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-00016428.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which a witness named Mulligan provides testimony. The witness recounts what a person named Annie told her about an experience with Jeffrey Epstein in New Mexico while they were in high school. According to the testimony, Annie was afraid to speak up about the incident because she feared jeopardizing her sister Maria's opportunities with Epstein. The witness states that Annie told her that after a massage, Epstein followed her into her bedroom and climbed into bed with her.
DOJ-OGR-00016425.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mulligan. Mulligan testifies about conversations with a high school friend named Annie, who described a trip to Jeffrey Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. Annie reported expecting an 'enrichment weekend' with other girls but discovered she was the only girl present, spending her time solely with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00016424.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mulligan. Mulligan testifies about dating a woman named Annie in high school around the fall/winter of 1996. The testimony focuses on conversations they had regarding a trip Annie took to New Mexico, noting that these discussions often arose when they were becoming physically affectionate.
DOJ-OGR-00016404.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) featuring the redirect examination of witness A. Farmer. The witness testifies regarding statements made to the FBI, specifically asserting that either Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell was responsible for canceling an individual named Maria's trip at the last minute. The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, raises objections regarding hearsay and foundation, which are overruled by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00016386.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (likely Annie Farmer) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense establishes that Farmer had no communication with Maxwell after a trip to New Mexico, but admits to accepting money from Jeffrey Epstein for a subsequent trip to Thailand. The witness also acknowledges making public statements in documentaries and podcasts under her real name.
DOJ-OGR-00016383.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer. The questioning focuses on discrepancies between her current testimony and prior statements made to a victims' compensation fund and the government regarding massages she received from Mr. Epstein. The questions highlight details such as Epstein staring and groaning during a foot massage, and another massage in New Mexico where her chest and breast were touched.
DOJ-OGR-00016381.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Farmer. The questioning centers on an application Farmer made to a victims compensation fund, in which they claimed to have been sexually abused in movie theaters in New York and New Mexico. Farmer clarifies that the incidents involved hand-holding and caressing, and the questioner probes the discrepancy between this description and the claim of sexual abuse on the application form.
DOJ-OGR-00010548.jpg
This legal document details the testimony of a victim named Annie regarding a trip to Jeffrey Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. Annie states that she was groomed and sexually abused by both Epstein and an unnamed female defendant, who was in a romantic relationship with Epstein. The defendant allegedly used the pretense of giving a massage to sexually abuse Annie, and Epstein later assaulted her in her bed, as part of a coordinated effort to groom her for further abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010546.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details the sexual abuse of two victims, identified as Jane and Kate, by the defendant and Epstein. It describes how the abuse of Jane began when she was 14, with the defendant abusing a position of trust, and continued for years in multiple locations including Palm Beach, New York City, and New Mexico. The document also states that the abuse of another victim, Kate, began around the same time in 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00010542.jpg
This document is a court filing summarizing the proof presented at Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, detailing her conviction on multiple counts related to the sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 2004. It describes her close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, noting she acted as his girlfriend and partner, facilitating the grooming of girls as young as 14 at various international properties. The document also notes the government's intent to dismiss severed perjury charges to spare victims further trauma.
DOJ-OGR-00008958.jpg
This legal document is a filing from the defense in the case against Epstein, arguing that their ability to challenge a witness named Jane's testimony was hampered. The defense claims that unavailable property records and the deaths of key witnesses, specifically architects Alberto Pinto and Roger Salhi, prevented them from proving that Epstein's properties were not constructed or occupied at the times Jane recalled, which would have cast doubt on her testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00008957.jpg
This legal document argues that the defense was hindered by the unavailability of contemporaneous phone and property records for Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and accusers. It cites two examples: the inability to challenge Carolyn's testimony that Maxwell called her to set up appointments, and the inability to rebut accuser Jane's testimony about the timing of her sexual abuse at Epstein's New York townhouse, which she described in detail.
DOJ-OGR-00008956.jpg
This legal document outlines the defense's argument that it was hindered by the unavailability of old records. Specifically, incomplete travel records from Shoppers Travel prevented them from challenging the testimony of witnesses Annie Farmer and Jane regarding their travel with Epstein. Furthermore, the lack of bank and credit card records from the 1990s and 2000s meant the defense could not contest the government's claims about a $30 million payment from Epstein to Ms. Maxwell or verify other key dates.
DOJ-OGR-00008955.jpg
This legal document discusses the significance of flight records in a trial, arguing that contemporaneous passenger manifests and travel records were crucial for verifying accusers' timelines. It highlights the inadequacy of the flight logs kept by David Rodgers, which were incomplete and used generic identifiers. The document also references testimony from Cimberly Espinosa and Annie Farmer regarding travel arrangements made by Epstein, including flights for accuser 'Jane' when she was 16 and a trip for Annie Farmer to New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00008952.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal filing (Document 600) in the case US v. Maxwell, filed on February 11, 2022. It outlines the government's theory that Epstein and Maxwell operated a single criminal conspiracy using a specific 'playbook' to groom vulnerable minors across multiple locations (NY, Palm Beach, NM, USVI). The text cites trial transcripts regarding four specific accusers (Jane, Annie, Carolyn, Kate) and describes the targeting of children from single-mother households.
DOJ-OGR-00008945.jpg
This legal document is a motion arguing for the convictions of Ms. Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four to be vacated. The defense contends that the jury was improperly influenced by evidence of conduct in New Mexico involving a person named 'Jane', which was not part of the original indictment. This created a 'constructive amendment' or a prejudicial 'variance' between the indictment and the proof at trial, warranting a new trial on these counts.
DOJ-OGR-00008943.jpg
This legal document analyzes a jury's deliberation, focusing on how flight logs kept by Epstein's pilot, Dave Rodgers, were used to corroborate testimony from a victim named Jane. The jury appears to have found no corroborating evidence for Ms. Maxwell's involvement in Jane's trips to New York, but did find evidence in the flight logs that Maxwell was a passenger on a trip with Jane to New Mexico. This distinction led the jury to focus its evaluation on Ms. Maxwell's involvement in the conduct that occurred in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00008942.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell's conviction on Count Four was likely improper. The argument centers on a note from the jury, which suggests they based the conviction on sexual abuse that victim 'Jane' experienced in New Mexico, facilitated by Maxwell. However, the charge required the intended sexual activity to be a violation of New York Penal Law, a condition the New Mexico events did not satisfy.
DOJ-OGR-00008940.jpg
This legal document argues that there is a substantial likelihood that Ms. Maxwell was improperly convicted on Mann Act counts. The defense contends the conviction may have been based on testimony about conduct in New Mexico, which does not violate New York law, thereby constituting a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment that broadened the charges beyond what was originally presented by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00008936.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, details the defense's request for an additional jury instruction concerning Mann Act counts, arguing against conviction based solely on New Mexico conduct. The Court declined this instruction, and the jury subsequently convicted Ms. Maxwell on Count Four, with charges also in Counts One and Three. The document also cites applicable law regarding constructive amendments, defining them and explaining their impact on a defendant's Grand Jury Clause rights.
DOJ-OGR-00008935.jpg
This legal document from a court case, filed on February 11, 2022, details arguments over jury instructions concerning whether an offense must be a violation of New York law, even if events occurred in New Mexico. It highlights a specific note from the deliberating jury asking for clarification on Count Four, questioning if defendant Ms. Maxwell could be convicted for aiding a victim's (Jane's) return flight if the criminal intent was tied to the initial flight to New Mexico. The court declined to provide clarifying instructions, referring the jury back to the original charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008931.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to vacate her convictions and grant a new trial. The argument is that the jury improperly convicted her on charges based on testimony about events in New Mexico, which was outside the scope of the original indictment premised on violations of New York law. The filing contends this constituted a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment, making the conviction invalid.
DOJ-OGR-00008930.jpg
This legal document is an Omnibus Memorandum filed on February 11, 2022, by Ghislaine Maxwell in support of her post-trial motions. The defense argues that her convictions on the Mann Act counts should be vacated due to a constructive amendment from the original indictment, asserting the government failed to properly prove a violation of New York law as required. The motion also seeks alternative relief, including a new trial, judgment on only one conspiracy count, or a complete dismissal of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00031300.jpg
This document is a snippet from the Albuquerque Tribune Online, compiled by Gilbert Gallegos, listing several $5,000 campaign contributions. The information is sourced from campaign-finance reports filed with the New Mexico Secretary of State. The listed contributors include HILLPAC, L&M Assets Management, Science Applications International Corp., and attorney Robert Rivera.
DOJ-OGR-00031278.jpg
This document, an excerpt from the Albuquerque Tribune Online, lists top donors who contributed at least $50,000 to Democratic Governor-elect Bill Richardson's campaign. Notable donors include Jeffrey E. Epstein and Cap II, each giving $50,000, as well as several political action committees and corporations contributing larger amounts. The document also provides background on Epstein, mentioning his ownership of J. Epstein & Co. and the Zorro Ranch in New Mexico.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity