Annie Farmer
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Sigrid S. McCawley
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Friend |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Maria Farmer
|
Friend |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Social media interaction |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Victim abuser |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Communication |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Acquaintance |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Sigrid McCawley
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
David Boies
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim perpetrator |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Victim perpetrator |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim accused |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Social media interaction |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Abuser victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Maria Farmer
|
Siblings |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Abuser victim |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Victim perpetrator |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror witness interaction |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer's sister
|
Family |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Accused of sexual abuse |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Annie Farmer meets Jeffrey Epstein at his home before going to a theater production. | Epstein's Home | View |
| N/A | N/A | Massage incident | New Mexico Ranch | View |
| N/A | N/A | Incident in a movie theater | New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 communicated with Annie Farmer. | View | |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged assault where Ghislaine Maxwell touched Annie Farmer's breasts during a massage. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trip to Thailand and Vietnam | Thailand and Vietnam | View |
| N/A | N/A | Interview with agents regarding evidence (boots) | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Annie Farmer traveled to Thailand. | Thailand | View |
| N/A | N/A | Mr. Mulligan and Annie Farmer began dating. | Unknown (High School contex... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Annie Farmer | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Running of TECS reports for three individuals. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Annie Farmer's prom (depicted in photo Exhibit 102). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual abuse in Epstein's residences | New Mexico, London, U.S. Vi... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Purchase of cowboy boots for Annie Farmer | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trip to Thailand and Vietnam funded by Epstein | Thailand, Vietnam | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged sexual assault where Maxwell touched Farmer's breasts during a massage. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror posted on social media about serving on the jury and communicated with witness Annie Farmer. | Twitter (Online) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Annie Farmer arrives at the New Mexico ranch. | New Mexico Ranch (Zorro Ranch) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Grooming of Annie Farmer | Unknown (incident involving... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Mr. Mulligan's Wedding | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Annie Farmer visits Manhattan townhouse; Epstein grooms her while watching a movie. | Manhattan townhouse, New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Annie Farmer sent to New Mexico ranch for an 'academically gifted' retreat. | Epstein's ranch in New Mexico | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 (Scotty David) changed his Twitter handle and deleted a tweet to Annie Farmer. | View | |
| N/A | N/A | Victims' trial testimony | Court | View |
| N/A | Crime | Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly sexually abused Annie Farmer as a child and procured other girls for ... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009823.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues against a defense motion claiming Juror 50 was biased. The Government asserts that Juror 50's post-trial statements and negative attitude toward the defendant reflect the evidence presented during the trial, not pre-existing bias. It cites legal precedents including *United States v. Stewart* to support the argument that jurors bring subjective lived experiences to deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009744.jpg
This document is page 52 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. It argues that 'Juror No. 50' provided false answers during voir dire regarding social media usage to hide biases and ensure selection, noting he later used Twitter to contact victim Annie Farmer and appeared in an ITV documentary. The text contrasts this behavior with Juror No. 55, whose falsehoods were exposed through follow-up questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00009741.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is a page from a motion arguing for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. The argument centers on the post-trial conduct of 'Juror No. 50,' who allegedly engaged in a paid publicity tour, gave interviews for a documentary, and communicated with journalist Annie Farmer, demonstrating bias. The document criticizes the government for publicly filing a letter (Docket No. 568) to stop the juror's tour, arguing this was an improper procedure that alerted the juror to scrutiny, whereas Ms. Maxwell's counsel would have objected and preferred the matter be handled under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00009734.jpg
This document is legal filing (Page 42 of 66) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, filed on March 11, 2022. It argues that Juror No. 50 demonstrated implied bias and lied during voir dire by concealing his history as a sexual abuse victim and his active use of social media (specifically Twitter) during the trial. The filing notes that the juror communicated directly with victim Annie Farmer via Twitter after the trial and framed the verdict as being 'for all the victims.'
DOJ-OGR-00009717.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022. It contains a screenshot of the Twitter profile for 'Scotty David' (Juror No. 50), showing tweets from Annie Farmer and Lucia Osborne-Crowley discussing the juror's disclosure of his own trauma during an exclusive interview. The text below the image notes that Juror No. 50 changed his handle to '@NycSsddd' and attempted to delete a tweet sent to Ms. Farmer shortly after sending it.
DOJ-OGR-00009715.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, concerning the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It presents evidence of social media activity, including tweets from journalist Lucia Osborne-Crowley about her interview with a juror named 'Scotty', and a responsive tweet from 'annie farmer'. The document highlights that 'Juror No. 50' (presumably Scotty) subsequently interacted with Farmer's tweet, suggesting this interaction is relevant to the legal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00009714.jpg
This document appears to be page 22 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated March 11, 2022. It details a transcript or account of an interview where 'Juror No. 50' is challenged regarding the accuracy of his jury questionnaire responses concerning sexual abuse victimization (specifically question 48). The text notes the juror's physical reaction (flushing red) and his verbal defense claiming honesty. It transitions to a section regarding the juror's social media activity involving Annie Farmer and journalist Ms. Osborne-Crawley.
DOJ-OGR-00009658.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated March 1, 2022, and addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. It consists of a series of questions directed at a juror from the trial, focusing on their reasons for speaking publicly after the verdict. The questions probe the juror's statements to the media, their social media posts revealing their role, and their perspective as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse serving on the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009591.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, argues that two criminal charges, Count Three and Count Five, are substantially different and not redundant. It distinguishes them based on different underlying statutes (including the Mann Act and Trafficking Victims Protection Act), differing ages of consent (17 in New York vs. 18), geographic locations (New York vs. Florida), and the specific victims involved, including Jane, Annie Farmer, and Virginia Roberts. The document cites flight records and testimony from pilot David Rodgers as evidence of Virginia Roberts traveling with the defendant and Epstein at age 17.
DOJ-OGR-00009584.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing from February 25, 2022, presents the prosecution's argument against the defendant's claim of a constructive amendment to their indictment. The prosecution asserts that the S2 Indictment for Mann Act offenses was consistent with the evidence presented and jury instructions, citing the D'Amelio case. A footnote further argues that even if one count was flawed, based on jury notes concerning Annie Farmer's testimony about abuse in New Mexico, it would not invalidate the other conspiracy counts, citing the Pfaff and Milstein cases.
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-00002818.jpg
This legal filing argues against a subpoena issued by the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) to BSF, claiming the requested documents are either procurable from the government or are items (boots and photographs) better produced at trial if relevant. The document specifically mentions photographs connecting the Defendant, Virginia Giuffre, and Prince Andrew at a London townhome, as well as items related to Annie and Maria Farmer.
DOJ-OGR-00020097.jpg
This document is a letter dated December 15, 2020, from Annie Farmer to Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York. In the statement, submitted via her attorney Sigrid S. McCawley, Farmer strongly opposes Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for bail, detailing her personal experience of being sexually abused by Maxwell as a child. Farmer characterizes Maxwell as a manipulative psychopath and a significant flight risk who lacks remorse for her role in procuring girls for Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002883.jpg
This legal document, dated March 22, 2021, is a submission by Sigrid S. McCawley arguing against a defendant's motion to subpoena evidence from a third party, BSF. The document contends that the requested materials—including communications, a Grand Jury subpoena, cowboy boots, and photographs involving individuals like Annie Farmer, Virginia Giuffre, and Jeffrey Epstein—are either obtainable from the government or not relevant enough to require pre-trial production. The author concludes that the defendant's motion should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00002877.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (BSF) to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated March 22, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. BSF objects to a subpoena issued by Maxwell's defense, arguing it is overly broad and lacks clarity on which victims require notice, while clarifying that the firm represents victims Annie Farmer (Minor Victim-2) and Virginia Giuffre. The firm states its intention to notify all Epstein victims it represents about the subpoena out of an abundance of caution.
DOJ-OGR-00014453.jpg
This document is a legal summation from a court case, outlining Ghislaine Maxwell's activities between 1995 and 2004. It details her role in recruiting, grooming, and exploiting several young women, including Kate, Jane, Annie Farmer, Virginia Roberts, and Carolyn, for Jeffrey Epstein. The text describes a timeline of abuse, financial transactions from Epstein to Maxwell totaling over $23 million, and the evolution of the abuse into a 'pyramid scheme' where victims were incentivized to recruit their friends.
DOJ-OGR-00014434.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Moe) summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutor recounts the testimonies of two victims, 'Jane' and Annie Farmer, to argue for Maxwell's guilt. The summary details how Jane was sexually exploited by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and how Epstein began grooming a 16-year-old Annie Farmer, establishing a pattern of predatory behavior.
DOJ-OGR-00014428.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation delivered by Ms. Moe (prosecution) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The speaker details two specific flights in May 1997 and April 1998 where a minor victim, 'Jane,' traveled with Epstein and Maxwell to New Mexico and New York. The speaker also rebuts the defense's argument that the 'Jane' listed in the flight logs was actually an adult personal assistant with the same first name, citing pilot and DMV testimony as proof.
DOJ-OGR-00014520.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for a defense team. Menninger argues against a previously established timeline concerning Annie Farmer, using flight logs and border patrol records to assert that Farmer's trips with Jeffrey and Ghislaine to New Mexico, and her subsequent trip to Thailand, occurred in 1997 when she was 17, not in 1996. The core of the argument is to discredit a narrative by highlighting discrepancies in dates and travel details.
DOJ-OGR-00014514.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense. The speaker attempts to discredit two individuals: an unnamed woman by questioning her claims of secret flights and a $5 million payment from the government, and Annie Farmer by highlighting a court instruction that her alleged encounter with Epstein and Maxwell was not illegal as charged, and by noting that she was introduced to Epstein by her sister, Maria, who worked for him.
DOJ-OGR-00014493.jpg
This document is a page from a defense attorney's (Ms. Menninger) summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney argues that the government failed to prove its case, specifically challenging the narrative that Maxwell targeted and recruited young women. The defense points to testimony indicating that other individuals, such as Virginia Roberts and Maria Farmer, were responsible for introducing victims like Carolyn and Annie Farmer to Jeffrey Epstein, not Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00011534.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 22, 2022, details a judge's ruling on objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge overrules objections regarding characterizations of the offense and Maxwell's responsibility for sexualized massages, citing trial evidence that contradicts her claims. The ruling concludes that evidence established Ms. Maxwell's recruitment of a person named Virginia, which initiated a broader recruitment scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00002816.jpg
This legal document, dated March 22, 2021, is a filing in a criminal case arguing against the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) discovery requests. The filing contends that requests for communications about co-conspirator Jean Luc Brunel, fee agreements with victims Annie and Maria Farmer, Annie Farmer's complete teenage journal, and materials from the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program are irrelevant and improper 'fishing expeditions' for impeachment material. The document cites case law to assert that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate the relevance and admissibility of the requested evidence.
| 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 |
Trip to New York
Maria told Annie that Epstein was interested in helping her with education and purchasing her ticket.
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.
Unknown
Direct communication via Twitter.
Investigation
Investigative interview
Unknown
Juror No. 50 used Twitter to communicate directly to Annie Farmer.
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.
Possession of boots
Agents asked Farmer if she still had the boots.
Sharing story
Thanking Annie Farmer for sharing her story and article on Twitter.
Social meeting
Epstein invited them into his home, served champagne, talked, and asked about her plans.
Public statements
Witness questioned about telling the truth during public interviews.
Trip Funding
Annie told Mulligan that her trip to Thailand was paid for by Jeffrey Epstein.
Unknown
Thanked her for sharing her story.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity