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 | Testimony | Jane chose to cooperate with the government and testify against Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the rules of evidence and procedures for an upcoming trial involving Ms. M... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Detention | Ms. Maxwell's ongoing detention at the Metropolitan Correction Center under conditions described ... | Metropolitan Correction Cen... | View |
| N/A | Legal action | Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the pleadings filed by Juror 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | A large-scale construction and development project on a tropical island. The project involved new... | Island | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The government produced voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) to Ms. Maxwell and her coun... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell is presenting a bail application for the Court's consideration. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The witness, Alessi, visited Ms. Maxwell's townhome in London for about five minutes. | Ms. Maxwell's townhome in L... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A motion for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell, based on issues with a juror's answers during voir dire. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The trial of Ms. Maxwell, where the government argued its theory of a single conspiracy to the jury. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conspiracy | A single, decade-long criminal conspiracy between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to exploit young girls. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Jury instruction (Instruction No. 15) for Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Alleged transportation of Jane across state lines by Ms. Maxwell for the purpose of illegal sexua... | interstate / across state l... | View |
| N/A | Custodial action | The Bureau of Prisons placed Ms. Maxwell on suicide watch. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The charging of Ms. Maxwell by prosecutors. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Bail application for Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A charge to a jury regarding the legal definition of conspiracy and the requirements to find Ms. ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Ms. Maxwell reasserts her motion to vacate her conviction and dismiss the indictment due to pre-i... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court granted Ms. Maxwell leave to renew her motion after the conclusion of her trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal trial involving Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An unsealing process overseen by Judge Preska, for which Ms. Maxwell seeks permission to share in... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An appeal by Ms. Maxwell which is argued will become moot if review awaits a final judgment in th... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court denied Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions on the grounds that she failed to show 'actual an... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Ms. Maxwell filed initial and supplemental pretrial motions claiming violation of due process rig... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Criminal case | A criminal case, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, in which Ms. Maxwell is the defendant. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008491.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 17, 2021, is a jury instruction (No. 27) from a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It pertains to Count Six, 'Sex Trafficking of a Minor,' and directs the jury on the second element the Government must prove: that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, knew that the victim, Carolyn, was under eighteen years of age.
DOJ-OGR-00008490.jpg
This document is page 34 of 82 from a court filing dated December 17, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 26 regarding 'Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor – First Element,' specifically instructing the jury on the requirement to prove that Maxwell knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained a specific individual named Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00008486.jpg
This document is page 30 of 82 from a court filing filed on December 17, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It contains Jury Instruction No. 22 regarding Count Four (Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity), specifically the 'Third Element,' which requires the Government to prove Ms. Maxwell knew the victim, 'Jane,' was under seventeen years old.
DOJ-OGR-00008485.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 21) from a court case filed on December 17, 2021. It pertains to Count Four, the transportation of a minor named Jane by Ms. Maxwell for illegal sexual activity. The instruction clarifies that for a conviction, the government must prove that a 'significant or motivating purpose' of the interstate travel was for illegal sexual activity, not necessarily the 'sole purpose'.
DOJ-OGR-00008484.jpg
This document is page 28 of a court filing (Document 562) dated December 17, 2021, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 20 regarding Count Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity. The text defines the legal requirements for proving Ms. Maxwell knowingly transported the victim 'Jane' across state lines or internationally, noting that personal transportation is not required if she made the arrangements (e.g., buying tickets) and that the victim's consent is irrelevant.
DOJ-OGR-00008480.jpg
This document is a jury instruction from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. It details the third element of Count Two, 'Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity,' specifically defining the legal standards for 'intent' and 'significant or motivating purpose' for the jury. The instruction clarifies that the prosecution (the Government) must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a significant purpose of Ms. Maxwell encouraging 'Jane' to travel across state lines was for illegal sexual activity, and that this purpose was not merely incidental to the trip.
DOJ-OGR-00008478.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 17, 2021, is a jury instruction from a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details Instruction No. 15, which explains the first element the government must prove against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, for Count Two: "Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity." The document defines key legal terms for the jury, including "interstate commerce" and the standard for acting "knowingly."
DOJ-OGR-00008474.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 17, 2021, is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 11) from a criminal case. It directs the jury to consider each of the six counts against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, separately and to only find her guilty if the Government has proven every element of a specific charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00008470.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Document 562) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 8: Reasonable Doubt,' providing legal definitions and instructions to the jury regarding the burden of proof required to convict or acquit the defendant, explicitly named as Ms. Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines the standard of 'reasonable doubt' versus 'possible doubt' and instructs jurors on their duty based on their abiding belief of her guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00008469.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 7, from a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It explains the legal principles of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, stating that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, is presumed innocent and the Government has the sole responsibility to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The instruction emphasizes that this burden never shifts to the defendant, even if she presents a defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008467.jpg
This legal document provides jury instructions regarding improper considerations. It instructs jurors to base their verdict solely on evidence and to avoid discrimination based on personal feelings or biases related to race, color, religion, national ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, economic circumstances, or any other similar factor.
DOJ-OGR-00008434.jpg
This document is a legal letter filed on December 18, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests permission for a witness, Mr. Hamilton, to testify remotely from London via WebEx because he has tested positive for COVID-19 and cannot travel. The defense argues that precluding his testimony would violate Maxwell's constitutional rights to present a defense and confront accusers, specifically mentioning the need to expose the bias of an accuser named Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00008433.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 15, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It presents defense arguments supporting the admissibility of testimony from a witness named Mr. Hamilton regarding statements made by 'Kate,' arguing that this evidence proves bias and is not a collateral matter. The text cites various legal precedents to refute the government's objections.
DOJ-OGR-00008426.jpg
This legal document, dated December 15, 2021, is an argument from Ms. Maxwell's counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial testimony of a witness named 'Jane'. Counsel argues that because Jane denied the substance of a prior statement in court, they should be allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613, citing legal precedent. The document concludes by noting that due to time constraints, counsel was unable to meet a 10:15 p.m. deadline to list all such disputed statements.
DOJ-OGR-00008417.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It features a legal argument between Ms. Menninger (defense) and the Court regarding hearsay rules. Menninger argues that testimony stating other accusers did *not* mention Ms. Maxwell is not hearsay (as it is an absence of a statement) and should be admissible if the government introduces evidence suggesting other victims exist without calling them to the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00008416.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 17, 2021, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of evidence in a sex trafficking case. The prosecution argues that the defense cannot introduce potentially exculpatory hearsay statements through law enforcement agents and must call the original witnesses. Defense counsel, Ms. Menninger, counters that the absence of an implicating statement is not hearsay, a point which the judge appears to challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00008415.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It details a legal argument by defense attorney Ms. Menninger, who asserts that if the government introduces evidence (such as message pads) relating to individuals other than the four primary accusers, the defense should be allowed to introduce statements from those individuals claiming Ms. Maxwell was not involved. Prosecutor Ms. Moe agrees to defer the issue until trial, provided the defense does not mention it in their opening statement.
DOJ-OGR-00008413.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing dated December 17, 2021, in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, is arguing that the defense should be precluded from introducing statements from other alleged victims unless they first formally proffer which witnesses they intend to call. The government contends this is necessary to prevent the introduction of inappropriate hearsay evidence during opening statements or cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008411.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 17, 2021, in which the judge is speaking. The judge outlines the rules for cross-examination, stating that the defense will be permitted to question law enforcement about the thoroughness of their investigation and to impeach government witnesses. The judge notes that denying these lines of questioning to the defense, represented by Ms. Maxwell, would have implications under the confrontation clause.
DOJ-OGR-00008409.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 17, 2021, is a page from a court proceeding in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The judge is providing guidance on the admissibility of evidence, citing the 2013 case 'United States v. Borrero' as precedent. The court will permit the defense to cross-examine government witnesses about their prior statements that did not implicate Ms. Maxwell in order to impeach their credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00008408.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or filing, dated December 17, 2021, arguing against the admissibility of a prior 2008 decision not to indict Ms. Maxwell. The speaker contends that the reasons for the 2008 decision by officials in the Southern District of Florida are not relevant to the current case, would be prejudicial, and could cause juror confusion. This is contrasted with the 'White' case, where a prior charging decision was deemed admissible because it directly related to a witness's credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00008407.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, likely a judge's ruling, dated December 17, 2021. The speaker explains why a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is not being admitted as evidence, citing risks of prejudice, juror confusion, and undue delay that outweigh its relevance. The speaker also provides guidance that the government's prior charging decisions regarding Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein are likely inadmissible.
DOJ-OGR-00008404.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 17, 2021, details a court's reasoning for excluding certain evidence from a trial involving Ms. Maxwell. The court argues that evidence proposed by the defense concerning the government's motives for the investigation—including a Miami Herald article and statements from Attorney General William Barr—would confuse and delay the trial, with its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value. The document suggests the defense should focus on the credibility of witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial instead.
DOJ-OGR-00008398.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing dated December 17, 2021, outlines the legal principles guiding the court's analysis of the government's investigation into Ms. Maxwell. It references precedents from the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court to establish rules regarding investigative techniques, challenges to government motives, and the admissibility of evidence related to charging decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00008391.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, specifically page 5 of 6 from Document 548 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 15, 2021. The Court denies the Defense's request for a witness to testify under a pseudonym, arguing that the witness does not qualify as a victim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act because her anticipated testimony is that she was not a target of sexual misconduct by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. The Court distinguishes this situation from a prior ruling where pseudonyms were allowed to protect the identities of other, actual victims.
| 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 |
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Status/Indictment
Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, allegedly to stave off indictment, but did not provide whereabouts.
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 matters
The document alleges that all of Ms. Maxwell's legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
Divorce
Discussed divorce to create distance and protect him from consequences of association.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
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.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
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.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
Setting up massage appointments
Carolyn testified that Ms. Maxwell would call her to arrange massage appointments, which was considered important evidence for sex trafficking charges.
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Needing something
Early on, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness by beeper if she needed something.
Legal Emails
MDC allegedly prematurely deleted legal emails.
Civil Deposition
Testimony where the judge concluded dishonesty/perjury occurred.
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
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.
Defense Preparation
Reference to Maxwell's need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for defense.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity