| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Origin |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Resident |
1
|
1 |
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for specific jury instructions regarding the testimony of victims 'Kate', 'Annie', and 'Jane', specifically distinguishing between New York offenses and sexual contact in New Mexico. The discussion focuses on the legal age of consent in New Mexico (mentioned as 15 or 16) relative to Jane's age during her trips there.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a legal debate where Mr. Everdell requests an addition to the jury instructions concerning the testimony of witnesses Kate and Ms. Farmer. Mr. Rohrbach argues against this addition, claiming the existing instructions are sufficient and that adding more would confuse the jury.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell requests that the jury instructions be updated to explicitly state that individuals named Kate and Annie were over the age of consent under New York law, so their testimony cannot be considered evidence of illegal sexual activity. The Court is also noted as agreeing to change references from 'the defendant' to 'Ms. Maxwell'.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, is arguing a point of law to the judge regarding the jury instruction for 'dominant purpose' in a case about crossing state lines for criminal sexual conduct. He cites legal precedents, including the 'Sand' and 'Miller' cases, to support his position that the purpose need only be one of the dominant purposes, not the sole one.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal debate over jurisdiction and conspiracy charges. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony from witnesses Annie, Kate, and Carolyn regarding events in New Mexico, Arizona, or 'an island' does not satisfy the requirement to prove a violation of New York law. The Judge overrules the objection, stating that the defense is conflating substantive counts with conspiracy counts and that a direct violation of NY law is not required to establish the elements of the conspiracy count.
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. An attorney argues that a specific conspiracy charge is narrowly focused on a violation of New York law, with Jane as the sole victim. The attorney distinguishes this from separate conduct in Florida involving a person named Carolyn and clarifies that while witnesses Kate and Annie provided testimony, they are not victims under this particular charge.
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues about jury instructions, specifically that 'Count One' should refer solely to victim 'Jane' between 1994 and 2004. He further argues that conduct involving victims 'Kate' (due to age of consent in NY) and 'Annie' (conduct in New Mexico) did not constitute violations of the specific laws charged.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Healy. Healy identifies Ghislaine Maxwell in the courtroom, confirms Maxwell was their boss, and states they also reported to a person named Jeffrey. The witness describes Maxwell's role as overseeing properties and decorating, and their own past duties as running errands like dropping off documents around New York.
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Healy, filed on August 10, 2022. Healy testifies about their personal history, stating they were born and raised in New York and lived there until about 1999. The witness confirms they worked at 'J. Epstein and Company' around 1996, getting the job as a fill-in because their sister, Shannon, was already employed there.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Young. An unnamed questioner reads passages from another document for Young to confirm, describing a person named Jane's first trip to New York, her meeting with Epstein, and her former residence in a gated community in Florida called Bear Lakes. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, then interjects to bring up a matter related to an 'Annie Farmer issue'.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell). The conversation centers on the prior testimony of a witness named Jane, specifically her memory of a trip to New York around 1997 and whether that memory was influenced by her attorney, Mr. Rossmiller. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, also informs the court of their intent to call Special Agent Amanda Young as a witness.
This document is a page from a legal filing dated August 10, 2022, detailing a judge's rulings on objections to a court transcript. The rulings assess the consistency of a witness named Jane's testimony against her prior statements concerning the presence of Ms. Maxwell, a past hike, and an instance of abuse in New York. The judge sustains some objections and overrules others, providing brief justifications for the decisions.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony confirms that an individual referred to as 'Jane,' along with her mother and brothers, regularly used apartments in New York during the late 1990s and early 2000s. The questioning then shifts to the witness's observations of the relationship and interactions between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell while working in their office.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa confirms knowledge of two of Ghislaine's residences: a townhouse on 65th Street in New York and a property at 44 Kinnerton Street in London, which Espinosa states they visited three years prior. The witness also testifies that to their knowledge, Ghislaine never resided with Jeffrey Epstein.
This document is a transcript of testimony from a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa states they received a massage from Sophie Biddle, who was also a masseuse for Mr. Epstein. The witness confirms being inside Mr. Epstein's New York residence at 9 East 71st Street, where they met Ghislaine, and also testifies to having worked for and lived in Ghislaine's residences on the Upper East Side and later on 65th Street.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Espinosa - direct testimony). The witness describes the logistical preparations required before Jeffrey Epstein traveled to his various properties, specifically noting that fresh bread and butter from New York had to be flown in to stock the houses. The witness identifies Ghislaine Maxwell as the person responsible for supervising these logistics and confirms that they assisted her. The testimony concludes with the introduction of the name Emmy Taylor.
This document is page 47 of a court transcript featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa testifies about the properties owned by Jeffrey Epstein at the start of their employment (Zorro Ranch, 9 East 71st St, El Brillo) and subsequent acquisitions, specifically a Paris apartment and Little Saint James island. The witness notes that the island's name was changed to 'Little Saint Jeffs' and describes the preparation of the island as a 'humongous project' involving themselves and Ghislaine.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a Ms. Espinosa. She describes her current role as a senior executive assistant to a CEO and recounts her past employment history, specifically moving to New York around October 1996. Upon arriving, she was hired by J. Epstein & Co. as a legal assistant for the legal team, which included counsels Jeff Schantz and Darren Indyke.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. He contends that there is insufficient testimony to prove that his client, Ghislaine Maxwell, aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein by enticing a victim named 'Jane' to travel to New York. The discussion focuses on the specific legal requirements for conviction on the substantive count (Count Two) versus the conspiracy count.
This document is a court transcript of a legal argument asserting the defendant's guilt on two theories. The first is that the defendant personally exerted coercive control over a victim named Jane, leading to her sexual abuse. The second theory is that the defendant is also guilty of aiding and abetting Jeffrey Epstein by knowingly facilitating his abuse of Jane, being present on the plane and in the room in New York where the abuse occurred.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues against a defendant's motion to dismiss charges of enticement. Rohrbach asserts that the defendant, along with an individual named Epstein, manipulated a victim named Jane by building a relationship with her over several years, ultimately persuading her to travel to New York. The argument centers on the idea that playing on Jane's 'hopes and desires' fits the legal definition of enticement, justifying the charges.
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on August 10, 2022. A speaker, likely a defense attorney, argues that their client, Ghislaine Maxwell, did not illegally 'entice' a witness named Jane to travel. The argument asserts that arranging a return flight does not qualify as enticement, that Jane's travel was typically handled by Jeffrey Epstein's office, and that there is no testimony Maxwell encouraged, convinced, or even offered to arrange the travel in question.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) where a defense attorney argues that the testimony of a witness named 'Jane' is insufficient to prove Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement in enticing travel. The attorney summarizes Jane's testimony, noting that she traveled with Epstein and Maxwell, that Maxwell sometimes made arrangements, and specifically details an incident where Maxwell helped a 15-year-old Jane board a flight from New York to Palm Beach despite having no identification.
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney argues the legal definitions of "persuade," "induce," and "entice." Citing the case U.S. v. Broxmeyer and the Random House Dictionary, the speaker asserts these words imply causation, requiring an action by the defendant to bring about an effect. The attorney concludes by stating that the only evidence linking their client, Ms. Maxwell, to a trip taken by "Jane" to New York is Jane's own testimony.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring defense attorney Mr. Everdell moving for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a). Everdell argues that the government's evidence is insufficient to convict Ms. Maxwell, specifically addressing Counts One and Two (enticement and conspiracy) which rely on the testimony of a witness named 'Jane.' He asserts the government failed to prove Maxwell enticed Jane to travel to New York for illegal sex acts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity