January 22, 2024
Filing date of this appellate document.
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAXWELL | person | 1792 | View Entity |
| court | location | 177 | View Entity |
DOJ-OGR-00021867.jpg
This page is from a legal opinion (likely the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, given the citations) affirming a District Court's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion. Maxwell argued that testimony regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico constituted a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' from the original indictment, violating the Fifth Amendment. The court reviews the denial *de novo* and rejects Maxwell's argument.
Events with shared participants
Maxwell taught Jane how to massage Epstein, which led to the abuse.
Date unknown
The defense at trial focused on the credibility of victims who testified against the defendant.
Date unknown
The appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell was dismissed, and the motion to consolidate was denied as moot.
2020-10-19
Carolyn testifies that Maxwell, two of Mr. Epstein's friends, and two other girls saw her fully naked in a massage room.
Date unknown • massage room at Jeffrey Epstein's house
Early phase of the conspiracy where Maxwell and Epstein identified, isolated, groomed, and sexually abused vulnerable girls.
1994-01-01
Later phase of the scheme where Maxwell and Epstein developed a stream of girls who recruited each other to visit Epstein's Palm Beach residence, where they were paid.
2001-01-01 • Palm Beach residence
Carolyn testifies that Maxwell touched her breasts on one of the occasions she was seen naked in the massage room.
Date unknown • massage room at Jeffrey Epstein's house
Filing of Document 82 in Case 20-3061
2020-10-02 • Court
Judge Nathan issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion to modify a Protective Order
2020-10-02 • District Court
Maxwell continued to call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein.
Date unknown
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event