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 | Incarceration | Ms. Maxwell was subjected to presentence incarceration, including solitary confinement, before be... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Indictment | A second superseding indictment was issued, which introduced new charges and is used as a basis f... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal hearing | A potential future bail hearing that Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to seek depending on the Seco... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Confinement | Ms. Maxwell is being held in de facto solitary confinement with harsh conditions, including guard... | prison/jail | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential unsealing of deposition material by Judge Preska. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal event | Ms. Maxwell was convicted on three of four Mann Act counts: Count Four and two conspiracy charges... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Court filing arguing against an aggravating role enhancement for Ms. Maxwell under USSG § 3B1.1. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Criminal offense | Criminal offenses involving 'Jane' and Annie Farmer. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Detention | Ms. Maxwell served the entirety of her pretrial detention during the COVID-19 pandemic under extr... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Argument that Juror No. 50 provided intentionally false answers to Questions 25 and 48 during voi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Personal event | The witness recalls waiting in a car for Ms. Maxwell to finish a massage. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Arrest | Ms. Maxwell's arrest is mentioned as an event that occurred prior to discussions about divorce. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Discussion | Ms. Maxwell and her spouse discussed getting a divorce prior to her arrest as a way to protect him. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A civil appeal by Ms. Maxwell regarding Judge Preska's order to unseal deposition material. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal case against Ms. Maxwell, presided over by Judge Nathan. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A legal argument is being made to prevent the introduction of evidence of alleged false statement... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Court's initial order denying bail to Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's initial detention hearing. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal trial is being discussed, with arguments made against including perjury counts due to ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A Post-Verdict Hearing where the court limited the scope of questions for Juror 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Personal decision | Ms. Maxwell made the decision to separate from her spouse and leave her home due to intense media... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A criminal trial in which Ms. Maxwell is the defendant. This document provides instructions to th... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An unsealing process overseen by Judge Preska, for which Ms. Maxwell seeks to share information. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Move | Ms. Maxwell moved from a large apartment on 59th Street to a studio apartment. | Manhattan | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's trial, which resulted in a jury verdict that is now being challenged. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg
A transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Judge that they should be allowed to suggest witnesses were manipulated by civil attorneys, citing a witness named 'Carolyn' whose detailed 2008 legal filings and depositions did not mention Ms. Maxwell, implying her involvement was fabricated later. The Court overrules the objection to this line of argumentation at the opening stage but asks for evidence that attorneys explicitly told witnesses what to say.
DOJ-OGR-00011654.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the jury must be carefully instructed regarding testimony about 'Accuser 2' and 'Accuser 3' to avoid convicting Maxwell based on 'New Mexico activity' rather than New York law violations. The Court (Judge) acknowledges the need for clarification regarding the 'enticement' charge versus the sexual activity itself.
DOJ-OGR-00011618.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding involving Ms. Maxwell. Her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that she be placed at the BOP facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program, which the court recommends to the Bureau of Prisons. The court also grants a motion from the government, represented by Ms. Moe, to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments against Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00011617.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on July 22, 2022, concerning the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized' and she has received no money from it. The Court acknowledges she hasn't received the bequest but determines that other 'additional assets' make her able to pay the fine, and subsequently imposes the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00011616.jpg
This legal document is a transcript from a sentencing hearing on July 22, 2022, where a judge sentences Ms. Maxwell. The judge imposes five years of supervised release, a $750,000 fine, and a mandatory special assessment, justifying the fine by noting Ms. Maxwell's ability to pay due to a $10 million bequest she received from Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011615.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, detailing the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. The judge, noting her lack of remorse, imposes a sentence of 240 months (20 years) imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The sentence is broken down by count, with all terms to run concurrently.
DOJ-OGR-00011614.jpg
This document is page 95 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2022. The judge rejects Maxwell's claims regarding poor treatment at the MDC and lack of preparation time, noting a pattern of dishonesty and 'deflection of blame' consistent with her perjury in a civil deposition. While acknowledging that Maxwell and her attorney Ms. Sternheim expressed sympathy for the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express acceptance of responsibility.
DOJ-OGR-00011613.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, in which a judge discusses sentencing factors for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge acknowledges that conditions at the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center) have been extremely difficult for all inmates due to the pandemic, and that Ms. Maxwell faced additional surveillance as a high-profile defendant. However, the judge explicitly rejects the defense's argument that Ms. Maxwell was singled out for uniquely harsh and punishing treatment.
DOJ-OGR-00011612.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a sentencing hearing for Ms. Maxwell, filed on July 22, 2022. The judge discusses the factors influencing the sentence, acknowledging mitigating aspects such as Ms. Maxwell's age (over 60), lack of prior convictions, charitable work, and positive letters from family and a fellow inmate. However, the judge states that her 'decade-long pattern of predatory activity' justifies a substantial sentence, even if she is not considered a continuing danger to the public.
DOJ-OGR-00011610.jpg
This page from a court transcript details the abuse inflicted upon a victim named Carolyn by the defendant, specifically noting that the defendant exploited Carolyn's past trauma. It further describes a broader pattern of criminal conduct by Ms. Maxwell and Epstein involving the victimization of multiple underage girls and acknowledges the bravery of the victims who testified at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011609.jpg
This document is page 90 of a sentencing transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details the judge or prosecutor's argument regarding the severity of Maxwell's punishment, citing her 'heinous and predatory' conduct described by the Probation Department. Specific details are provided regarding the abuse of a victim named 'Jane' (age 14), including grooming tactics, instruction on how to sexually please Epstein, and direct sexual abuse by both Epstein and Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00011608.jpg
This document is page 89 of a sentencing transcript filed on July 22, 2022, involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The presiding judge explains that Maxwell is being sentenced specifically for her own role in enticing, transporting, and trafficking underage girls (some as young as 14) for sexual abuse by and with Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing that she is not being punished merely as a proxy for Epstein but for her own direct participation in the abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00011602.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, likely from a sentencing hearing for a defendant named Ms. Maxwell, filed on July 22, 2022. The speaker, presumably her attorney, argues for a lenient sentence by highlighting her age (over 60), lack of prior criminal history, and positive contributions while incarcerated, such as tutoring fellow inmates in the MDC. The attorney contrasts her good character with the 'terrible conduct' for which she is being sentenced.
DOJ-OGR-00011601.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding, specifically a sentencing hearing for Ms. Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell) dated July 22, 2022. The speaker, presumably her defense attorney, is arguing for a more lenient sentence by presenting mitigating factors from her life. These factors include a traumatic family tragedy involving her eldest brother's death, a difficult upbringing with a 'narcissistic, brutish, and punitive father,' and the long-term 'controlling, demanding, manipulative' influence of Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011574.jpg
This is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion about the order of statements. Counsel Ms. Moe asks the judge if victims should speak before or after the main parties. The judge clarifies the intended sequence is government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, to which all parties present agree before the court takes a luncheon recess.
DOJ-OGR-00011573.jpg
This page from a court transcript (case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details sentencing proceedings for Ms. Maxwell. The Judge rejects the claim that Maxwell is indigent, citing $22 million in assets reported in 2020 and a lack of documentation regarding her marriage/divorce, and states an intention to impose a fine. The Judge also notes the government is not seeking restitution, finds no grounds for downward departures from sentencing guidelines, and calls for a lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00011572.jpg
This document is page 53 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of assets in the Presentence Report (PSR), specifically noting a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge determines that Maxwell has failed to establish an inability to pay a fine, citing the bequest and $3.8 million in assets reported in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00011551.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript where an unidentified speaker argues against the assertion that Ms. Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen. The speaker cites trial testimony from witnesses Carolyn and Juan Alessi to support the claim that Kellen replaced Maxwell in the role of scheduling massage appointments, indicating a 'clear break' and a replacement of duties rather than ongoing supervision.
DOJ-OGR-00011549.jpg
This court transcript excerpt from July 22, 2022, details an argument by a prosecutor, Ms. Moe, to the Court. Ms. Moe is establishing that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, held a leadership and supervisory role over Sarah Kellen within a criminal conspiracy, positioning Maxwell higher in the scheme's hierarchy than Kellen, who was an assistant to both Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011548.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on July 22, 2022, detailing a legal argument between a government representative, Ms. Moe, and the Court. The discussion focuses on establishing the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, as an 'organizer or leader' for sentencing purposes by proving she exercised a supervisory role over at least one other criminally responsible participant. The government specifically identifies Sarah Kellen as the individual supervised by Ms. Maxwell, based on evidence from the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011534.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 22, 2022, details a judge's ruling on objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge overrules objections regarding characterizations of the offense and Maxwell's responsibility for sexualized massages, citing trial evidence that contradicts her claims. The ruling concludes that evidence established Ms. Maxwell's recruitment of a person named Virginia, which initiated a broader recruitment scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00011528.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 22, 2022, details a judge's decision to overrule objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge cites trial testimony from witnesses named Annie, Jane, Virginia, and Carolyn as evidence supporting the characterization that Maxwell and Epstein isolated minor girls and developed a multi-level recruitment scheme. The scheme allegedly began with Maxwell recruiting Virginia, who then recruited Carolyn, who in turn recruited others.
DOJ-OGR-00005754.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing, dated October 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The author argues that the Court should prohibit any law enforcement witness from giving expert opinion testimony because the officers were not properly disclosed as experts under Rule 16(1)(G), and such testimony would violate Rule 702. The argument extends to witnesses called by either the government or the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00005753.jpg
This legal document, page 7 of a filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE dated October 29, 2021, argues against the admissibility of certain types of expert opinion testimony from law enforcement officers. Citing numerous legal precedents, the document contends that testimony regarding alleged conspiracies, coded communications, witness credibility, and a defendant's mental state (specifically mentioning Ms. Maxwell) constitutes improper expert opinion. The argument concludes that such testimony is particularly prejudicial because juries may give undue weight to evidence presented by government agents.
DOJ-OGR-00005734.jpg
This is the conclusion page of a legal motion filed on October 29, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. In the document, Maxwell's defense requests that the Court exclude evidence seized during a search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005, as well as Government Exhibit 295 (an affidavit). The page cites Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts regarding the admission of out-of-court affidavits.
| 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 |
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 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.
Video conference
Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.
Divorce
Discussed divorce to create distance and protect him from consequences of association.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
Location tracking
Government located Maxwell by tracking her primary phone.
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.
Status/Indictment
Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, allegedly to stave off indictment, but did not provide whereabouts.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Civil Deposition
Testimony where the judge concluded dishonesty/perjury occurred.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
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.
Legal Emails
MDC allegedly prematurely deleted legal emails.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
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
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity