new mexico
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Accuser 2
|
Location of incident |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Location of conduct |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Travel incident location |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Travel logistics |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Location of alleged conduct |
1
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00017138.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a lawyer. The speaker is challenging the credibility of a witness's testimony by highlighting inconsistencies in her statements to the government over time (2006 vs. 2020 vs. current testimony) regarding a trip to New Mexico and interactions with Ghislaine and Epstein, including the purpose of the trip and the nature of massages she received.
DOJ-OGR-00017135.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a legal summation. The speaker first attempts to discredit an unnamed witness by claiming she was paid $5 million by the government and that her stories of flying are uncorroborated. The speaker then discusses the testimony of Annie Farmer, a psychologist, stating the court has instructed that the alleged incident with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not illegal as charged, and that it was Annie's sister, Maria, who worked for Epstein and introduced them.
DOJ-OGR-00017113.jpg
This document is page 92 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) representing the defense summation by Ms. Menninger on August 10, 2022. The attorney argues that the government failed to provide promised evidence linking Epstein's properties to abuse, specifically refuting the existence of 'massage rooms' filled with nude photos in Palm Beach, New York, and New Mexico. The defense also highlights conflicting testimony between witnesses Kate and Cim Espinosa regarding a massage room in Ghislaine Maxwell's London home and cites FedEx records to claim Maxwell did not send items to underage girls.
DOJ-OGR-00017106.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense in a case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues that the testimonies of accusers, specifically 'Carolyn' and 'Jane,' have changed over time and were improperly influenced by their lawyers and the FBI. She highlights that Carolyn's initial lawsuit didn't mention Maxwell and that Jane was allegedly pressured with leading questions to alter her story to implicate Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017074.jpg
This document is a legal summation from a court case, outlining Ghislaine Maxwell's role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation from 1995 to 2004. It details how Maxwell recruited, groomed, and abused multiple young women, including Jane, Annie Farmer, Virginia Roberts, and Carolyn, across various locations like New Mexico and Palm Beach. The text also highlights significant financial payments from Epstein to Maxwell, totaling over $23 million, and describes the evolution of the abuse into a 'pyramid scheme' where victims were incentivized to recruit others.
DOJ-OGR-00017066.jpg
This page is a transcript of a closing argument (summation) by prosecutor Ms. Moe in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecutor summarizes evidence regarding Epstein and Maxwell's abuse of minors, specifically mentioning victims Jane, Annie, Virginia Roberts, and Carolyn. The text details sexual acts, flight records, and FedEx records (Government Exhibits 801 and 803) proving Epstein sent packages to Carolyn when she was 15.
DOJ-OGR-00017060.jpg
This document is a page from the prosecution's summation in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Prosecutor Ms. Moe describes an incident where a victim named Annie hid in a bathroom to avoid sexual advances from Epstein and Maxwell in New Mexico. The text details that after Annie resisted, Maxwell lost interest, though Epstein subsequently paid for Annie to take a summer trip to Thailand, a fact corroborated by her high school boyfriend and mother.
DOJ-OGR-00017049.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation by prosecutor Ms. Moe (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). She details flight logs from May 1997 and April 1998 showing Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein traveling with a minor victim referred to as 'Jane' (aged 16 and 17 at the times). Ms. Moe argues against the defense's attempt to confuse the jury with photos of an adult assistant also named Jane, citing pilot and DMV testimony to clarify the victim's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017039.jpg
This document is a page from the prosecution's summation (Ms. Moe) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text outlines the 'playbook' used by Maxwell and Epstein to groom victims named Annie, Jane, and Kate, which included isolating them, offering financial promises (tuition, trips), and normalizing sexual contact. Specific incidents detailed include Epstein lying to Annie's mother about Ghislaine being his wife, and Maxwell initiating sexual contact during massages.
DOJ-OGR-00017033.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (summation by Ms. Moe) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor argues that photographs show a sexual partnership between Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, specifically describing an image of Maxwell massaging Epstein's foot with her breasts. The text details the luxury lifestyle Maxwell enjoyed via Epstein's properties (NY, NM, Palm Beach, Paris, USVI) and cites testimony from house manager Juan Alessi establishing Maxwell as the 'lady of the house' starting in the early 1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00016965.jpg
This court transcript page, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. The conversation centers on the testimony of a witness named Jane regarding a single incident of sexual abuse in New Mexico and whether a specific limiting instruction should be added to the jury charge. The judge ultimately denies the request, stating that the defense failed to ask for it at the appropriate time and that the charge is based on a violation of New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00016964.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal case, likely a hearing or trial. It involves discussion about jury instructions, testimony regarding sexual contact between Jane and Epstein in New Mexico, and the testimony of Kate and Annie. The attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, are arguing about the relevance of certain evidence and instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00016963.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for specific jury instructions regarding the testimony of victims 'Kate', 'Annie', and 'Jane', specifically distinguishing between New York offenses and sexual contact in New Mexico. The discussion focuses on the legal age of consent in New Mexico (mentioned as 15 or 16) relative to Jane's age during her trips there.
DOJ-OGR-00016937.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal debate over jurisdiction and conspiracy charges. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony from witnesses Annie, Kate, and Carolyn regarding events in New Mexico, Arizona, or 'an island' does not satisfy the requirement to prove a violation of New York law. The Judge overrules the objection, stating that the defense is conflating substantive counts with conspiracy counts and that a direct violation of NY law is not required to establish the elements of the conspiracy count.
DOJ-OGR-00016934.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues about jury instructions, specifically that 'Count One' should refer solely to victim 'Jane' between 1994 and 2004. He further argues that conduct involving victims 'Kate' (due to age of consent in NY) and 'Annie' (conduct in New Mexico) did not constitute violations of the specific laws charged.
DOJ-OGR-00016804.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed 08/10/22) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Young. The attorney reads portions of a prior report concerning a victim referred to as 'Jane,' confirming that Jane was unsure if she was alone with Epstein and Maxwell, and that she did not recall specific abuse occurring during a trip to New Mexico. The testimony highlights the group dynamic involving Epstein and Maxwell during sexual incidents.
DOJ-OGR-00016530.jpg
This document is page 47 of a court transcript featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa testifies about the properties owned by Jeffrey Epstein at the start of their employment (Zorro Ranch, 9 East 71st St, El Brillo) and subsequent acquisitions, specifically a Paris apartment and Little Saint James island. The witness notes that the island's name was changed to 'Little Saint Jeffs' and describes the preparation of the island as a 'humongous project' involving themselves and Ghislaine.
DOJ-OGR-00016449.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness Swain) filed on August 10, 2022. The witness testifies that while they had phone calls with Jeffrey Epstein, they never discussed Ghislaine Maxwell and have never spoken to Maxwell personally. The questioning also covers discussions with Epstein regarding a trip to New Mexico involving individuals named Annie and Maria.
DOJ-OGR-00016446.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Swain. Swain recounts multiple attempts to ask a person named Annie about a trip she took to New Mexico, specifically after Annie's return from Thailand and Vietnam in the summer of 1996. Annie was consistently evasive and refused to discuss the trip, repeatedly stating, "I'm not going to let it ruin my life."
DOJ-OGR-00016445.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Swain by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. The questioning focuses on what another individual, Annie, may have told the witness about who paid for her trips to Thailand, Vietnam, and New Mexico. The testimony is heavily contested, with opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger, successfully objecting on grounds of hearsay, preventing the witness from revealing who paid for the trips.
DOJ-OGR-00016443.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where a witness named Swain is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz. Swain testifies that a person named Annie took a weekend trip to New Mexico in the spring of 1996, that Epstein paid for the trip, and that Swain personally drove Annie to the airport. The witness denies ever having spoken to or met a person named Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00016442.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Swain - direct examination) filed on August 10, 2022. The witness describes a phone call with Jeffrey Epstein regarding a trip to New Mexico for 'academically gifted' students, including a girl named Annie. During the call, Epstein falsely claimed that Ghislaine Maxwell was his wife and that she would be chaperoning the girls to reassure the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016441.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Swain, filed on August 10, 2022. The witness testifies that her sister, Annie, a high school junior, took two trips: one to New York over a Christmas holiday where she went to the movies with Epstein and another girl named Maria, and a second trip to Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. The New Mexico trip was part of a 'get-together' or 'retreat' that Epstein was planning for 20-25 students, which he communicated to the witness via a phone call.
DOJ-OGR-00016434.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the end of the testimony of a witness named Mulligan, who speaks briefly about a memorable conversation with someone named Annie regarding New Mexico. After Mulligan is excused, the government's attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, calls the next witness, Janice Swain.
DOJ-OGR-00016432.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, identified as Mulligan. The questioning focuses on the witness's knowledge of another individual, Annie, and an alleged payment of one and a half million dollars she received for an incident in a New Mexico movie theater. The witness denies any knowledge of the payment but confirms they are testifying because the government contacted them after learning Annie would also be a witness.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity