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-00014719.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about jury instructions. An attorney argues that the existing instructions are sufficient and that sending new, confusing ones would be a mistake. The judge ('THE COURT') then critiques the defense's newly proposed instruction, stating it addresses a count the jury didn't ask about and contains a legally incorrect paragraph concerning sexual activity involving a person named 'Jane' in states other than New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014709.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two lawyers (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) about a jury's confusion. The jury appears to be mistaking New Mexico law for New York law regarding Count Four. Despite Mr. Everdell's concerns about ongoing confusion, the judge decides to simply refer the jury back to the original charge, which Ms. Moe argues clearly specifies a New York statute.
DOJ-OGR-00014708.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, and the judge regarding jury confusion over 'Count Four'. The jury is questioning the relevance of flights to New Mexico for a charge that must be considered under New York law, and the counsel debate whether simply referring the jury to the existing instructions is sufficient to resolve the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00014706.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal debate between the Judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe regarding the interpretation of a jury note. The discussion focuses heavily on the grammatical placement of a comma in a question about liability for 'transportation of the return flight' versus a 'flight to New Mexico.'
DOJ-OGR-00014705.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge and Ms. Menninger. Ms. Menninger argues that for a conviction on a specific count, the jury does not need to find that a flight was specifically to New Mexico, as the indictment only requires that the flight's purpose was to engage in illegal sexual activity, regardless of the destination. The judge questions this position for clarity and ultimately agrees with her interpretation.
DOJ-OGR-00014702.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal discussion regarding jury deliberations, specifically concerning whether Ghislaine Maxwell arranged flights to or from New Mexico for a person named 'Jane' for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. Attorney Ms. Moe argues that a note from the jury is confusing and that the parties are guessing at the jury's hypothetical questions regarding Count Four.
DOJ-OGR-00014701.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding a jury note. The debate centers on whether Ghislaine Maxwell can be held criminally liable for arranging a return flight from New Mexico for a victim named 'Jane,' distinguishing the intent of the return flight from the initial flight to the location where sexual abuse allegedly occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00014699.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe argue before the judge regarding a question posed by the jury about 'Count Four,' specifically whether a return flight from New Mexico involving a victim named 'Jane' constitutes aiding in illegal sexual activity if the initial flight to New Mexico did not. The defense argues the return flight cannot be the sole basis for conviction, while the prosecution argues intent can be inferred.
DOJ-OGR-00014698.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the purpose of travel undertaken by a person named 'Jane'. The discussion centers on whether her flights to and from New Mexico, particularly a return trip where 'Mr. Epstein' was absent, were for the purpose of illicit sexual activity. An attorney, Ms. Moe, argues to the judge that a note for the jury regarding these flights is unclear and ambiguous.
DOJ-OGR-00014697.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding a note from the jury. The jury is asking if a defendant can be found guilty solely for aiding and abetting a return flight from New Mexico, considered separately from the initial flight to New Mexico. Mr. Everdell argues that the answer should be 'no' based on the court's instructions that the travel must have a 'significant or motivating purpose'.
DOJ-OGR-00014695.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Court and counsel regarding jury deliberation schedules, followed by the Judge reading a specific note from the jury. The note asks for legal clarification on 'Count Four,' specifically questioning if the defendant can be found guilty if she aided in 'Jane's return flight' but not the initial flight to New Mexico where sexual activity was intended to occur.
DOJ-OGR-00014622.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, details overt acts from an indictment related to conspiracy charges. It alleges that between 1994 and 2002, Maxwell, along with co-conspirator Epstein, engaged in sexual abuse and trafficking of minors identified as Jane, Annie, and Carolyn. The alleged acts occurred in New York, Florida, and New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00014551.jpg
This document is page 151 of a court transcript containing the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Menninger argues that Maxwell was not involved with the accuser 'Kate' in New York and that regarding 'Carolyn' and the Palm Beach property, mere presence or management duties do not constitute conspiracy or sex trafficking. The defense emphasizes the lack of physical evidence (message pads, phone records) linking Maxwell to orchestrating massages and notes that Sarah Kellen was present at the property.
DOJ-OGR-00014550.jpg
This document is a transcript of a closing argument by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues for Maxwell's acquittal on 'Count Six', which relates to an accuser named Carolyn, by attacking Carolyn's credibility and claiming she never traveled to New York as alleged. The attorney also distances Maxwell from any involvement in the travel of another individual, Annie Farmer, to undermine the government's broader conspiracy theory involving Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014547.jpg
This document is a page from a legal summation in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The speaker, likely Ms. Menninger, argues about the unreliability and malleability of memory, using Annie Farmer's incorrect recollection of an April 1996 date as an example and citing expert testimony from Dr. Loftus. The speaker also asserts that Dr. Loftus is not just a defense witness, as she has previously consulted for the Department of Justice, FBI, and Secret Service, the same agencies involved in the prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00011729.jpg
This document is a court transcript of an opening statement by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. She attempts to discredit a witness named Annie by highlighting inconsistencies in her behavior, such as not believing she was a victim until later and keeping boots allegedly bought by Epstein for 25 years. Sternheim also points to a $1.5 million settlement Annie received as a potential motive for her testimony, and argues the events in New Mexico are not relevant to the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00011728.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, containing part of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim. The statement describes a young woman named Annie who, at age 16, met Jeffrey Epstein in New York and later traveled to Santa Fe, where she met Ghislaine for the only time. The speaker asserts that nothing criminal occurred during the Santa Fe trip and that Annie was above the age of consent in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00002855.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 29, 2021. It details specific allegations of Maxwell facilitating the sexual abuse of three unnamed minors (Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4) for Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2002. The alleged incidents occurred in various locations, including New Mexico, London, and Florida, and form the basis for Count Two of the indictment, 'Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts'.
DOJ-OGR-00017378.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorney Ms. Comey questions a witness, Mr. Visoski, about a ranch property in Stanley, New Mexico, owned by Mr. Epstein. Mr. Visoski describes the layout of the property, including an entrance area called 'Ranch Central' with staff housing and an office, and a separate five-bedroom, motel-style building used for guests, pilots, and a chef.
DOJ-OGR-00017377.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Visoski by Ms. Comey. Visoski testifies about accompanying Mr. Epstein to his property in New Mexico, identified as 'Zorro Ranch,' approximately five or six times a year. Government Exhibit 328, a photo of the entrance driveway to the ranch, is introduced and admitted into evidence without objection from defense attorney Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00017376.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Visoski. Mr. Visoski identifies Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Kellen in two photographs (Government Exhibits 334 and 335) which are then admitted into evidence. He also testifies that he first visited Mr. Epstein's ranch in New Mexico in the mid-1990s, around the time it was purchased in approximately 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00005509.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues for the admissibility of evidence regarding minor victims' consent. It distinguishes the actual charges of "sexual activity" and "sex trafficking" from "sexual abuse," which is not charged. The document provides context by comparing the varying legal definitions of "minor" and ages of consent across different jurisdictions, including New York, Florida, the United Kingdom, France, and New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00002858.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 29, 2021. It details specific allegations, including Maxwell encouraging 'Minor Victim-3' to massage Epstein in London (1994-1995) and inviting 'Minor Victim-4' to travel from Florida with Epstein (2001-2002). The page formally lays out 'COUNT FOUR,' charging Maxwell with the transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00002718.jpg
This legal document, a "List of Particulars" filed on February 4, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, is a series of requests for the prosecution to provide specific details about allegations against Ms. Maxwell. The requests seek information such as dates, locations, and specific actions related to Ms. Maxwell's alleged involvement with Jeffrey Epstein in the grooming and sexual abuse of individuals identified as Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2. The document also requests clarification on alleged travel across state lines for the purpose of sexual encounters.
DOJ-OGR-00014485.jpg
This document is a page from the defense summation (closing argument) by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense argues that the testimonies of accusers 'Carolyn' and 'Jane' are unreliable because their stories changed over time to implicate Maxwell after pressure from lawyers and the FBI. Specifically, it notes that Carolyn's 2008 lawsuit against Epstein and Sarah Kellen never mentioned Maxwell, and alleges that Jane was coached to identify Maxwell as the woman with the 'foreign accent' present during the abuse.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity