Annie Farmer
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Young
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim grooming |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Social |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sigrid S. McCawley
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Victim perpetrator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial victim witness vs defendant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sigrid S. McCawley
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane's high school boyfriend
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Unrelated as per document |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Accuser accused |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
BSF
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Juror
|
Social media interaction |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Juror
|
Shared experience |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Criminal defendant victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Giuffre
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Unconfirmed association |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-15 | Legal filing | Submission of a statement in opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2020-07-14 | Bail hearing | The Initial Bail Hearing for Maxwell, where Judge Nathan heard oral arguments and received statem... | The Court | View |
| 2020-05-18 | N/A | Plaintiff Annie Farmer files opposing response to Ghislaine Maxwell's request for pre-motion conf... | New York, NY | View |
| 2020-03-27 | N/A | Filing of Answer and Affirmative Defenses | New York, NY | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The Government obtained the original Indictment against the defendant, related to the abuse of Ja... | N/A | View |
| 2019-09-03 | N/A | Court Hearing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2019-09-03 | N/A | Jeffrey Epstein's Bail Hearing | Courtroom | View |
| 2019-07-24 | Court testimony | Annie Farmer testified in court regarding Jeffrey Epstein's bail. | Courtroom | View |
| 2019-07-15 | Bail hearing | A bail hearing was held where two victims testified about their past sexual encounters with Mr. E... | Court | View |
| 2019-07-15 | Bail hearing | A bail hearing for Mr. Epstein where two victims, including Annie Farmer, testified about their p... | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Witness interview with the FBI. | Unknown | View |
| 2006-01-01 | N/A | Historical reference to potential prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein | Unknown | View |
| 2000-05-27 | Border crossing | A border crossing by Annie Farmer, where she passed through immigration. The date is associated w... | Alpha 263 | View |
| 2000-05-27 | Flight | A flight taken by Annie Farmer, as recorded in exhibit MA-1. | N/A | View |
| 1997-07-20 | N/A | Flight taken by Annie Farmer from Düsseldorf to Newark. | Düsseldorf to Newark | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Flight | Annie Farmer and her mother fly back together from Germany. | Germany | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Trip | Annie Farmer's trip to Thailand. | Thailand | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Trip | Annie Farmer's trip to New Mexico, which the speaker alleges happened in 1997 when she was 17. | New Mexico | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Flight | Annie Farmer's first trip out of the country and her return, via Germany. | Düsseldorf, Germany | View |
| 1996-04-01 | N/A | In-person meeting between Annie Farmer and Jeffrey Epstein. | New Mexico | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Meeting | Annie Farmer's sister introduced her to Epstein in New York when Annie was 16. | New York | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Grooming/abuse | Annie Farmer went to New Mexico where Maxwell groomed her for sexual abuse and massaged her breasts. | New Mexico | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Trip | Annie Farmer took a trip to New Mexico, for which Epstein bought her a commercial ticket. She cla... | New Mexico | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Inappropriate contact | Epstein held Annie Farmer's hand and rubbed her leg in a movie theater. | New York | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Recalled event | Annie Farmer incorrectly recalled an event happening on a specific date in April 1996. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013614.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a witness named Annie Farmer identifies the defendant, Maxwell, in the courtroom and testifies that Maxwell gave her a massage when she was 16 years old. At that time, Farmer was living in Arizona with her mother and sister, Ashley.
DOJ-OGR-00013546.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, addresses the judge. She discusses the issue of hearsay concerning testimony from Annie Farmer and statements made by her sister, Maria Farmer. Key points include an exception for why Annie traveled to New York, a claim by Maria about stolen photographs that were not found during a search of Mr. Epstein's home, and the fact that Maria is a practicing psychologist who has made public statements.
DOJ-OGR-00013545.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing procedural discussions in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Counsel, including Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, address the court regarding the placement of exhibits for the jury and the arrangements for the upcoming testimony of witness Annie Farmer. It is established that Farmer will not testify anonymously but a counsel screen will be used for her protection.
DOJ-OGR-00013509.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely a pilot) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The witness confirms a passenger named 'Emmy' flew on Epstein's planes but testifies that, according to his memory and flight logs, 'Annie Farmer' was never a passenger. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, then moves to show the jury documents marked LV4 and LV5, which are admitted under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00010747.jpg
This is a court order dated June 24, 2022, from Judge Alison J. Nathan in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order denies the Defendant's request to redact seven written witness statements, citing the presumption of public access and the fact that the witnesses themselves did not seek to file their statements under seal. The Court directs the Government to docket the statements without redactions and affirms that witnesses Annie Farmer, Kate, and Virginia Giuffre may present in-person statements at the future sentencing hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on June 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The judge denies the Defendant's request to redact statements related to victims Annie Farmer, Kate, and Giuffre, ruling that the documents are judicial records subject to public access under the First Amendment. The court argues that the Defendant's concerns do not outweigh the presumption of public access, noting that the Court (as decision-maker) can evaluate the submissions without prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00010744.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. The order addresses the rights of victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to be heard at sentencing. The court grants the request for three individuals, Annie Farmer, Kate, and Virginia Giuffre, to make oral statements at the sentencing, noting that the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, does not object to their inclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00010664.jpg
This document is a letter from Sigrid S. McCawley, counsel for Annie Farmer, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated June 22, 2022. It provides Annie Farmer's victim impact statement regarding the crimes committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and requests permission for Ms. Farmer to make an oral statement at Maxwell's sentencing. The statement details the profound and ongoing psychological and emotional impact of the abuse on Annie Farmer.
DOJ-OGR-00010596.jpg
This document is page 5 of a defense filing (dated June 24, 2022) related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the definition of 'victim' under the CVRA is narrower than sentencing guidelines and asserts that Maxwell's due process rights must be protected against new allegations in victim impact statements from accusers Annie Farmer and 'Kate' that were not cross-examined at trial. The document also attempts to impeach the credibility of Virginia Giuffre, noting she did not testify and alleging in a footnote that she failed to disclose prior abuse by a man named Ron Eppinger.
DOJ-OGR-00010593.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, discusses the victim impact statements of seven women in a case involving Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. It argues their standing as statutory victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), noting that only Annie Farmer and Virginia Giuffre were minors during the relevant period of the charged offenses. The document contends that allegations of abuse alone are insufficient and must be directly linked to the federal offense conduct, which requires the victim to have been a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00010578.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against leniency for the defendant, Maxwell, by highlighting her privileged background and a significant pattern of dishonesty. It provides two key examples of her dishonest conduct: lying under oath in a 2016 civil deposition related to a lawsuit by Virginia Roberts, and misleading Pretrial Services about her finances and home ownership in New Hampshire upon her arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00010443.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, details the calculation of a corrected sentencing range of 51-63 months under the 2003 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. It outlines the offense level calculations for three distinct groups of conduct related to individuals named Carolyn, "Jane," and Annie Farmer, all of which involved minor victims. The calculations result in adjusted offense levels for each group, contributing to the overall sentencing recommendation.
DOJ-OGR-00010442.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from June 15, 2022, argues against applying a sentencing enhancement for 'undue influence'. The text asserts that the evidence does not support the claim that a witness named Carolyn was unduly influenced by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. To support this, it cites Carolyn's own testimony that she actively sought out massage appointments, recruited other minors for money, and refused offers to travel to Epstein's island, indicating her actions were voluntary.
DOJ-OGR-00010438.jpg
This legal document, page 21 of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell should not receive an aggravating role enhancement because she did not supervise other criminal participants. It specifically refutes the idea that she supervised Sarah Kellen, presenting testimony from Cimberly Espinosa that Kellen was hired by Epstein to replace Maxwell's duties, not to work under her. The document also states that other employees, like pilots Larry Visoski and David Rodgers, had no knowledge of any criminal conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010437.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, argues that Ms. Maxwell should not receive an aggravating role sentencing enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1. The core argument is that there is no evidence she supervised any other criminal participant in the offenses involving victims like 'Jane' and Annie Farmer. In fact, the document asserts that the trial record shows Ms. Maxwell was directed and managed by Epstein, making her ineligible for the enhancement.
DOJ-OGR-00010373.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes two conspiracy counts against a defendant. Count Three (1994-2004) alleges violations of the Mann Act based on testimony from victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie Farmer. Count Five (2001-2004) alleges violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act based on evidence related to Carolyn and Virginia Roberts. The defendant contends that Count Five is a subset of Count Three, an argument with which the Court agrees.
DOJ-OGR-00010346.jpg
This legal document details a court's finding that Juror 50 is credible, despite inconsistencies in his jury selection questionnaire. The court analyzed a supportive comment the juror made on Twitter to Annie Farmer, concluding it did not contradict his testimony about not widely discussing his own sexual abuse. Ultimately, the court determined the juror's errors were not intentional deception and he would not have been dismissed for cause had he answered accurately.
DOJ-OGR-00010345.jpg
This legal document analyzes the motivations of Juror 50 for giving post-trial media interviews in which he disclosed his own past sexual abuse. Juror 50 explained he was inspired by the victims in the trial and believed not using his full name would limit the attention from his personal circle. The court concludes that his actions, including a social media interaction with Annie Farmer, do not suggest he intended to deceive when he completed his juror questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00010344.jpg
This legal document details the court's analysis of contradictions in Juror 50's statements and actions regarding his past sexual abuse. The Defendant argues that the juror's claim of reluctance to disclose his abuse is undermined by his post-trial media interviews and a social media comment to witness Annie Farmer. In response to the Court's questioning, Juror 50 explained that he did not believe his family or friends would find out about these public disclosures.
DOJ-OGR-00010286.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (Document 647) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The text argues that 'Count Five' (related to Florida/Carolyn) is multiplicitous because it is a subset of the broader 'Count Three,' citing the lack of independent conspiracy. It references testimony from victims Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer regarding sexual abuse at Epstein's properties in New Mexico, London, the US Virgin Islands, and Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00010284.jpg
This legal document argues that the government's charges related to sex trafficking constitute a single, decade-long conspiracy rather than separate offenses. The author points to the similarity in conduct between victims Carolyn (2000s) and Jane (1990s), the overlap of participants like Sarah Kellen, and the consistent location of the Palm Beach residence to support the claim of a single scheme involving Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The document contends that the government only separated the charges due to a legal technicality regarding the enactment date of a sex trafficking statute.
DOJ-OGR-00010258.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on March 11, 2022. It details the questioning of a former juror regarding their post-trial social media activity, specifically a Twitter interaction with witness Annie Farmer where the juror thanked Farmer for sharing her story. The juror admits to being a victim of abuse and discusses their limited use of Twitter.
DOJ-OGR-00010247.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that a juror's post-trial behavior contradicts his claim of wanting privacy regarding his own sexual abuse. Everdell cites the juror's public Facebook posts about serving on the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and his direct comments to victim Annie Farmer as evidence that he wanted to be known as a victim and a "champion of sexual abuse." The Court acknowledges the need to question the juror about these apparent contradictions.
DOJ-OGR-00010246.jpg
This is page 31 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022. Defense attorneys Sternheim and Everdell are arguing with the Judge regarding the scope of questioning for a juror who allegedly failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse. The defense is pushing to question the juror about his public statements to reporters and a specific post directed to victim Annie Farmer, while the Judge refuses to allow questions about internal jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009851.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing an article or transcript featuring interviews with a juror named David following the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. David explains to media outlets (MailOnline and The Independent) how the jury relied on corroborated testimony to establish a 'pattern' of grooming, specifically citing victims Kate, Jane, Annie Farmer, and Carolyn. He details specific grooming tactics used by Maxwell, such as acting like a teenager and normalizing nudity or massage, and dismisses the defense's expert witness on memory.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Annie Farmer | $0.00 | Payment for trip to Thailand and Vietnam | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Annie Farmer | $0.00 | Purchase of a travel ticket (implied flight) fo... | View |
| N/A | Received | Epstein Victim Co... | Annie Farmer | $0.00 | Claim/Application submitted to the Epstein Vict... | View |
Sharing of an interview with Juror 50
On Twitter, Annie Farmer shared an article that contained an interview with Juror 50.
Jury service appreciation
Annie Farmer posted a Tweet thanking the juror for their jury service.
Thanking a victim
A juror told Annie Farmer, a victim in the case, "Thanks for telling my story" after the trial.
Support for sharing her story
Juror 50 posted a comment on social media to Annie Farmer, a witness in the case, in which he “thanked her for sharing [her] story.”
Gratitude for juror's disclosure
Expressed gratitude for the juror who disclosed his trauma, as well as for other women who testified and other survivors.
No Subject
The document states that Juror No. 50 'liked' the tweet posted by annie farmer.
Response to annie farmer
The document states that Juror No. 50 tweeted directly to Ms. Farmer in response, but the content is not provided.
Gratitude for juror's disclosure
Annie Farmer expressed gratitude for the juror who disclosed his own trauma, for the other women who testified, and for other survivors.
No Subject
Thanking Annie Farmer for her bravery and stating her story was critical to the verdict.
Article sharing
Thanked Annie Farmer for sharing her story; commented on an article Farmer shared.
Travel to New York
Maria told Annie to come to New York.
Article sharing
Farmer shared an article containing an interview with Juror 50.
Telling my story
Thanks for telling my story.
Trip to New York
Maria told Annie that Epstein was interested in helping her with education and purchasing her ticket.
Investigation
Investigative interview
Unknown
Direct communication via Twitter.
Unknown
Thanked her for sharing her story.
Trip Funding
Annie told Mulligan that her trip to Thailand was paid for by Jeffrey Epstein.
Possession of boots
Agents asked Farmer if she still had the boots.
Unknown
Juror No. 50 used Twitter to communicate directly to Annie Farmer.
Twitter post
Referenced in defense memorandum.
Unknown
Mr. Everdell references a post the juror made to Annie Farmer.
Appreciation for travel
Farmer thanked Epstein for paying for her ticket upon arrival in New Mexico.
Trip to New Mexico
Mother told Annie that Maxwell would be in New Mexico with Epstein.
Sharing story
Thanking Annie Farmer for sharing her story and article on Twitter.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity