously joined a conspiracy to further its unlawful goals, rather than through mistake or negligence.
DOJ-OGR-00008666.jpg
This document is a page from court filings (specifically jury instructions or transcript) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. The text outlines the legal standard for proving the objective of the conspiracy charged in Count Five, specifically regarding sex trafficking of minors. It instructs that if Maxwell agreed with another person to commit these acts beyond a reasonable doubt, the objective is proved.
DOJ-OGR-00008665.jpg
This document represents page 127 (labeled 44 internally) of a court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines Instruction No. 34 regarding the objects of the conspiracy for Counts One, Three, and Five. Count One alleges conspiracy to entice minors (1994-2004), Count Three alleges conspiracy to transport minors (1994-2004), and Count Five begins to describe conspiracy to commit sex trafficking (2001-2004).
DOJ-OGR-00008659.jpg
This is a page from a legal document, likely jury instructions, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. The text defines the legal standard for 'aiding and abetting,' explaining that for the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to be found guilty, the Government must prove she knowingly and willfully participated in a crime to help it succeed, not merely that she was present or aware of it.
DOJ-OGR-00008658.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 30) from a federal criminal case, filed on December 18, 2021. It explains the legal concept of "aiding and abetting" as it applies to Counts Two, Four, and Six against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The instruction clarifies that the jury can find her guilty if she knowingly assisted another person in committing the crimes, even if she did not physically commit the acts herself.
DOJ-OGR-00008655.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 27) from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It specifies the second element of Count Six, 'Sex Trafficking of an Individual Under the Age of 18,' requiring the Government to prove that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, knew the victim, Carolyn, was under eighteen years old.
DOJ-OGR-00002707.jpg
This document is page 14 of a defense filing (Document 148) in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated February 4, 2021. The defense argues that the government is using a specific diary as 'contemporaneous documentary corroboration' against Maxwell to oppose bail, yet refuses to provide the full diary or the author's name to the defense. The filing requests the Court order the government to either produce the complete diary or identify the author so the defense can issue a subpoena before trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002699.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated February 4, 2021, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense. The defense argues that despite receiving millions of pages of discovery in November 2020, there is almost no information regarding the specific allegations from the 1994-1997 indictment period. Consequently, the defense requests a 'bill of particulars,' early access to the government's witness list (Jencks Act material), and 404(b) evidence to adequately prepare for trial given the 25-year age of the case and COVID-19 delays.
DOJ-OGR-00020357.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, details the allegedly abusive and overly restrictive detention conditions of Ms. Maxwell at the MDC. It claims she is subjected to constant, invasive surveillance, has been physically abused by guards, had property damaged, and had private information leaked to the press. The filing argues that these conditions are unwarranted and that her monitored communications with family demonstrate strong ties to the U.S., contradicting claims that she is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00017491.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony establishes that Ghislaine Maxwell had a significant managerial and supervisory role over household staff, including the house manager, and was the primary person responsible for resolving problems. The witness also confirms Maxwell's role in overseeing repairs, renovations, decorating, and acting as a shopper for Epstein's residences.
DOJ-OGR-00017450.jpg
This page is a transcript from the cross-examination of a pilot named Visoski during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The testimony establishes that Visoski flew Jeffrey Epstein multiple times to Columbus, Ohio, the home of billionaire Les Wexner. The witness confirms Wexner's ownership of The Limited (parent company of Victoria's Secret and Abercrombie & Fitch) and states that Epstein considered Wexner both a friend and a client.
DOJ-OGR-00014523.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a lawyer, Ms. Menninger, is delivering a summation. She attempts to discredit a witness named Kate by highlighting inconsistencies in her background and motives, such as her immediate application to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund. Menninger also reminds the jury of the judge's instruction not to convict Ms. Maxwell based on Kate's testimony about non-illegal sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014514.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense. The speaker attempts to discredit two individuals: an unnamed woman by questioning her claims of secret flights and a $5 million payment from the government, and Annie Farmer by highlighting a court instruction that her alleged encounter with Epstein and Maxwell was not illegal as charged, and by noting that she was introduced to Epstein by her sister, Maria, who worked for him.
| 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 |
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Phone Message
Telephoned. (No specific message text written)
Status/Indictment
Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, allegedly to stave off indictment, but did not provide whereabouts.
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
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.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
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.
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'.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
Legal Emails
MDC allegedly prematurely deleted legal emails.
Civil Deposition
Testimony where the judge concluded dishonesty/perjury occurred.
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.
Withdrawal of HMF
Mr. Markus informed HMF that he discussed HMF's withdrawal with Ms. Maxwell, and she consents to it.
Divorce
Discussed divorce to create distance and protect him from consequences of association.
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
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.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
Needs/requests
Communication via beeper if she needed something
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity