Virginia Giuffre
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Bradley J. Edwards
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim abuser |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Sigrid S. McCawley
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Paul Cassell
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Trafficker victim |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Abuser victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Emmy
|
Friend |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Senator George Mitchell
|
Alleged abuse |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Recruiter victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Sigrid S. McCawley
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ghislaine Maxwell
|
Victim recruiter |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ghislaine Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Prince Andrew
|
Accused accuser |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Victim defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Accuser accused |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Accused accuser |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abusive exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
T.J.
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | 23 flights on Epstein’s private jet involving Ghislaine Maxwell and a teenaged Ms. Giuffre | Epstein's private jet | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual Abuse | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Recruitment of Virginia as a teenager to travel with Maxwell and Epstein. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Litigation filed against Ms. Maxwell regarding defamation/lying about the victim's story. | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual trafficking and abuse of Giuffre while she was a minor. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Testimony | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Recruitment and initial abuse of Virginia Giuffre. | Mar-a-Lago, Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defamation action dismissed | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Photographs taken of Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew, and the Defendant | Defendant’s London townhome | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dinner and Dancing at Tramp Nightclub | London (Restaurant and Tram... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Taking of the Photograph | Ghislaine's Townhouse (upst... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual Encounter / Bath | Ghislaine's Townhouse (Bath... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Virginia Giuffre met Ghislaine Maxwell at age 15 | Palm Beach, Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | First sexual activity with Epstein | Epstein's home (Palm Beach) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trip to New York City | New York City | View |
| N/A | N/A | Edwards and Cassell request to add Virginia Giuffre (Jane Doe No. 3) to the case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged sighting of Bill Clinton on Epstein's Island | United States Virgin Islands | View |
| N/A | N/A | Aftermath of massage/sexual encounter; Jeffrey asks to be dried off; payment is made downstairs. | Epstein Residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Car ride to work; Narrator lies to father about well-being. | Car / Mar-A-Lago Parking Lot | View |
| N/A | N/A | Return to Epstein's house; admitted by Juan; meets Emmy in kitchen. | Epstein Residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Giuffre v. Maxwell unseal proceedings | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged trafficking of Virginia Giuffre by Jeffrey Epstein to Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Ghislaine Maxwell spotted Virginia Giuffre at the Mar-a-Lago Hotel and procured her for Jeffrey E... | Mar-a-Lago Hotel, Florida | View |
| N/A | Abuse | Virginia Giuffre was abused by Ghislaine Maxwell from age 16 to 19. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Parties in the civil defamation case signed a confidential settlement agreement after about two y... | Unknown | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002414.jpg
This document is a Table of Exhibits from a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists several exhibits, most of which are redacted, but identifies two from a separate civil case (15-cv-7433): a 'Proposed Protective Order' involving Virginia Giuffre and a hearing transcript from January 19, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00002354.jpg
This legal document, part of the criminal case against Maxwell, argues that the government's prosecution is based on tainted evidence. The defense claims the government made false representations to circumvent a civil Protective Order from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' defamation case, and therefore the perjury charges stemming from Maxwell's depositions in that case should be suppressed. The document provides factual background on the civil case, where Virginia Giuffre alleged Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were involved in a scheme to sexually abuse and traffic her.
DOJ-OGR-00002354(3).jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Motion to Suppress) from February 4, 2021, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government made untrue representations regarding a redacted source who was instrumental in the prosecution and provided information before the investigation began. The text asserts that Maxwell would not have agreed to civil depositions in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case without the Protective Order, and argues the court should suppress the fruits of the government's misrepresentation, specifically the perjury counts arising from those depositions.
DOJ-OGR-00002354(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing in the criminal case against Maxwell, argues that the government's prosecution is fundamentally flawed. The defense claims the government made untrue representations to circumvent a civil Protective Order from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' defamation case, and improperly used Maxwell's deposition transcripts from that case to bring perjury charges. The document requests that the Court suppress this evidence or grant a hearing to investigate the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00002292(1).jpg
This legal filing (Page 14 of a defense motion) argues against joining 'Perjury Counts' with 'Mann Act Counts' in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense asserts that joining the charges would cause prejudice by introducing uncharged allegations from 1999-2002 involving Virginia Giuffre. The document emphasizes that a previous Palm Beach Police investigation interviewed over 30 victims who did not implicate Maxwell, and notes that the 2019 indictment charged Epstein alone.
DOJ-OGR-00002290.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on January 25, 2021. The defense argues that Perjury Counts should not be joined with Mann Act Counts because the alleged false statements occurred during 2016 civil depositions regarding a defamation suit (involving Virginia Giuffre) and were not made to the FBI or a grand jury to thwart an existing investigation. The text references a purported conspiracy between Maxwell and Epstein from 1999-2002.
DOJ-OGR-00002078.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cv-00330-AJN) dated December 14, 2020. It displays an exhibit titled 'Bounty On Ms. Maxwell,' which consists of a screenshot from The Sun newspaper dated November 19, 2019. The screenshot details a £10,000 reward offered by the newspaper for information regarding Ghislaine Maxwell and includes a well-known photograph of Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre, and Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00022053.jpg
This document, a printout of a news article dated March 31, 2020, discusses the circumstances surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death in the Manhattan Correctional Center, including a DOJ investigation. It details the unsealing of court records from a lawsuit by accuser Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, which contained allegations against several high-profile individuals. The article also revisits the controversial 2008 'sweetheart' plea deal Epstein received from former U.S. attorney Alex Acosta in Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00019595.jpg
This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 28, 2020, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 20-3061). The text argues that a district court's refusal to modify a protective order is immediately appealable under the 'collateral order doctrine.' The filing contends that the appeal is necessary to share 'critical new information' with Judge Preska before deposition materials in the civil case *Giuffre v. Maxwell* are unsealed, arguing that post-judgment review would be moot.
DOJ-OGR-00019566.jpg
A heavily redacted legal filing from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 17, 2020. The document discusses procedural history, including government applications in 2019, Maxwell's arrest in July 2020, and allegations in the superseding indictment regarding perjury and assisting Jeffrey Epstein. A footnote details the timeline of discovery materials received by the defense in early August 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019436.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The text argues that Judge Preska erred by ignoring Ghislaine Maxwell's 'reliance argument.' It states that Maxwell did not plead the Fifth Amendment during her depositions because she relied on a civil protective order and the *Martindell* precedent, which protects witness testimony from being used by the Government for criminal investigations or perjury charges.
DOJ-OGR-00019433.jpg
This document is page 29 (labeled Page 34 of 58 in the header) of a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the government is acting inconsistently by intervening to stay proceedings in the civil case 'Doe v. Indyke' to protect the criminal prosecution's integrity, while failing to do the same in 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' regarding unsealing deposition materials. The text highlights that Jane Doe alleges abuse by both Epstein and Maxwell when she was a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00019430.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is being treated unfairly because she is barred from sharing information sealed under a criminal protective order with judicial officers in her civil unsealing proceedings (presided over by Judge Preska). The brief asserts that the district court erred and abused its discretion by declining to modify the protective order under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1).
DOJ-OGR-00019423.jpg
This document is page 24 (labeled 19 in the brief) of a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, related to Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It argues that Maxwell must be allowed to share specific information with Judge Preska to properly decide on unsealing deposition materials and a motion to stay, invoking *Martindell* protections and the Fifth Amendment. The text criticizes the government for attempting to keep relevant information secret from a 'co-equal' judge.
DOJ-OGR-00019406.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, arguing procedural impropriety regarding how the government obtained Ghislaine Maxwell's confidential civil deposition transcripts. It details that a protective order in 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' specifically excluded language allowing sharing information with law enforcement, yet the government somehow obtained these sealed transcripts to indict Maxwell for perjury. The text questions the legality of the government's acquisition of these documents.
DOJ-OGR-00019383.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing from September 2020, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempts to consolidate a civil appeal with issues related to her criminal case. The text argues that Maxwell is prematurely trying to challenge the Government's evidence-gathering methods (subpoenas) in the appellate court before Judge Nathan has had the opportunity to rule on them in the District Court criminal trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019323.jpg
A letter to Judge Loretta A. Preska from Laura A. Menninger regarding procedural requests for the unsealing of documents in the case involving Ms. Maxwell. The letter proposes amendments to the unsealing protocol to prevent errors, requests a 7-day window for appeals to the Second Circuit, and suggests a specific list of five docket entries for the next round of review.
DOJ-OGR-00019295.jpg
This document is page 8 (filed as Page 9 of 15 in Document 17) of a legal filing dated September 10, 2020. It argues for the consolidation of two appeals involving Ghislaine Maxwell: one regarding the unsealing of deposition material in her civil case (Judge Preska) and another regarding a protective order in her criminal case (Judge Nathan). The text asserts that consolidation is required for efficiency and fairness.
DOJ-OGR-00017159.jpg
This document is a page from the defense summation (closing argument) by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (referenced as the 'Oxford-educated, proper English woman'), filed on August 10, 2022. Menninger attempts to discredit the prosecution's 'culture of silence' theory by noting that household manager Juan Alessi threw away the 'mysterious household manual' and that no other staff testified to using it. The defense also argues that pilot Larry Visoski's nondisclosure agreement was standard practice for wealthy individuals to protect the privacy of famous passengers like Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and John Glenn, rather than to conceal illicit sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00019690.jpg
This document is page 3 of a Second Circuit Court of Appeals order dated November 9, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. The court dismisses Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order due to lack of jurisdiction, denies her petition for a writ of mandamus, and denies her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case *Guiffre v. Maxwell*. The court cites various precedents to establish that the protective order does not fall under the 'collateral order exception' and that Maxwell failed to prove exceptional circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00010753.jpg
This document is a letter dated June 27, 2022, from attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. McCawley explains that her client, victim Virginia Giuffre, cannot physically attend a court hearing due to a medical issue and requests permission to read Giuffre's statement on her behalf. A handwritten note on the document, signed by Judge Nathan, grants this request, ordering that counsel will be permitted to read a shortened version of the statement.
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-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-00010670.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated June 22, 2022, from attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Nathan regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter submits the victim impact statement of Virginia Giuffre, who details being trafficked and abused by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein from the age of 16. Giuffre's statement directly blames Maxwell for spotting her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 and introducing her to Epstein, thereby 'opening the door to hell'.
DOJ-OGR-00010665.jpg
This document is a personal statement from a legal filing detailing the long-term psychological trauma, guilt, and shame experienced by a victim of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. The author describes specific triggering events, such as seeing photos of Maxwell with Prince Andrew, and discusses the devastating impact the abuse had on their sister, Maria, and their entire family.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Virginia Giuffre | $0.00 | Payment for the trip and 'showing his friend, t... | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Virginia Giuffre | $0.00 | Paid extremely well, money used for pills and a... | View |
| 2025-11-13 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Virginia Giuffre | $0.00 | Jeffrey stopped paying the narrator's 'expensiv... | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Virginia Giuffre | $30,000,000.00 | Plaintiff's alleged request for damages in the ... | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Virginia Giuffre | $5,000,000.00 | Plaintiff's alleged claim for lost wages. | View |
| 2015-09-21 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Virginia Giuffre | $75,000.00 | Jurisdictional requirement for damages requeste... | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Received | Media Sources | Virginia Giuffre | $500,000.00 | Defense counsel alleges plaintiff admitted to b... | View |
Summons
Request to meet them in Jeffrey's study.
Employment
Ghislaine tells narrator she has potential as a massage therapist and asks to see her again the next day.
Introduction
Emmy introduces herself as Ghislaine's PA; Narrator introduces herself as 'Jenna'.
Cancellation
Canceling the meeting because Jeffrey demanded a massage.
Sexual crimes committed against her
Contains highly sensitive information about experiences as a minor.
Recollection of Bill Clinton
Stated recollection of witnessing Bill Clinton on Epstein's island.
Invitation to Epstein's mansion
Maxwell asked that Giuffre come with her to Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion for the purposes of teaching her how to perform 'massages'.
Meeting at airport
Arranging a pickup/meeting.
Dismissal
I'll call you next time I'm in town
Instruction
Whispered that the man she danced with was a prince.
Instruction
Told her to go to 'Rick's' room for a massage and come back to his room after.
Victim impact statement
A statement written by Virginia Giuffre and read by her counsel in court, directly addressing Ghislaine Maxwell. It accuses Maxwell of procuring her for Jeffrey Epstein at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 and participating in her sexual, physical, and emotional abuse.
Criminal Investigation
Judge rules plaintiff's own statements to law enforcement must be submitted in camera.
Unknown
Defense claims plaintiff produced only two emails despite 200 search terms; Plaintiff claims full compliance.
Sexual contact allegations
Dershowitz claims this conversation is alleged to have happened secretly, but denies its truth.
Interview regarding Epstein and Maxwell
Giuffre provided truthful and accurate information to the FBI about Epstein and Maxwell’s sexual abuse.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity