MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
plaintiff
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial litigant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Criminal exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Abuser victim alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Accomplice |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Guiffre
|
Litigation opponent |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Social |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Victim perpetrator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Litigant judiciary |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David
|
Juror and defendant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Defendant and accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew A. Rohrbach
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed victim (speaker)
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Groomer victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Elizabeth
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Alleged giver recipient |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Morgan
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
her counsel/lawyer
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
This Court
|
Litigant court |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Victim perpetrator implied |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003-01-01 | Legal event | An amendment to Section 3283 was passed, which Maxwell claims was impermissibly applied to her case. | N/A | View |
| 2003-01-01 | N/A | Government cannot apply 2003 amendment to § 3283 that extended the statute of limitations. | N/A | View |
| 2002-12-19 | Delivery | Package with Tracking ID 837700541252 was delivered at 10:30 and signed for by .MAXWELL. | N/A | View |
| 2002-12-11 | Package shipment | A FedEx Standard Overnight package was dropped off by Alan Dershowitz, addressed to Edwina Simmon... | From zip code 02155 | View |
| 2002-01-01 | Shipment | Maxwell used Epstein's FedEx account to send packages from his office, as shown in records from 2... | Epstein's office | View |
| 2002-01-01 | Financial transaction | Epstein paid Maxwell $5 million. | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Crime | MAXWELL and Epstein invited Minor Victim-4 to travel from Florida to a place outside of Florida w... | Florida | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Alleged criminal conduct | The period during which Maxwell's alleged conduct related to sex trafficking counts occurred. | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Scheduling | Epstein, MAXWELL, or other employees called Minor Victim-4 to schedule appointments for her to ma... | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Evolution of abuse tactics from one-on-one relationships to a 'pyramid scheme of abuse'. | Not specified | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Crime | Start of a four-year time period in which alleged sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy ... | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Recruitment | Epstein, Maxwell, and other employees paid certain victims to recruit additional girls for Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Recruitment / interaction | Events involving Carolyn, who was 14, going to Jeffrey Epstein's house, interacting with Maxwell,... | Jeffrey Epstein's house | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Maxwell and Epstein invited Carolyn to travel with Epstein. | Florida to outside Florida | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Grooming and abuse | MAXWELL groomed Minor Victim-4 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein. Minor Victim-4 provided nud... | Epstein's Palm Beach Residence | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Trip invitation | Epstein and MAXWELL invited Minor Victim-4 to travel with Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Epstein and Maxwell recruited Carolyn to engage in sex acts; Carolyn paid cash. | Palm Beach Residence | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Crime | Offenses committed by Epstein, in which Maxwell was involved, covered by a Non-Prosecution Agreem... | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Epstein and Maxwell encouraged Carolyn to recruit other girls. | Palm Beach residence | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Recruitment of Carolyn for paid sex acts. | Palm Beach residence | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Maxwell and Epstein invited Carolyn (under 17) to travel. | Florida to outside Florida | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Recruitment and abuse | Virginia Roberts brought Carolyn, then 14, to the Palm Beach house where she met Maxwell and Epst... | Palm Beach house | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Scheduling appointments | On multiple occasions, Epstein, Maxwell, or other employees called Carolyn to schedule appointmen... | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Carolyn invited to travel with Epstein. | Florida to outside Florida | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Recruitment | Virginia brought Carolyn, age 14, to the Palm Beach house where she met Maxwell and Epstein, begi... | Palm Beach | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000903.jpg
This is a Notice of Appearance filed on March 30, 2021, in the case of United States v. Maxwell (Docket No. 21-770). Lara Pomerantz of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York is entering the case as additional counsel, joining co-counsel Won S. Shin, on behalf of the United States (Appellee). The document certifies her admission to the court and provides her contact information.
DOJ-OGR-00000838.jpg
This is a Docketing Notice from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Case 21-770), dated March 29, 2021. It notifies counsel that the appeal has been docketed and provides instructions regarding the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form, which must be returned within 14 days. The document references the lower court case (1:20-cr-330-1) presided over by Judge Nathan in the SDNY.
DOJ-OGR-00000770.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of victim Annie Farmer by her counsel Sigrid S. McCawley, argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing supports redacting victims' personal information for privacy but strongly opposes redacting the names of co-conspirators and enablers, asserting that their identities should be public to ensure accountability and justice. It references other civil lawsuits against entities like JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank as part of a broader effort to hold third parties involved in the sex-trafficking scheme accountable.
DOJ-OGR-00000769.jpg
This legal document argues for the release of grand jury transcripts with narrowly tailored redactions to protect the identities of victims like Ms. Farmer, citing their strong privacy interests as established in previous cases. However, it argues against redacting the names of third parties who have not been charged or alleged to be involved in the crimes of Epstein and Maxwell, suggesting such an effort "smacks of a cover up" and requires independent court scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00000768.jpg
This legal document argues for the disclosure of grand jury transcripts in the case of Epstein and Maxwell. It contends that the extraordinary nature of their crimes, the vast number of victims, and the public interest in full accountability outweigh the usual need for grand jury secrecy. The filing emphasizes that unsealing the transcripts would help expose the full network of enablers without forcing victims to face further retaliation and that the victims themselves support this transparency.
DOJ-OGR-00000767.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 5, 2025, is a motion arguing for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to the sex-trafficking crimes of Epstein and Maxwell. The filing, made on behalf of victims, asserts that transparency is crucial for justice, public understanding, and holding all responsible parties accountable, citing legal precedent from the Second Circuit. It emphasizes the victims' desire for full disclosure to illuminate the scope of the abuse and identify those who enabled the criminal enterprise.
DOJ-OGR-00000764.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 4, 2025, is a letter from the U.S. Government to Judges Berman and Engelmayer regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts. The government discusses legal precedents for maintaining grand jury secrecy and updates the court on its progress in notifying victims, particularly those related to the 'Maxwell and Epstein matters'. The government commits to continuing its efforts to contact all relevant victims and to protect the interests of all third parties involved.
DOJ-OGR-00000762.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Government to Judges Berman and Engelmayer, filed on August 5, 2025. The Government responds to a court order demanding information about the potential unsealing of grand jury materials from the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government acknowledges the public's strong right of access to trial exhibits, noting that exhibits from the Maxwell trial were already made public, but requests an extension until August 8, 2025, to provide its final position on unsealing the grand jury exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00000754.jpg
This legal document is a filing from the Government in response to a Court order in case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The Government confirms it reviewed the Maxwell grand jury transcripts before moving to unseal them and has notified all but one of the referenced victims. The filing also states that the Government is submitting the complete grand jury materials for both Epstein and Maxwell to the Court under seal to protect victim-identifying information.
DOJ-OGR-00000751.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated July 29, 2025, concerning the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for disclosure based on intense public interest and the 'magnitude and abhorrence' of Epstein's crimes, while noting that victim identification will be redacted. It references a July 6, 2025 Memorandum and details the dates of the original grand jury proceedings in 2019, 2020, and 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00000750.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 29, 2025, argues for the disclosure of grand jury materials. It analyzes legal precedents, noting that while the Government may oppose disclosure, factors like public interest can be overriding. The document states that Defendant Epstein is deceased and cannot assert a position, while Defendant Maxwell intends to respond, and argues that the significant public interest in the crimes of Epstein and Maxwell justifies disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00000748.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 29, 2025, outlines a court order issued on July 22, 2025. The Court has directed the Government to file a legal memorandum and submit extensive materials concerning the grand jury proceedings of Epstein and Maxwell. This includes indices, complete transcripts, proposed redactions, and a statement on whether victims were notified, all in relation to a motion to unseal the grand jury records.
DOJ-OGR-00000747.jpg
This legal memorandum is submitted by the Government in response to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the cases of Epstein and Maxwell. The Government outlines the legal framework for such a release, citing a 'Circuit split' on the issue and precedent from the Second Circuit, while emphasizing its duty to protect victims. It also references a prior, unsuccessful attempt to unseal similar transcripts related to Epstein in the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00000735.jpg
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing, argues for the release of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases due to public interest and diminished privacy concerns following Epstein's death. The Department of Justice commits to redacting victim-identifying information before release. The document is submitted by Pamela J. Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General.
DOJ-OGR-00000026.jpg
This legal document, page 25 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, is part of a ruling that upholds a lower court's decision. The court concludes that the District Court did not make an error in applying a 'leadership enhancement' to Maxwell's sentence or in its justification for the sentence's length. The ruling quotes the District Court's findings regarding Maxwell's 'pivotal role' in facilitating abuse and the gravity of her offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00000025.jpg
This legal document, page 24 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the sentencing of an individual named Maxwell. It affirms the District Court's application of a 'four-level leadership enhancement' based on testimony from two of Epstein's pilots. The pilots testified that Maxwell supervised her assistant, Sarah Kellen, and other testimony corroborated Maxwell's high-level role as Epstein's 'number two and the lady of the house' in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00000024.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 22-1426), argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's claims of trial prejudice and unreasonable sentencing. It asserts that evidence of her criminal conduct in New Mexico was properly included and did not cause 'substantial prejudice,' as her defense received related interview notes from a victim named Jane well before trial. The document also defends Maxwell's 240-month sentence as procedurally reasonable, countering her argument that the District Court erred in its application of sentencing guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the legal arguments concerning the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that it is not uncertain what conduct Maxwell was convicted for and that the evidence presented at trial did not prejudicially vary from the indictment. The text cites several legal precedents to define the high standards a defendant must meet to prove a prejudicial variance that would warrant a reversal of the conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00000020.jpg
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the District Court's response to a specific note from the jury during deliberations in the trial of Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight, not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent for sexual activity was present. The document states the court found the question too difficult to "parse factually and legally" and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions, an action which is being analyzed in this filing.
DOJ-OGR-00000019.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It discusses a Rule 33 motion regarding Juror 50's erroneous responses during voir dire in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The text argues that under the 'McDonough' standard, a new trial is not warranted because the District Court found the juror's errors were not deliberate and would not have resulted in a strike for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00000018.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, concerning the appeal of a District Court's decision. The appellant, Maxwell, argues for a new trial on the grounds that Juror 50 was dishonest on a jury questionnaire regarding a history of sexual abuse. The text outlines the high legal standard of "abuse of discretion" required to overturn the lower court's ruling, emphasizing that new trials are granted only sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00000017.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426), bearing a DOJ stamp, dated September 17, 2024. It presents a legal argument that the 2003 PROTECT Act amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which eliminates the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse offenses during the life of the child, applies retroactively. The text specifically concludes that this amendment applies to 'Maxwell's conduct as charged in the Indictment.'
DOJ-OGR-00000016.jpg
This is page 15 of an appellate court decision (likely the Second Circuit) dated September 17, 2024, affirming legal interpretations in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rejects Maxwell's argument regarding the statute of limitations for Counts Three, Four, and Six, citing the 'facts of the case' approach over the 'categorical approach' and referencing testimony from a victim named 'Jane' regarding interstate transportation and sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00000014.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, argues that the duties of U.S. Attorneys are statutorily confined to their specific districts. It cites the case of Annabi to support the claim that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting an individual named Maxwell. The document includes footnotes referencing U.S. Code to detail the powers and limitations of U.S. Attorneys, including the exception that the Attorney General can authorize them to act outside their districts.
DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely an appellate opinion) rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prevents her prosecution in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The court cites *United States v. Annabi* to conclude that the NPA was expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts like SDNY. Footnotes discuss legal precedents regarding plea agreements and double jeopardy.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $250,000.00 | Fine imposed on each count. | View |
| N/A | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Total fine imposed. | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Criminal fine imposed at sentencing. | View |
| 1999-10-19 | Received | Financial Trust C... | MAXWELL | $18,300,000.00 | Transfer sourced from the sale of JP Morgan Ins... | View |
| 1999-10-19 | Received | Financial Trust C... | MAXWELL | $0.00 | Transfer to Maxwell discussed in email; investi... | View |
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
Spending time vs Communicating
Witness clarifies distinction between spending physical time vs communicating. States she stopped spending time around age 24.
General life updates and invitations
The witness (Kate) testifies that she communicated with Maxwell by phone. Maxwell would ask about her life, if she was dating, and if she wanted to visit. Sexual topics were not discussed on the phone.
Reconsideration of response
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Scheduling an appointment for Carolyn
Carolyn's mom would receive a phone call, which Carolyn later learned was from Maxwell, and would hand the phone to Carolyn to schedule an appointment.
Scheduling massage appointments
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
Scheduling an appointment for Carolyn
Shawn would receive a phone call from Maxwell and would then tell Carolyn that she had a phone call and instruct her to say yes to the appointment.
Epstein's sexual preferences and needs
Maxwell told the witness, Kate, that Epstein likes 'cute, young, pretty' girls and that he needed to have sex about three times a day. These conversations occurred frequently ('All the time') within the first couple of months after they met.
Instruction to touch Epstein
According to Kate's testimony, when Maxwell introduced her to Epstein, Maxwell told her to give his feet a squeeze to show how strong she was.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Travel and an invitation to an island
Maxwell asked Carolyn about her travel history and invited her to an island. Carolyn declined, stating she was too young and her mother would not permit it.
Taking over the house
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
Reply to Government's Opposition
A reply brief cited as "Maxwell Reply at 18" where the Defendant asserts the government failed to prove its case.
Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
Carolyn's career aspirations
Maxwell asked Carolyn what she wanted to do in the future, and Carolyn replied that she wanted to become a massage therapist.
Massages
Maxwell asked Annie if she had ever received a massage and told her she would have the opportunity to have one, describing how enjoyable it would be.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell would call Carolyn to ask if she was available for an appointment, sometimes mentioning that she and Mr. Epstein would be out of town and flying in.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Reconsideration of the District Court's response
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of a response from the District Court, claiming it resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Civil Case Testimony
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
Epstein's whereabouts
Maxwell informing Carolyn that Epstein was on a jog or would be back soon and that she could go upstairs to set up.
Reconsideration of response to jury note
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of Judge Nathan's response to the jury's note and raised issues of constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Scheduling massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
Small talk during massage
making small talk
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity