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-00013704.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness A. Farmer) filed on August 10, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The witness confirms speaking to Jeffrey Epstein on the phone regarding a trip to Thailand and admits speaking to him between her trips to New York and New Mexico. The defense attorney also questions the witness about discussions with her sister and asks if she ever spoke to Ghislaine Maxwell on the phone.
DOJ-OGR-00013703.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Farmer. The questioning focuses on a trip Farmer took to New Mexico, establishing that there is no journal, document, or any other form of record to confirm the details of the trip, including its date, purpose, participants, or what occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00013702.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Farmer. The questioning establishes that the government possesses only photocopied pages of a journal, not the physical object, and confirms the journal contains no entries about a trip the witness took to New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00013700.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of A. Farmer (Annie Farmer) during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense attorney questions Farmer to establish that she never mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell in any of her journals, including those written in Thailand and during her senior year, even after the alleged 'New Mexico event' occurred. The page also includes procedural dialogue regarding the display of Exhibit 604.
DOJ-OGR-00013699.jpg
This document is page 108 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer) regarding a journal entry she wrote in January 1996. The questioning focuses on how hindsight affects her perception of events that occurred in New Mexico and New York, specifically referencing a 'movie theater incident' involving an unnamed male ('him').
DOJ-OGR-00013681.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named A. Farmer. The questioning focuses on a meeting she had with the FBI and prosecutors in September 2019, specifically probing how she used a personal journal to refresh her memory about past events like a 'movie theater incident' and trips to New Mexico and New York before speaking with them.
DOJ-OGR-00013655.jpg
This court transcript details the testimony of a witness, A. Farmer, regarding her relationship with Maxwell and Epstein. Farmer describes feeling conflicted, being grateful for a trip they funded but also deeply disturbed by an uncomfortable experience with them in New Mexico, which made her want to avoid them permanently. She also testifies that the first person she told about the uncomfortable incident, without giving details, was her mother.
DOJ-OGR-00013652.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named A. Farmer. The witness describes flying home commercially to Phoenix, Arizona, and explains she did not write about her trip to New Mexico in her journal because she wanted to forget what happened there. She also confirms keeping boots that were purchased for her by Maxwell and Epstein during that trip, which were later packed away when her mother moved.
DOJ-OGR-00013651.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony from a witness identified as 'A. Farmer'. Farmer recounts her last day at a ranch in New Mexico with Epstein and Maxwell, describing a feeling of disorientation as their interest in her seemed different from the academic support she expected. She details a final conversation where she tried to discuss her studies with Maxwell, who appeared completely disinterested, before saying goodbye to both of them and leaving.
DOJ-OGR-00013649.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the direct examination of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Farmer describes two incidents at Epstein's ranch in New Mexico: a massage where Maxwell was present and Farmer felt fearful that Epstein was watching, and a morning incident where Epstein entered her room, climbed into her bed, and pressed his body against her ('cuddled') without her consent. She testifies that she did not object verbally because she felt isolated on the ranch with 'these two' (Epstein and Maxwell).
DOJ-OGR-00013646.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of witness A. Farmer. The testimony details an incident at a movie theater in New Mexico where Epstein's behavior was described as 'blatant,' followed by an incident at 'the ranch' where Ghislaine Maxwell instructed the witness on how to give Epstein a foot massage while he was barefoot.
DOJ-OGR-00013645.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of A. Farmer's direct examination, filed on August 10, 2022. The witness recounts going to a movie theater in New Mexico with Epstein and Maxwell to see 'Primal Fear', describing odd, playful behavior between Epstein and Maxwell. Farmer testifies that throughout the movie, Epstein inappropriately touched her hand, foot, and arm in a 'blatant' manner, which she contrasts with his more concealed behavior in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00013637.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features a dialogue between the Judge ('The Court') and attorney Ms. Moe regarding the direct examination of witness 'A. Farmer' (likely Annie Farmer). The Judge sustains a hearsay objection, instructing that facts regarding presence in New Mexico should be established when Maria Farmer testifies later, rather than through the current witness via hearsay.
DOJ-OGR-00013636.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument over the admissibility of hearsay testimony during the direct examination of witness A. Farmer. Attorneys debate with the judge how to question the witness about why she was willing to see Jeffrey Epstein again, despite her discomfort, focusing on a conversation with her mother about Maxwell's presence. The discussion revolves around whether this testimony is offered for the truth of the matter asserted or to explain the witness's state of mind.
DOJ-OGR-00013632.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of witness Annie Farmer. Farmer testifies that she spoke to Jeffrey Epstein by phone 2-3 times after a trip to New York and subsequently met him in person in New Mexico in April 1996. The prosecution introduces Government Exhibit 102, a photo of Farmer getting ready for prom, to establish her physical appearance during the spring of 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00013513.jpg
This document is a transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on establishing a timeline for Mr. Epstein's living arrangements in the mid-1990s, specifically his use of a rental property in Palm Beach around 1994-1995 during renovations on his El Brillo Way home, and his purchase of a residence in New Mexico during the same period.
DOJ-OGR-00013409.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It details a discussion between the Judge, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding a specific jury instruction for a witness named Rodgers. The Judge agrees to instruct the jury that alleged physical contact between the witness, Epstein, and Maxwell in New Mexico was not 'illegal sexual activity,' and the parties agree to discuss a separate 'Rule 412' issue at sidebar.
DOJ-OGR-00013408.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the afternoon session of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests edits to a limiting instruction for the jury regarding an upcoming witness, specifically changing the phrase 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact' regarding interactions with Jeffrey Epstein in New Mexico. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense confer and agree on the language before the judge approves it.
DOJ-OGR-00010405.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing, likely from the prosecution, arguing against a Defendant's claim of prejudice due to a delay in prosecution. The prosecution asserts that the Defendant has failed to meet the high legal standard for proving prejudice, citing case law. The Defendant's claims are based on the loss of documentary evidence (flight, financial, phone, and property records related to Epstein) and the deaths of four potential witnesses (architects Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, and property manager Sally Markham).
DOJ-OGR-00010403.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion denying a defendant's post-trial motions. The court rejects the defendant's argument that a witness's (Jane's) testimony caused "ultimate prejudice" leading to improper convictions on Mann Act counts. The court also denies the defendant's claim of prejudicial pre-indictment delay, stating that the defendant failed to meet the stringent two-part legal test required to prove such a claim.
DOJ-OGR-00010400.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a response from the prosecution, arguing that the court's jury instructions were proper. It states the court correctly instructed the jury to consider only New York law as the predicate offense for the Mann Act counts and was right to reject the defendant's requests for additional limiting instructions regarding testimony about events in New Mexico and varying ages of consent. The filing asserts that the defendant's claim of potential jury confusion is speculative and implausible.
DOJ-OGR-00010399.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, likely a response or motion, dated April 29, 2022. It defends the Court's decisions regarding jury instructions against objections from the Defendant (Maxwell). The Court rejected the Defendant's requests to limit the charges to specific travel routes (e.g., from Florida to New York) and to instruct the jury on the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Florida, arguing these requests were unnecessary, inaccurate, and would confuse the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00010396.jpg
This document page is from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated April 29, 2022, concerning the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses a dispute over the interpretation of a jury note regarding 'Count Four,' specifically whether the jury was considering conduct in New Mexico versus New York state law. The text details arguments about a missing comma in the note and the Court's instruction that New York law was the governing statute, even if New Mexico events were relevant to intent.
DOJ-OGR-00010394.jpg
This legal document is part of a court filing arguing that the government's summation during a trial did not constructively amend the indictment. The prosecution consistently maintained that the defendant and an associate, Epstein, transported underage girls like "Jane" to New York with the intent for them to be sexually abused there. The defense counters that a jury note suggests the conviction was based on intent for activity in New Mexico, not New York, and that the court erred by not providing a supplemental instruction to clarify this point.
DOJ-OGR-00010393.jpg
This page details the Government's evidence regarding the Defendant (Maxwell) and Epstein's criminal scheme, focusing on the testimony of a victim named Jane. It describes how Jane was groomed and trafficked across state lines, including trips to New York, Florida, and New Mexico, for sexual activity with Epstein, facilitated by the Defendant.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity