MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane
|
Abusive |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Alleged giver recipient |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional criminal association |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Facilitator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Defendant victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional transactional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Shawn
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Criminal |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR Epstein
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JEFFREY
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Prince Andrew
|
Social |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed victim (speaker)
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Social |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Abuser victim alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial litigant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Indirect |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged conspirators |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Defendant victim |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trip | Kate went to Maxwell's house for tea. | Maxwell's house | View |
| N/A | Abuse and manipulation | Epstein and Maxwell manipulated the author using her dream of attending FIT, controlled her diet,... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Indictment | An indictment was filed against Maxwell containing eight counts, six of which proceeded to trial.... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Flight | Flight logs placed Jane on at least one flight with Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The jury acquitted Maxwell on count two of the charges against her. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial where Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie are testifying against Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's request for temporary release after analyzing her arguments and pro... | The District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Horrifying sexual abuse | The room | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's motion for a new trial was denied by the District Court following a special evidentiary... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Travel | Juan Alessi drove Jane, Maxwell, and Epstein to a plane and watched them board together. | An airport/airfield | View |
| N/A | Grand jury proceedings | Grand jury testimony was offered in connection with charges proposed against Epstein and Maxwell.... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | Maxwell's trial, during which certain aspects and subject matters of the grand jury transcripts b... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's trial, where a jury's potential bias due to disclosure of civil case material is discus... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | The District Court's sentencing of Maxwell, which is being reviewed and upheld in this document. ... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | The criminal trial of the defendant, Maxwell, which concluded prior to the events described in th... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Defendant Maxwell moved for a new trial, contending the juror's presence violated her Sixth Amend... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | A witness traveled to New Mexico, a trip which is the subject of the court's discussion. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's request for bail after considering multiple written submissions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A Rule 33 motion was made based on a juror's alleged erroneous response during voir dire. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | Judge Nathan issued a written order finding Maxwell poses a flight risk and that temporary releas... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Recruitment and exploitation | Epstein and Maxwell recruited Carolyn to engage in sex acts with Epstein at the Palm Beach Reside... | Palm Beach Residence | View |
| N/A | Trip | Maxwell and Epstein invited Carolyn, then under 17, to travel from Florida to a place outside of ... | Florida | View |
| N/A | Recruitment | Epstein and Maxwell encouraged and enticed Carolyn to recruit other girls to engage in paid sex a... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Argument presented that Ms. Maxwell has standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as ... | Southern District of New York | View |
| N/A | Trip | Annie was taken to New Mexico by Maxwell and Epstein under the false pretense of a scholarship tr... | New Mexico | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014622.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, details overt acts from an indictment related to conspiracy charges. It alleges that between 1994 and 2002, Maxwell, along with co-conspirator Epstein, engaged in sexual abuse and trafficking of minors identified as Jane, Annie, and Carolyn. The alleged acts occurred in New York, Florida, and New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00014579.jpg
This document is a transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in a criminal trial. The speaker argues that the witnesses—Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie—have no financial motive to lie in their testimony against the defendant, Maxwell, as their civil cases are settled and they have already received compensation. The speaker specifically addresses and dismisses a defense claim regarding a conversation between Jane's lawyer and a prosecutor, asserting it does not constitute evidence of a financial incentive for testifying.
DOJ-OGR-00014576.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, showing a rebuttal by Ms. Comey. She argues against the defense's claim that their client, Maxwell, was framed by witnesses. Comey's reasoning is that before Epstein's death in 2019, he was the 'big fish' and the logical target for any fabricated stories, meaning there was no motive for witnesses to invent Maxwell's involvement years ago.
DOJ-OGR-00014575.jpg
This document is a transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in a criminal case against a defendant named Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues against the defense's theory that lawyers fabricated stories about Maxwell for financial gain. She presents evidence that three victims—Jane, Carolyn, and Annie—had reported Maxwell's involvement to friends, boyfriends, and the FBI years prior (in 2006 and 2007), long before any compensation fund or financial incentive existed, thus making the defense's theory untenable.
DOJ-OGR-00014573.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal rebuttal by Ms. Comey, filed on August 10, 2022. Comey argues that the defense is focusing on 'peripheral details' to distract the jury from the core fact that a witness, Carolyn, has consistently and without prompting identified Maxwell as a key figure involved in scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein, citing Carolyn's 2009 deposition. The argument aims to reinforce the credibility of Carolyn's memory against defense suggestions that it was contaminated or implanted.
DOJ-OGR-00014572.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey. She counters the defense's focus on inconsistencies in the testimony of a victim named Carolyn, specifically regarding her age at the time of abuse (16 vs. 14) and her memory of a photo of a pregnant Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues these are minor details, asserts the act was still a crime, and directs the jury to government exhibits that support the presence of such photos in the Palm Beach house.
DOJ-OGR-00014565.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey's) rebuttal in a criminal trial, likely against Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues that the jury should rely on the powerful and consistent testimony of multiple victims, as sexual abuse crimes rarely produce documentary evidence. She highlights that three separate victims gave similar accounts of the defendant touching their breasts and using massage as a prelude to sexual abuse, which serves as strong corroboration of guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014550.jpg
This document is a transcript of a closing argument by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues for Maxwell's acquittal on 'Count Six', which relates to an accuser named Carolyn, by attacking Carolyn's credibility and claiming she never traveled to New York as alleged. The attorney also distances Maxwell from any involvement in the travel of another individual, Annie Farmer, to undermine the government's broader conspiracy theory involving Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002855.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 29, 2021. It details specific allegations of Maxwell facilitating the sexual abuse of three unnamed minors (Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4) for Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2002. The alleged incidents occurred in various locations, including New Mexico, London, and Florida, and form the basis for Count Two of the indictment, 'Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts'.
DOJ-OGR-00020149.jpg
This legal document is a court order signed by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 28, 2020. The order explicitly denies Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail. The decision references a precedent from the 2018 case of United States v. Raniere.
DOJ-OGR-00020075.jpg
This legal document argues for the continued detention of the defendant, Maxwell. It asserts that even though some documentary evidence does not name her, it supports victims' testimonies about their interactions with both her and her co-conspirator, Epstein, making the Government's case strong. The document also dismisses the defense's bail arguments, citing the defendant's foreign ties, transfer of millions to her spouse, and ability to hide as factors that weigh heavily in favor of detention.
DOJ-OGR-00005551.jpg
This legal document outlines the recollections of an individual identified as 'AK' regarding discussions about the Epstein case. AK recalls a meeting with attorneys where she sought to clarify their proposal to have the SDNY re-investigate conduct previously handled in Florida, and she disputes an account of the meeting from Brad Edwards's book. The document also notes AK's vague memory of being told about depositions and the possibility of perjury charges against Maxwell, though no investigation was opened, and her decision to take no further action on the Epstein matter after calling Sean Watson.
DOJ-OGR-00005550.jpg
This document summarizes the recollections of 'AK,' a Human Trafficking Coordinator, regarding potential investigations into Epstein at SDNY. AK denies that attorneys urged an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell as a 'duo,' stating the focus was on Epstein and Maxwell was only mentioned in passing. AK also denies ever meeting or speaking with attorney David Boies and has no memory of a second meeting on the subject in the summer of 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00005546.jpg
This document summarizes a conference call held on February 11, 2021, with Amanda Kramer (AK) regarding her recollections of a meeting on February 29, 2016. During the 2016 meeting, attorneys Pete Skinner, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger presented information to AK, who was then a prosecutor, advocating for the SDNY to open a criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The memo details AK's limited memory of the meeting, the roles of the attorneys, and the mention of civil lawsuits, including the 'Guiffre v. Maxwell' case.
DOJ-OGR-00005318.jpg
This document is a transcript of Judge Alison Nathan's preliminary remarks to potential jurors in the case of United States v. Maxwell, filed on October 22, 2021. The judge welcomes the jury pool to the Southern District of New York and outlines the two-phase jury selection process, which includes filling out a questionnaire and potential in-person questioning starting in mid-November.
DOJ-OGR-00020381.jpg
This is the conclusion page of a legal document filed on May 27, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. Assistant United States Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach argue that a motion filed by an individual named Maxwell should be denied. The document is electronically signed by Maurene Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00020377.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to an appeal by Maxwell regarding her pretrial confinement conditions. The Government argues that Maxwell's complaints about disruptive nighttime flashlight checks are unsubstantiated and do not demonstrably interfere with her trial preparation. The document also refutes Maxwell's accusations of misrepresentation, clarifying a statement made by Government counsel and explaining an acknowledged inaccuracy in information received from the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00020375.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court order denying a renewed motion by an individual named Maxwell for temporary release from confinement. The court relies on the 'law of the case' doctrine, stating that Maxwell has not provided a compelling reason, such as new evidence or a change in law, to justify reversing its prior decision. The court also dismisses Maxwell's arguments concerning a recent letter briefing and a written order by Judge Nathan, affirming the previous finding that Maxwell is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020374.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a 'renewed motion' from a defendant named Maxwell is meritless. It cites legal precedents (United States v. Hochevar, Stack v. Boyle) and procedural rules to assert that the motion is not properly before the court. The document further states that a lower court judge, Judge Nathan, did not err in previously finding three times that Maxwell is a flight risk and denying bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) discusses the court's affirmation of Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The text argues that MDC's nighttime security protocols do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation and notes procedural errors in Maxwell's filing of a 'renewed motion' rather than a new appeal or proper motion in District Court. It cites Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the untimeliness of the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00020368.jpg
This document page, part of a legal filing from May 2021, details the Government's response to Judge Nathan regarding 'flashlight surveillance' of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. It explains that while general population inmates are checked hourly and SHU inmates every 30 minutes, Maxwell is checked every 15 minutes due to an 'enhanced security schedule' and 'heightened safety and security concerns,' despite not being on suicide watch.
DOJ-OGR-00020367.jpg
This legal document outlines the procedural history of a case involving a defendant named Maxwell. After Maxwell appealed two of Judge Nathan's bail decisions and was denied pretrial release on April 27, 2021, she did not file a renewed motion. Instead, on April 29, 2021, she submitted a letter to Judge Nathan requesting the court to order the MDC to stop or justify the 15-minute light surveillance that was disrupting her sleep.
DOJ-OGR-00020366.jpg
This legal document details the court's denial of a bail application filed by the defendant, Maxwell, on February 23, 2021. Judge Nathan found Maxwell's arguments about her confinement conditions unpersuasive and reiterated that her detention was necessary due to her being a flight risk, citing her substantial international ties, financial resources, and a "lack of candor regarding her assets" at the time of her arrest. The judge concluded that even a substantial bail package could not reasonably assure Maxwell's future appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00020362.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, is a court filing outlining the allegations against Maxwell. It details her alleged role as a co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997, including identifying, enticing, and grooming victims. The document also references a Superseding Indictment that expanded the charges and the conspiracy timeline to 2004, and notes that Maxwell lied under oath in a civil deposition to conceal her crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00020322.jpg
This is a 'Notice of Case Manager Change' issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 27, 2021, regarding the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Case 21-58cr). The document lists Debra Ann Livingston as Chief Judge and Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe as Clerk of Court, and references the lower court proceedings in the SDNY under Judge Nathan.
| 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 |
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Maxwell's personal life, relationships, and her boyfriend...
Maxwell told Kate 'amazing things' about her boyfriend, describing him as a philanthropist who liked to help young people, and suggested it would be wonderful for Kate to meet him.
Minor Victim-3's life and family
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
Scheduling massages and scheme operations
Maxwell instructed Kellen on how to schedule massages and manage a part of the criminal scheme that Maxwell had previously handled.
Scheduling an appointment to massage Epstein
Maxwell, acting as one of Epstein's employees, would call victims to schedule appointments for them to massage Epstein at his Palm Beach Residence.
Mr. Epstein's status
Maxwell would inform Carolyn upon her arrival that Mr. Epstein was out for a jog but would be back any moment, and that Carolyn could go upstairs and set up.
Culture of silence
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
Culture of silence
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
Travel
Maxwell told Kate that she was very accommodating and that whenever Kate wanted to visit, Maxwell and others ('they') would take care of everything. This conversation happened before Maxwell gave Kate a handbag.
Setting up appointment times for so-called massages
Maxwell would call Carolyn to set up appointments for massages, particularly in the first year or two.
Travel
Maxwell told Kate that she was very accommodating and that whenever Kate wanted to visit, Maxwell and others ('they') would take care of everything. This conversation happened before Maxwell gave Kate a handbag.
Scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein
Carolyn named Maxwell as one of two people who would call her to schedule massages with Jeffrey Epstein.
Minor Victim-3's life and family
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
Maxwell Reply
A reply brief filed by the Defendant, Maxwell, which raises an argument about the jury instructions.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Scheduling massage appointments
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
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.
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.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity