| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Origin |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Resident |
1
|
1 |
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The testimony establishes Rodgers' employment history starting in 1991 and tracks the employer's (contextually Jeffrey Epstein) movements between New York residences, specifically a property on 69th Street and the move to the 9 East 71st Street townhouse in 1996.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The testimony establishes that when Epstein first bought a specific property (implied to be the New Mexico ranch), the main house was not built, and Epstein stayed in a trailer while the witness stayed in a bunkhouse at 'Ranch Central.' The questioning then pivots to discuss where Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell lived in New York starting in 1990.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers confirms sending flight manifests, which were separate from the flight logbook and also held by Larry Visoski, to Epstein's New York office on a monthly basis. The witness explicitly denies sending these same manifests to Ghislaine.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers testifies about the process of scheduling flights during the 1990s, stating that while they occasionally spoke directly with Mr. Epstein or Ghislaine, the primary point of contact was typically Epstein's secretary in New York.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Ms. Hesse testifies that she knew women came to a residence to give massages, even when Maxwell was absent, and that she took messages for them. She also confirms knowing about Maxwell's home in New York but denies any knowledge of a residence in Miami.
This document is a page from the court testimony of a witness named Shawn (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The testimony describes an incident where an individual named Carolyn received a package via FedEx in West Palm Beach containing lingerie and a movie, sent from New York. The witness also confirms visiting Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach house with Carolyn, Virginia, Tony, and two other unidentified individuals.
This legal document, filed on June 29, 2022, argues for the immediate unsealing of a defendant's motion for a new trial and related documents, such as juror questionnaires. The argument is based on the First Amendment right of public access to court proceedings, which is asserted to be particularly strong when allegations of juror misconduct are involved. The document contends that the public interest in transparency is significant, especially in a high-profile case, and that no sufficient justification for sealing the documents has been provided.
This legal document is a victim's statement detailing her experience with Epstein and Maxwell. The narrator recounts being offered a job, which she declined, leading to anger from Maxwell. Later, Maxwell re-established contact, manipulated the narrator into a trip to Florida that cost her her job, and then began a three-year period of trafficking, rape, and assault in New York and Florida.
This document is a page from a victim impact statement filed in June 2022 for the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The survivor describes the trauma of attending the trial in New York, expresses frustration that high-profile "enablers" (politicians and wealthy friends) have not been exposed, and characterizes Maxwell as the "manager" of a massive trafficking conspiracy who lacks human decency.
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 675) from June 2022 arguing for the importance of allowing victims to speak at Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing. It quotes Victim Impact Statements from two survivors, 'Sarah' (from England) and 'Elizabeth' (from Philadelphia), who describe the therapeutic value of the trial and the validation of their trauma after decades of silence. The document asserts that public victim statements serve the broader interest of building confidence in the justice system regarding the Maxwell conspiracy.
This document is page 10 of a legal filing from June 25, 2022, related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the court has broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to hear from individuals during sentencing, even if they do not strictly meet the definition of a 'victim' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It cites various legal precedents to support the admission of statements from 'affected individuals,' specifically mentioning 'Sarah' at the very end of the page.
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that federal courts have extremely broad and largely unlimited authority to consider information about a defendant during sentencing. It cites legal precedents and the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 3661, which states 'no limitation' shall be placed on such information. The document specifically mentions that crucial information about an individual named Maxwell's 'background, character, and conduct' was possessed by two other individuals, Sarah and Elizabeth.
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that two of Ghislaine Maxwell's victims, Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein, should be permitted to give oral victim impact statements at her upcoming sentencing. It provides factual background on the sex trafficking conspiracy Maxwell and her coconspirator, Jeffrey Epstein, ran for over a decade. The document details how they targeted young women, like Ransome and Stein, who came to New York for the fashion industry, by preying on their vulnerabilities and promising career advancement in exchange for sexual favors.
This document is a victim impact statement from Sarah Ransome, filed for the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. Ransome recounts being recruited at age 22 in New York by Natalya Malyshev and subsequently being sexually abused for months by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and others in New York and on Epstein's private island. She describes Maxwell as a master manipulator and the central organizer of the abuse network, calling her the 'Five Star General' of Epstein's operation.
This document is a letter from Sigrid S. McCawley, counsel for Annie Farmer, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated June 22, 2022. It provides Annie Farmer's victim impact statement regarding the crimes committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and requests permission for Ms. Farmer to make an oral statement at Maxwell's sentencing. The statement details the profound and ongoing psychological and emotional impact of the abuse on Annie Farmer.
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a defendant's actions satisfy the requirements for a 'covered sex crime' under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The prosecution asserts that the defendant engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct, including transporting victims (Jane) and non-consensual touching (Jane and Carolyn), justifying a sentencing enhancement. The document refutes the defendant's claim that the guideline is inapplicable, citing case law and the original congressional intent to ensure lengthy incarceration for such offenders.
This document is a character reference letter from Harriett Jagger, filed as part of a legal case. Jagger describes her 45-year friendship with a person named Ghislaine, portraying her as a warm, loyal, and devoted individual who craved a family life. Jagger contrasts her personal knowledge of Ghislaine with the negative portrayal she reads in the media, asserting that it is not a true representation of her friend.
This document is page 2 of a character reference letter filed in court on June 15, 2022, written by a sibling of Ghislaine Maxwell. The author defends Maxwell's character, citing her qualifications as a helicopter and submersible pilot and EMT to refute labels like 'socialite.' The letter highlights her family dedication, specifically caring for their mother in France, and her philanthropic work founding The TerraMar Project in 2012 for ocean conservation.
This document is a character reference letter from James “Jamie” Martin Hollomon to a judge, filed on June 15, 2022, as part of a legal case. Hollomon advocates for a lenient sentence for an unnamed female defendant, attesting to her good character and arguing that she has learned her lesson and will dedicate her life to social causes. The letter references the defendant's past negative experience with someone named Epstein as a catalyst for her desire to do good in the world.
This document page, filed on June 15, 2022, details the strict confinement conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell. It describes her total isolation from other inmates, 24-hour surveillance by high-level BOP staff (including while showering), and sleep deprivation tactics such as constant lighting and flashlight checks every 15 minutes. A footnote highlights the 'enormous expenditure' of this individualized detention for a non-violent inmate.
This document is page 21 of a sentencing memorandum filed by the defense for Ghislaine Maxwell on June 15, 2022. The defense argues for a 'non-guidelines sentence' (downward variance), contending that Maxwell should not be treated as harshly as Jeffrey Epstein (who they argue was more culpable) or Harvey Weinstein (who received 23 years for forcible rape). The text highlights that the Probation Department recommended 240 months, while the Guidelines range was 292-365 months, which the defense claims is unjust given her age (60), the age of the offenses (18-28 years prior), and her lack of criminal history.
This document is page 17 of a sentencing memorandum filed in June 2022. It presents character statements (Exhibits F and G) from Catherine Vaughan-Edwards and Harriet Jagger, who describe Ghislaine Maxwell as a supportive friend and express sympathy for her desire for family life. The document transitions (Exhibit H) into a legal argument citing Supreme Court precedent regarding advisory sentencing guidelines.
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details the biographical background of Ghislaine Maxwell, focusing on her family's financial troubles in the 1970s and her father Robert Maxwell's controlling nature. It outlines her education at Marlborough College and Oxford, her early work history in Spain and France, and her relocation to New York in 1991 to launch 'The European' magazine shortly before her father's death.
This is page 1 (marked as page 2 of the filing) of a sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests a sentence significantly below the guideline range of 292-365 months and below the Probation Department's recommended 240 months. The text argues that Maxwell is being unfairly treated as a proxy for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein, whom the defense characterizes as the true mastermind and principal abuser.
This document is a letter from the United States Attorney to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter concerns the government's motion for the exclusion of time for Counts Seven and Eight under the Speedy Trial Act until June 28, 2022, the scheduled date of sentencing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity