| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-07-14 | Bail hearing | Judge Nathan held a bail hearing for Maxwell, heard oral arguments, and received statements from ... | District Court | View |
| 2020-07-14 | Legal proceeding | A lengthy bail hearing was held for Maxwell, at which bail was denied. | N/A | View |
| 2020-07-14 | N/A | Bail hearing where Judge Nathan heard arguments and victim statements, ultimately ordering Maxwel... | District Court | View |
| 2020-07-13 | N/A | Arraignment (implied by 'next week's arraignment' in July 10 email) | Court | View |
| 2020-07-10 | N/A | Maxwell detention/bail hearing | Court (likely SDNY) | View |
| 2020-07-08 | Legal proceeding | Indictment S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) was filed with ministerial corrections. | N/A | View |
| 2020-07-08 | Legal proceeding | Superseding Indictment S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) was filed. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-07-06 | N/A | Transport of Ghislaine Maxwell involves transfer of personal property (released to defense) and s... | New York | View |
| 2020-07-02 | Arrest | Maxwell was arrested. | N/A | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Initial appearance call | Court (Virtual/Telephonic) | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Transfer to NY | From arrest location to New... | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Maxwell consented to remand | Unknown (Holding) | View |
| 2020-07-02 | Arrest | Maxwell was arrested and the original indictment was unsealed. | N/A | View |
| 2020-06-30 | N/A | Transmission of subscriber information for phone numbers in contact with Maxwell via email attach... | N/A | View |
| 2020-06-29 | Legal proceeding | Indictment 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) was filed, charging Maxwell in six counts. | N/A | View |
| 2020-04-10 | N/A | Date associated with GM (Ghislaine Maxwell) prosecution memo attachment. | New York (implied context) | View |
| 2020-01-23 | N/A | Federal Grand Jury Subpoena issued (referenced in subject line: Fed GJ SBP 2020-01-23). | n/a | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Arrest | The arrest of Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | COVID-19 Pandemic | Global/General Context | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Legal discovery | Maxwell learned that the government had obtained a file by grand jury subpoena and had instituted... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Financial disclosure | Maxwell represented to Pretrial Services that she possessed around $3.5 million in assets. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Arrest | Arrest of Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Financial reporting | A report estimated the net worth of Maxwell and her spouse to be approximately $22.5 million. | N/A | View |
| 2019-11-13 | N/A | Maxwell's ISP activity detected for Facebook. | Unknown | View |
| 2019-10-30 | N/A | Subpoena issued for tolls on Maxwell's phone (referenced as past action in email). | N/A | View |
This document is an internal email thread between staff at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) dated October 17, 2018. The correspondence circulates a legal opinion by Judge Sweet regarding the 'Right of Public Access Judicial Document' in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, which the sender noted reading about in the New York Law Journal (NYLJ).
An FBI Intake report dated August 20, 2020, detailing a call from a male source in Essex, NY, who claims to have worked with Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein and was pardoned by a U.S. President. The caller reported contacting a female victim in Manhattan who is writing a book and is in touch with hundreds of other victims. The caller alleged the existence of films recording prominent men, specifically naming Epstein, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump, as well as Maxwell, and inquired about who hired Epstein at 'Bear' (likely Bear Stearns).
This document is an email dated July 10, 2020, sent to an individual at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The email attaches a scheduling order for Ghislaine Maxwell's upcoming detention/bail hearing and discusses logistics, specifically noting that the order contains dial-in information for public audio access which can be provided to victims if requested.
This document is an internal email from a Paralegal Specialist at the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) dated October 11, 2021. The email transmits draft letters addressed to the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center) regarding 'Maxwell' (Ghislaine Maxwell), as indicated by the attachment filenames. The email includes the sender's signature block with the SDNY office address.
This document is an email dated December 2, 2020, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York regarding the 'Maxwell' case. The email discusses an attached order from Judge Nathan which requires the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) legal team to file a letter with the court by the following Friday. The sender requests a call to discuss the matter.
This document is an email dated June 19, 2021, between personnel at the US Attorney's Office (USANYS) regarding the management of legal files. The sender requests a contractor to save attached PDF 'prep notes' related to testifying witnesses into specific '3500 folders' (referring to Jencks Act material) on the 'Epstein share drive' in preparation for the Maxwell trial.
This document is an email header dated October 10, 2021, transmitting a document titled 'Maxwell Jury Questionnaire'. The attachment appears to be a legal draft coordinating jury selection questions between the Defense and the Government (prosecution), likely for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The sender and recipient identities are redacted.
This document is an email dated October 8, 2021, concerning the preparation of jury questionnaires and voir dire questions, likely for the Ghislaine Maxwell trial as indicated by the attachment filename. The sender discusses difficulties in combining drafts from opposing legal teams and schedules a conferral for that afternoon to discuss the documents further.
This document is a heavily redacted email from February 22, 2021, exchanged between officials at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The subject line 'Opposition to Maxwell GJ Motion' indicates the correspondence concerns legal proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically regarding a Grand Jury motion. The email includes an embedded message file with the same subject.
An email chain from December 30, 2020, in which a DOJ Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Paris forwards a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) request from French authorities. The request relates to the investigation of an individual (name redacted) who was recently arrested in Paris. The sender notes they are already in contact with the recipients regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's bail proceedings.
An internal email from an Assistant US Attorney in the Southern District of New York dated September 22, 2021. The email discusses the review of evidence files including FBI files and FedEx records, mentions the discovery of 'Maxwell phone records,' and attaches a 'Household Manual' dated 2005 in preparation for an upcoming interview with the manual's source.
An email dated January 24, 2020, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York to recipients labeled as 'TROOPERS'. The email requests the service of a subpoena to Expedia regarding travel records for 'Maxwell' (presumably Ghislaine Maxwell).
An email from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) dated December 18, 2020, notifying the recipient (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel) that a CD containing a 'small corrected production of discovery' regarding Maxwell has been sent via FedEx.
An email dated June 29, 2020, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York regarding a 'Corrected Maxwell Arrest Warrant'. The sender apologizes for a date error in a previous warrant and asks if Judge Smith can sign the attached corrected version.
An email from an Assistant United States Attorney at the SDNY to FBI agents dated June 12, 2020, requesting a follow-up call regarding the investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell. The email specifically seeks information on Maxwell's active financial accounts, credit cards, a connection to UMB Bank, the status of returns from a subpoena issued on September 25, 2019, and recent SAR/CTR (Suspicious Activity Report) checks.
This document is an email dated December 21, 2020, sent by an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The subject is 'interlocutory appeals' and it contains an attachment titled 'Maxwell_Brief_re_Interlocutory_Appeals.pdf', indicating it relates to the legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell. The sender and recipient identities are redacted.
An email dated August 22, 2021, discussing a draft letter to Judge 'AJN' (likely Alison J. Nathan) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's complaints about VTC (Video Teleconference) access at the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center). The sender notes a deadline of the following day and mentions coordinating with MDC legal counsel for review.
An email thread from June 30, 2020, involving Deputy US Attorney Audrey Strauss (SDNY). The correspondence concerns a '3:30 Q and A prep' session and includes an attachment titled 'Maxwell_possible_QA_v2.docx', suggesting preparations for a press event or legal proceeding regarding Ghislaine Maxwell (who was arrested shortly after, on July 2, 2020).
An email from an Assistant US Attorney in the Southern District of New York dated October 7, 2021. The email discusses a draft '3500 Cover Letter' (referring to Jencks Act material) and an attachment named 'Maxwell_Cover_Letter', likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The sender asks for review regarding language about a redacted individual.
This document is an email chain from November 23, 2021. It contains a forwarded message from journalist Aaron Katersky inquiring about the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Katersky notes for a 'preview piece' that Maxwell's 'most prominent public accuser' (name redacted) and another individual (name redacted) are not on the government's witness list and asks if there are any issues with this assessment.
An email sent by an Assistant United States Attorney from the Southern District of New York on November 23, 2021. The email transmits an attachment containing Ghislaine Maxwell's response to motions to quash a Rule 17(c) subpoena. The document is heavily redacted regarding personal identifiers.
A formal notice from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dated July 18, 2017, announcing a change in the assigned case manager for docket 16-3945cv ([Redacted] v. Maxwell). The document lists Robert A. Katzmann as Chief Judge and references the underlying District Court case (15-cv-7433) presided over by Judge Sweet.
An email dated January 3, 2019, from Stan Pottinger of Edwards Pottinger LLC regarding a confidentiality order in a legal case against Maxwell presided over by Judge Sweet. The email forwards three PDF attachments identified as a Sealed Opinion, a Protective Order, and a notice of Case Manager Assignment, with the body text noting that 'These documents are public.'
This document is an email chain from April 29, 2021, involving the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It discusses an order issued by Judge Nathan directing the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) to take specific actions by April 30, 2021. The emails coordinate the filing and transmission of this order to the Judge's chambers.
An internal email from January 8, 2021, between USANYS officials regarding 'Writeups'. The email includes an attachment related to Public Corruption updates for January 2021. The body text mentions a requested write-up on 'Maxwell' followed by redacted bullet points and the word 'obstruction'.
| 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 |
She told me to get undressed.
Witness clarifies distinction between spending physical time vs communicating. States she stopped spending time around age 24.
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.
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
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.
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
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.
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.
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.
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
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.
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
A reply brief cited as "Maxwell Reply at 18" where the Defendant asserts the government failed to prove its case.
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
Maxwell asked Carolyn what she wanted to do in the future, and Carolyn replied that she wanted to become a massage therapist.
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.
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
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.
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of a response from the District Court, claiming it resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
Maxwell informing Carolyn that Epstein was on a jog or would be back soon and that she could go upstairs to set up.
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.
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
making small talk
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity