three accusers
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Accuser defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Accused accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Accused accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Accused accuser |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The government's case against Ms. Maxwell, which the document argues is based entirely on the tes... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged events took place over 25 years ago | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The government's case against Ms. Maxwell, which is alleged to be based entirely on the testimony... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Timeframe of alleged events/abuse mentioned by accusers. | Unknown | View |
| 1995-01-01 | N/A | Events that took place over 25 years ago | Unspecified | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001218.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's renewed motion for bail, filed on August 30, 2020. The defendant argues for release, claiming the government's case is weak, lacks documentary evidence, and relies almost solely on the testimony of three unidentified accusers. The Court disagrees with the defendant's assessment and reaffirms its earlier decision to deny bail, finding that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at future proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00001192.jpg
This page from a defense filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) argues that the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell relies entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of three accusers, specifically noting that Counts Two and Four rely solely on 'Minor Victim-1'. The defense asserts that the government only began issuing subpoenas regarding Maxwell after Jeffrey Epstein's death, suggesting the case was assembled 'after the fact'. A large block of text regarding specific government evidence is redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00001103.jpg
This document is the preliminary statement of a legal memorandum filed on December 14, 2020, supporting Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail. It outlines new information not present at her initial hearing, including details on family ties in the US, a financial report covering her and her spouse, extradition waivers for the UK and France, and arguments against flight risk. Maxwell asserts her innocence, claims the government's case relies on uncorroborated testimony from 25 years ago, and requests release to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002241.jpg
Page 9 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court rejects the Defendant's renewed motion for bail, maintaining that no conditions of release can assure her appearance in court, despite the Government not proving she poses a danger to the community. The text discusses the weight of evidence, with the defense arguing the case relies too heavily on the uncorroborated recollections of three unidentified accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00002212.jpg
This document is page 6 of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government has conceded it lacks significant contemporaneous documentary evidence against Maxwell and is relying almost exclusively on the 25-year-old recollections of three unidentified accusers. The document distinguishes the evidence against Maxwell from that against Jeffrey Epstein, noting that existing documentary evidence pertains to him.
DOJ-OGR-00002212(1).jpg
This document is page 6 of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government has conceded it lacks significant contemporaneous documentary evidence against Maxwell and is relying almost exclusively on the 25-year-old recollections of three unidentified accusers. The document distinguishes the evidence against Maxwell from that against Jeffrey Epstein, noting that existing documentary evidence pertains to him.
DOJ-OGR-00002925.jpg
This document is a legal letter dated April 15, 2021, from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim requests a continuance of the July 12th trial, arguing that a new superseding indictment significantly expands the scope of the case from a four-year period in the 1990s to an eleven-year period (1994-2004). The letter claims the government is responsible for the delay by filing late charges based on a witness known to them since the Florida investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00020109.jpg
This document is page 2 (filed page 6) of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the Court should grant bail because the government has conceded its case relies almost exclusively on the testimony of three unidentified witnesses regarding events from over 25 years ago, lacking the 'significant contemporaneous documentary evidence' previously promised. The defense asserts that existing documentary evidence pertains to Jeffrey Epstein rather than Maxwell, though specific government concessions on this point are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00020136.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a defendant's renewed motion for bail. The defendant argues the government's case is weak, lacking documentary evidence and relying almost entirely on the testimony of three unidentified accusers. The court, however, disagrees with the defendant's assessment and reaffirms its previous decision to deny bail, finding no conditions can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at future proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 148) dated February 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial is significantly impaired because the government has not disclosed the identities of the three accusers, forcing the defense to investigate blindly based on assumptions. The filing cites legal precedents (Strawberry, Bortnovsky, Cannone) to argue that the Court has the authority to compel this disclosure to prevent unfair surprise at trial, noting a previous request was denied in August 2020 as premature.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity