Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Romantic |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Adversarial defendant vs juror |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Accuser-3
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Alleged perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial defendant vs prosecutor |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
LARRY
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Accomplice victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed co-conspirators
|
Alleged co conspirators |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-2
|
Alleged perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Assistance travel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Security Guard
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Implied co conspirator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
other alleged co-conspirators
|
Alleged criminal conspiracy |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Adam Mueller
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
John
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sarah Kellen
|
Professional supervisory disputed |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Defendant victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nicole Simmons
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell's lawyers
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994-01-01 | Alleged abuse | Epstein allegedly "sexually abused" Accuser-3 during massages that Ms. Maxwell encouraged. | London, England | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Interaction | Witness Rodgers interacted with Ms. Maxwell on Mr. Epstein's planes, at the office, and at her ho... | Airplane, office, Ms. Maxwe... | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Alleged criminal activity | The time period during which Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed a crime, as stated in the S... | N/A | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Criminal scheme | A single, decade-long scheme between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to 'groom' and recruit minor girls t... | Epstein’s various residences | View |
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Transportation of Jane in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity (Count Four allegations). | Interstate (between states) | View |
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Time period for Count Three (conspiracy to transport individual under 17). | Interstate commerce | View |
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Time period for Count Four (transporting individual under 17). | Interstate commerce | View |
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Conspiracy to entice individuals under 17 to travel to engage in sexual activity (Count One). | Not specified | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Alleged events | A witness, Kate, has testified to events that allegedly took place at the Kinnerton Street property. | Kinnerton Street property | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Period of alleged violations | The government chose to allege violations by Ms. Maxwell only within this narrow time period. | N/A | View |
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Conspiracy to transport individuals under 17 with intent to engage in sexual activity (Count Three). | Not specified | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Conspiracy | The time period of the conspiracy charged in the indictment against Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Crime | Count Four: Transporting an individual under 17 in interstate commerce for sexual activity. This ... | N/A | View |
| 1992-01-01 | N/A | Ms. Maxwell allegedly began living at the property in question according to government testimony. | London property | View |
| 1992-01-01 | N/A | Start date of Maxwell living in 'the home' according to deposition | The home | View |
| 1992-01-01 | Residence | The government has testimony from Ms. Maxwell that she began living at a property in 1992. | N/A | View |
| 1991-10-01 | Visit | Witness visited Ms. Maxwell's apartment on 59th Street in the fall of 1991. | 59th Street apartment | View |
| 1991-01-01 | Arrival | Ms. Maxwell came to Palm Beach for the first time. | Palm Beach | View |
| 1991-01-01 | Meeting | The first meeting between the witness (Rodgers) and Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 1990-01-01 | N/A | Time period of the allegations discussed. | Unspecified | View |
| 0018-12-01 | N/A | Potential charging conference date. | Court | View |
| 0009-01-01 | Trip | A potential flight is scheduled for 3:00 PM, referred to as 'Wheels up'. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008581.jpg
This document is page 43 of a court filing (Instruction No. 31) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the legal definition of 'Conspiracy' under Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, specifically regarding Counts One, Three, and Five of the indictment. The instruction explains to the jury that conspiracy is an independent offense and that Maxwell can be found guilty of conspiracy even if the substantive crimes were not actually committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008580.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, likely containing jury instructions. It outlines the criteria for finding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty as an "aider and abettor" in a criminal venture. The text specifies that if she knowingly associated with the venture and acted to make it succeed, she is guilty; otherwise, she must be found not guilty under that legal theory.
DOJ-OGR-00008578.jpg
This document is page 40 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 30 regarding 'Aiding and Abetting' for Counts Two, Four, and Six. The text explains the legal standard that allows the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell if she assisted, counseled, or induced another person to commit the charged crimes, even if she did not physically commit them herself.
DOJ-OGR-00008577.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction from a court case, filed on December 18, 2021, concerning Ms. Maxwell. It defines the fourth element of Count Six, 'Sex Trafficking of an Individual Under the Age of 18,' specifically addressing the requirement of affecting interstate commerce. The instruction clarifies for the jury that the Government does not need to prove Ms. Maxwell intended to affect interstate commerce, only that her actions did so, even minimally, and that proof of actual travel across state lines is not required.
DOJ-OGR-00008576.jpg
This document is a jury instruction from a legal case filed on December 18, 2021, detailing the third element the prosecution must prove for a conviction on Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor. It specifies that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, must have known the victim, Carolyn, would be engaged in a commercial sex act, and clarifies that the victim's consent is not a defense if she was under 18.
DOJ-OGR-00008574.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (No. 26) from a federal criminal case, filed on December 18, 2021. It specifies the first element the government must prove for Count Six, Sex Trafficking of a Minor, which is that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained a person named Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00008570.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 22) from a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It specifies the third element the Government must prove for Count Four of an indictment: that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, knew the victim, referred to as 'Jane', was under seventeen years old at the time of the alleged illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00008569.jpg
This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 563) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines Jury Instruction No. 21 regarding Count Four: the transportation of a minor ('Jane') to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text clarifies the legal standard for intent, stating that the illegal activity must be a 'significant or motivating purpose' of the travel, though not necessarily the sole purpose, citing New York Penal Law Section 130.55.
DOJ-OGR-00008568.jpg
This document contains Jury Instruction No. 20 from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 18, 2021. It defines the first element of Count Four: Transportation of an Individual Under the Age of 17 to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity. The text outlines that the Government must prove Maxwell knowingly transported 'Jane' in interstate commerce, noting that personal transportation is not required if she made arrangements (like purchasing tickets), and that the victim's consent is irrelevant to the charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008564.jpg
This document is a jury instruction from a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It details the third element of Count Two, "Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity," which requires the government to prove Ms. Maxwell's intent. The instruction defines what constitutes acting "intentionally" and clarifies that the illegal activity must have been a "significant or motivating purpose" for encouraging the individual, Jane, to travel, rather than merely an incidental part of the trip.
DOJ-OGR-00008562.jpg
This document is a jury instruction from a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the first element the government must prove against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, for Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity. The instruction defines key legal terms for the jury, including "interstate commerce" and the standard for acting "knowingly," explaining that intent can be inferred from conduct and circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00008558.jpg
This document is page 20 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 11 regarding 'Multiple Counts,' instructing the jury to consider each of the six counts separately. The text shows specific edits replacing the generic term 'Defendant' with 'Ms. Maxwell' and outlines the burden of proof required by the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00008554.jpg
This document is page 16 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains 'Instruction No. 8,' which defines the legal concept of 'Reasonable Doubt' for the jury, explaining the standards required to either convict or acquit Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00008553.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing from December 18, 2021, containing 'Instruction No. 7' for a jury in a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. The instruction explains the legal principles of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. It explicitly states that Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, has pleaded not guilty, and that the Government bears the entire burden of proving her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a burden which never shifts to the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00008533.jpg
This document is Page 77 (marked 76 internally) of a court filing dated December 17, 2021, containing Jury Instruction No. 58 for the trial of Ms. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The instruction directs jurors to determine guilt based solely on evidence and explicitly prohibits them from considering potential punishment during deliberations, noting that sentencing is the sole responsibility of the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00008524.jpg
This document is page 68 of 82 from a court filing (Document 562) dated December 17, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 49, which explicitly instructs the jury that Ms. Maxwell exercised her Constitutional right not to testify, that the burden of proof rests solely with the Government, and that no adverse inference can be drawn against her for not taking the witness stand.
DOJ-OGR-00008523.jpg
This document is a legal instruction (Instruction No. 48) for a jury in the trial of Ms. Maxwell, filed on December 17, 2021. It provides guidance on how to handle 'Similar Act Evidence' introduced by the Government, which pertains to conduct not formally charged in the indictment. The instruction strictly limits the use of this evidence, forbidding the jury from using it to infer that Ms. Maxwell has a bad character or a propensity to commit crimes, but allowing its consideration for determining intent, knowledge, or a common scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00008517.jpg
This document is page 61 of a court filing (Document 562) from December 17, 2021, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions regarding the standard of proof, specifically warning jurors not to infer guilt based solely on association with others who committed wrongdoing or knowledge of others' wrongdoing. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00008517.
DOJ-OGR-00008516.jpg
This document is page 60 of court filing 562 (Jury Instructions) from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Instruction No. 43 regarding 'Inferences,' explaining to the jury how to logically deduce facts from evidence versus guessing. Crucially, it instructs the jury that they cannot infer Maxwell's guilt based solely on her presence at the scene of a crime or knowledge that a crime was being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008513.jpg
This document is Instruction No. 40 regarding 'Venue' from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It instructs the jury that the Government must prove, by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' that an act related to each charged crime occurred within the Southern District of New York, which includes several specified counties. The document clarifies that if the Government fails to meet this burden of proof for any specific charge, the jury must acquit the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, on that charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008508.jpg
This document is page 52 of a legal filing from December 17, 2021, in the case against Ms. Maxwell. It contains jury instructions regarding the legal definition and requirements for proving an "overt act" as part of a conspiracy. The instructions clarify that the government does not need to prove Maxwell herself committed the act, that the act does not have to be one specifically listed in the indictment, and that a conviction on certain counts cannot be based solely on the testimony of a witness named Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00008504.jpg
This legal document, page 48 of a court filing from December 17, 2021, appears to be part of jury instructions in a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. It clarifies the legal standard for finding someone guilty of conspiracy, stating that the prosecution does not need to prove the defendant knew all details, all participants, or was involved from the start. The text emphasizes that as long as Ms. Maxwell was aware of the conspiracy's criminal aims and knowingly participated, even in a limited capacity, she can be held responsible for all acts of the conspiracy during her membership.
DOJ-OGR-00008496.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely jury instructions, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It outlines the legal test for determining if the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, is guilty as an 'aider and abettor' in a criminal venture. The jury is instructed to consider whether she knowingly associated with the venture and acted to make it succeed, with a guilty verdict required for affirmative answers and a not guilty verdict for negative answers.
DOJ-OGR-00008495.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 17, 2021, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, provides jury instructions on the charge of aiding and abetting. It specifies that for the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to be found guilty, the government must prove she willfully and knowingly took action to help another person's crime succeed. The document explicitly states that mere presence at the scene or knowledge of the crime is insufficient for a conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00008492.jpg
This document constitutes Jury Instruction No. 28 from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. It outlines the legal standards for 'Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor,' specifically regarding a victim named Carolyn. The instruction clarifies that consent is not a defense if the victim is under 18 and defines 'commercial sex act' broadly to include the exchange of anything of value.
| 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