| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Origin |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Resident |
1
|
1 |
This document is a transcript of a police interview dated October 11, 2005, where an unnamed individual details her relationship with an unnamed man. She describes being paid hundreds of dollars per visit, receiving gifts like a Dodge Neon and plane tickets, under the rule of no penetration. The relationship, which she terms as being a 'sex slave', escalated over months until he violated her rule by putting his fingers inside her.
A Palm Beach Police Department incident report detailing the execution of a search warrant at Jeffrey Epstein's property. Officers interviewed house manager Janusz Banasiak, interior designer Mark Zeff, architect Douglas Schoettle, and other staff, who generally described their relationships with Epstein as strictly professional and identified his assistants (Sara, Nada, Adrianna). Police also discovered and disconnected covert hidden cameras disguised as clocks in the garage and near Epstein's desk.
This document is a faxed printout of a New York Magazine article titled "The Fantasist" by Philip Weiss, published in December 2007, discussing Jeffrey Epstein's indictment for sex crimes. The document contains handwritten instructions to attorneys Lanna Belohlavek and Latosha Lowe to place the item in the Jeffrey Epstein file.
This legal document argues that the risks of COVID-19 to inmates in correctional facilities have significantly increased, citing a doubling of cases and a 73% increase in deaths in the last month. It highlights that the virus is now spreading in the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), where Ms. Maxwell was recently transferred by the Bureau of Prisons. The document uses prior court opinions and news reports to support the claim of heightened risk and the inevitability of community spread in such facilities.
This document is page 7 of a defense motion filed on July 10, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense argues that Maxwell is not a danger to the community (unlike Epstein), that COVID-19 poses a severe health risk in detention hindering her defense, and that she is not a flight risk due to her U.S. citizenship and lack of criminal record. It asserts she stayed in the U.S. and maintained contact with the government after Epstein's arrest rather than fleeing.
This legal document provides background on a sealed indictment returned on June 29, 2020, against a defendant, identified as Maxwell. The charges, including conspiracy and sex trafficking of minors, stem from an alleged scheme with Epstein between 1994 and 1997 to sexually abuse underage girls at his properties in New York, Florida, and New Mexico. The document details Maxwell's alleged role in identifying, grooming, and abusing the victims.
This document is a 'Notice of Defective Filing' from Case 21-58 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal) dated April 1, 2021. The court clerk notifies the filing party that their submission was defective because the pages, including 'T-1080 and Exhibits,' were not text-searchable. A deadline of April 5, 2021, is set to correct the issue to avoid the document being stricken or the appeal dismissed.
This document is Page 2 of a court order dated November 9, 2020, regarding Case 20-3061. The court denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to consolidate her appeal with 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' and dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The text largely focuses on legal precedents regarding the 'final judgment rule' and the strict limitations on interlocutory appeals in criminal cases.
This is page 2 of a court order from an appellate court dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denying her motion to consolidate. The document outlines the legal basis for the dismissal, citing the "final judgment rule" in criminal cases and the strict conditions required for collateral order appeals.
This legal document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The attorney argues for a supplemental jury instruction concerning the territorial limits of New York law, which the judge rejects. The judge then raises concerns about potential trial interruptions from a health 'variant' and the need for jurors to plan for extended deliberations.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between defense counsel Mr. Everdell and the presiding judge. Mr. Everdell is concerned the jury might convict his client, Ms. Maxwell, based on conduct that occurred solely in New Mexico for a charge under New York law and requests a supplemental instruction. The judge denies the request, stating the proposed instruction is incorrect and that the defense missed an earlier opportunity to limit the related testimony.
This legal document is a court transcript page where a judge explains their reasoning for rejecting a defense proposal regarding how to answer a jury's question about 'Count Four'. The judge found the proposal unhelpful and reiterated the need for the jury to consider the full legal instruction. The judge also formally places on the record their decision from the previous day to extend the jury's deliberation schedule by one hour.
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving legal arguments over jury instructions for 'Count Four' (a transportation count). Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim debate how to address a jury question concerning whether flights to New Mexico can be considered for a charge based on New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The defense (Sternheim) argues the jury is confused about jurisdiction.
This document is a page from a court transcript recording a discussion between the Court and Ms. Menninger regarding jury instructions and legal interpretations of a specific count. They clarify whether the prosecution must prove aid in transportation specifically to New Mexico, with Ms. Menninger arguing that the location is not specific and could be any place where illegal sexual activity was intended, such as New York.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Charge to the jury) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing specific overt acts committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines incidents from 1996 through 2004 involving three specific victims (referred to as Jane, Annie, and Carolyn), including interstate travel for sexual abuse, unsolicited sexual contact in New Mexico, and the recruitment of minors for paid sex acts at the Palm Beach residence.
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing jury instructions regarding overt acts in a conspiracy charge. It lists specific allegations against Maxwell involving minors named Jane, Annie, and Carolyn, describing events such as travel for sexual abuse and unsolicited massages in locations like New York, Florida, and New Mexico.
This document is page 201 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instructions No. 18 and 19 regarding Count Four, which charges the defendant with the transportation of an individual under the age of 17 to engage in illegal sexual activity under Title 18, U.S.C. Section 2423(a). The text outlines the legal elements the government must prove, including the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age and intent to engage in criminal sexual activity under New York law.
This document is page 198 of a court transcript (Document 767, filed Aug 10, 2022) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains the judge's instructions (Charge) to the jury regarding legal definitions of 'knowingly' and 'intentionally,' as well as specific instructions (No. 16 and 17) regarding Count Two: Enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text defines interstate commerce and outlines the government's burden of proof regarding Maxwell's intent to cause an individual to engage in criminal sexual activity under New York law.
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Charge) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines instruction No. 15 regarding Count Two, specifically the charge of enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text defines the legal elements the government must prove, including interstate travel and intent, specifically relating to a victim referred to as 'Jane' during the period of 1994 to 1997.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa testifies about their knowledge of Ghislaine's residences, confirming she had a townhouse on 65th Street in New York and another residence at 44 Kinnerton Street in London. The witness also states that, to their knowledge, Ghislaine never lived with Jeffrey Epstein.
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Espinosa, who was Ghislaine Maxwell's executive assistant. Espinosa testifies that she used a travel agency called Shoppers Travel to book commercial flights and also scheduled massages for Maxwell at professional spas like Bliss Spa and Elizabeth Arden in SoHo. She confirms that she also scheduled massages for Jeffrey Epstein on five to ten occasions and recalls the names of two masseuses, Lydia and Monica.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness describes the extensive logistical preparations for Jeffrey Epstein's travel, including having all his houses constantly prepared and flying in specific food items. Espinosa identifies Ghislaine as the person responsible for supervising these logistics and confirms that they assisted her in these tasks.
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa testifies about properties owned by Jeffrey Epstein, stating that when she began working for him, he owned Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, 9 East 71st Street in New York, and El Brillo in Florida. She also states that during her employment, Epstein acquired a Paris apartment and an island in St. Thomas, which was originally named Little Saint James but was later renamed Little Saint Jeffs.
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by context and LCGVMAX1 code). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that photographs sent by a witness ('Jane') to Ms. Espinosa, an employee who worked in Epstein's office daily, should be admitted as evidence to show 'Jane' maintained relationships with Epstein's circle after claiming to flee. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz counters that the evidence is irrelevant because the witness already acknowledged maintaining such relationships during direct examination.
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text details arguments regarding the 'enticement statute,' utilizing testimony from a victim identified as 'Jane' and an expert, Dr. Rocchio, to establish that the defendant exercised 'coercive control' and personally engaged in sexual abuse. It further argues an 'aiding and abetting' theory, stating the defendant knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of Jane by being present on the plane and in the room in New York.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity