defendant
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
62 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Spouse
|
Financial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Perpetrator victim |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
18 | |
|
location
court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
24 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Business associate |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
defendant's spouse
|
Marital |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Alleged perpetrator victim |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Defendant's Spouse
|
Friend |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Criminal |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Association |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Bureau of Prisons
|
Custodial |
7
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996-01-01 | Property sale | A sale agreement was made for the defendant's house in London. | 44 Kinnerton Street, London | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Conspiracy | The time span of the conspiracy charged in Count Three, involving transporting minors across stat... | N/A | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Alleged criminal activity | A series of events during which the Defendant allegedly enticed or coerced an individual named Ja... | N/A | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Sexual abuse | The defendant and Epstein's sexual abuse of Kate started in 1994, when Kate was 17. | N/A | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Criminal conduct | Conduct involving certain victims, charged in Counts One through Four. | N/A | View |
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Time frame for Count Three conspiracy. | Unknown | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Criminal offense | The period during which the offenses of conviction occurred, spanning from 1994 up to and includi... | N/A | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Crime | The defendant allegedly groomed three minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein. | Florida, New Mexico, New Yo... | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Conspiracy | The Defendant worked with Epstein to groom minor victims and transport them to New York for illeg... | New York | View |
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Period of conspiracy to entice minors to travel for illegal sex acts | Unspecified | View |
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Time period relevant to Count Two regarding Jane | Interstate commerce | View |
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Time period relevant to Count Two relating to Jane. | Interstate commerce / New York | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Conspiracy | The conspiracy period for Count Three, which charged the Defendant with conspiring to violate the... | N/A | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Presence at location | Jane, the defendant, and Epstein were at Interlochen | Interlochen | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Alleged criminal activity | A series of alleged acts where the Defendant enticed an individual named Jane to engage in illega... | New York | View |
| 1990-01-01 | Scheme | A period described as an 'earlier phase' where the Defendant and Epstein used the cover of mentor... | N/A | View |
| 1990-01-01 | Abuse scheme operation | Defendant and Epstein used the cover of mentoring young girls to introduce massage, which was the... | N/A | View |
| 1990-01-01 | Criminal conduct | The time period during which the defendant's alleged criminal conduct, including a scheme to groo... | N/A | View |
| 1963-06-14 | N/A | Miller v. US case citation referenced in footnote. | US Court System | View |
| 0025-01-01 | N/A | Events of alleged abuse and grooming. | Unknown | View |
EFTA00014649.pdf
A digital calendar entry for November 21, 2021, serving as a reminder for a legal filing deadline related to Government Exhibit 52 (GX 52) in a court case (likely US v. Maxwell). The entry quotes a court order requiring the Government to reply to a defense argument that a specific witness ('Employee-1') cannot authenticate the exhibit because a former employee (name redacted) allegedly removed the document from Epstein's property previously.
EFTA00011431.pdf
A page from a set of jury instructions (marked with Bates stamp EFTA00011431) regarding 'Uncalled Witnesses.' The document instructs jurors not to draw inferences from the absence of witnesses mentioned during the trial who did not testify, noting that both sides had equal opportunity to call them. It further clarifies that the defendant in a criminal case has no burden to call witnesses or produce evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00000210.tif
This document excerpt details various legal agreements and plea agreements across different U.S. judicial districts, outlining the scope and binding nature of these agreements between defendants and specific United States Attorney offices or divisions of the Department of Justice. It emphasizes which entities are bound by each agreement and which are not. The document includes specific case citations with dates, defendants, and ECF numbers.
DOJ-OGR-00000206.tif
This document discusses the unequal bargaining power between the government and defendants in plea agreements, citing legal precedents and academic works. It highlights that ambiguities in such agreements should be construed against the government and emphasizes the significant power held by the United States Attorney in the legal process, making plea bargains akin to contracts of adhesion where the defendant has little choice but to accept the offer.
DOJ-OGR-00000203.tif
This document, likely a legal brief or argument, discusses the importance of the government upholding its promises in plea agreements. It argues that the NACDL urges the Court to ensure the government honors its commitments to defendants, especially given the significant rights defendants waive when entering such agreements. The text emphasizes that courts should enforce these promises to maintain fairness and trust in the legal system.
DOJ-OGR-00000103.tif
This document is a court judgment dated June 29, 2022, sentencing a defendant as per pages 2 through 8 of the judgment under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. It notes that counts 7 and 8 and underlying indictments were dismissed, and the defendant was found not guilty on count 2. The document also lists additional counts of conviction for transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity (18 USC 2423.F, offense ended 12/31/1997, count 4) and sex trafficking of an individual under eighteen (18 USC 1591.F, offense ended 7/30/2004, count 6), and requires the defendant to notify the U.S. attorney of changes in personal information or economic circumstances until all financial obligations are paid.
DOJ-OGR-00018341.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which a judge instructs a jury about an upcoming witness's testimony. The judge clarifies that because the witness was over the age of consent, her alleged sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein was not illegal under the indictment, and she is not considered a victim in this case. The jury is strictly forbidden from using this testimony to convict the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, or to infer anything about the character or criminal propensity of either Epstein or Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018108.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing an argument by Ms. Comey to the Court. Ms. Comey asserts that a 'disturbing photograph' displayed outside Jeffrey Epstein's master bedroom contradicts the defense's claim that the defendant was unaware of Epstein's attraction to underage girls. The defense's argument, as described by Comey, relies on a 'halo effect' from Epstein's association with prominent people, which she argues the photograph directly refutes by serving as evidence of Epstein's lifestyle.
DOJ-OGR-00014781.jpg
This court transcript excerpt discusses the supervisory authority of Kellen, an employee, in relation to Maxwell, Epstein, and an unnamed defendant. It details arguments about whether Kellen's actions, such as making calls and scheduling massage appointments, constituted supervisory authority, and mentions testimony from pilots regarding Kellen's reporting structure. The discussion also touches upon a five-point enhancement for sex offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00014759.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022, in which the judge overrules objections from the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The court finds by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant personally recruited Virginia (Giuffre) while she was a minor to provide sexualized massages to Epstein, was aware of the sexual nature of these acts, and used monetary incentives to encourage Virginia to recruit another minor, Carolyn. The judge cites testimony from witnesses Annie, Jane, Kate, and Mr. Alessi, as well as flight records.
DOJ-OGR-00008662.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 32) from a federal court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the four specific elements that the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a defendant of conspiracy to violate federal law, as charged in Counts One, Three, and Five of the indictment. The elements include the existence of an agreement, the defendant's knowing participation, the commission of an overt act by a member, and that the act was in furtherance of the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00008653.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 25) from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the four specific elements the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the Defendant on Count Six, Sex Trafficking of an Individual Under the Age of 18. The instruction specifies that this particular count pertains to a person named Carolyn and the alleged acts occurred between 2001 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00008651.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 23) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It specifies that for Counts Two (enticement) and Four (transportation across state lines), the prosecution does not need to prove that the intended sexual activity actually occurred. The crucial element for the jury to consider is whether the Defendant possessed the required criminal intent at the time of the alleged acts.
DOJ-OGR-00008641.jpg
This document is page 103 of a court filing (Document 563) filed on December 18, 2021, containing Jury Instruction No. 14 for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the three legal elements required to prove the Defendant guilty of 'Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity,' specifically noting that this count relates solely to an individual named 'Jane' between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00008639.jpg
This document is page 101 of the jury instructions filed on December 18, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text, labeled Instruction No. 12, defines the legal distinction between 'Conspiracy Counts' (agreement to commit a crime) and 'Substantive Counts' (actual commission of a crime), instructing the jury that these are separate offenses and outlining the order in which specific counts (One through Six) will be addressed.
DOJ-OGR-00008625.jpg
This document is a specific page (page 87 of 167) from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It serves as a Table of Contents for Jury Instructions, listing instructions 49 through 59, covering topics such as the defendant's right not to testify, evidence from searches, electronic communications, and jury conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008613.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 53, from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 18, 2021. The instruction directs the jury on how to consider electronic communications seized by the Government as evidence. It explicitly states that the seizure and use of this evidence are legal, and that the jury must not allow their personal opinions about the seizure to affect their deliberations, but must instead determine the weight of the evidence in deciding the Defendant's guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00008610.jpg
This document is page 72 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 50, which directs the jury not to draw inferences from uncalled witnesses who were mentioned during the trial but did not testify. It further emphasizes that the defendant bears no burden to call witnesses or produce evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008596.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021, which appears to be jury instructions. The text explains the legal doctrine of "conscious avoidance," instructing the jury on how they can find that a defendant acted knowingly if she deliberately avoided learning the truth about her involvement in unlawful conduct or a conspiracy. It clarifies that while conscious avoidance can establish knowledge of a conspiracy's objective, it cannot substitute for the finding that the defendant knowingly and intentionally joined the conspiracy itself.
DOJ-OGR-00008595.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 39, filed on December 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It defines the concept of "conscious avoidance" or "willful blindness," instructing the jury that they can consider a defendant's deliberate ignorance of a probable crime as the equivalent of actual knowledge. This instruction guides the jury in determining whether the defendant acted "knowingly," a key element the government must prove.
DOJ-OGR-00008561.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 14) from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It details the three elements the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the defendant on 'Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity'. The instruction specifies that this charge pertains exclusively to actions against an individual named 'Jane' between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00008557.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated December 18, 2021, outlining two counts of an indictment. Count Five charges an unnamed defendant with conspiring to sex traffic multiple minors between 2001 and 2004. Count Six charges the same defendant with the sex trafficking of a specific individual named Carolyn during the same time period.
DOJ-OGR-00008545.jpg
This document is page 7 of a 167-page legal filing (Document 563) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It is a table of contents for a set of jury instructions, listing topics from Instruction No. 42 to No. 59, which cover evidence, witness credibility, defendant's rights, and jury conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008529.jpg
This document is page 73 of 82 from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 54, titled 'Persons Not on Trial,' which explicitly instructs the jury not to speculate why other individuals are not on trial or draw inferences from their absence. The document is stamped with Bates number DOJ-OGR-00008529.
DOJ-OGR-00008528.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 53, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It directs the jury on how to consider electronic communications seized by the Government as evidence. The instruction clarifies that the use of this evidence is legal, and the jury must not let their personal opinions about the seizure influence their deliberations, but they are responsible for determining the weight of this evidence.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-03-01 | Paid | defendant | Marriage Assets | $20,000,000.00 | Amount brought to the marriage by the defendant... | View |
| 2025-03-01 | Paid | defendant | Marriage Assets | $20,000,000.00 | Amount defendant brought to the marriage (more ... | View |
| 2022-06-01 | Paid | defendant | N/A | $22,000,000.00 | Value of assets defendant claimed to have durin... | View |
| 2021-03-22 | Received | Buyers of Hovensa... | defendant | $450,000.00 | Amount the Defendant would retain for living ex... | View |
| 2021-03-22 | Received | Buyers of Hovensa... | defendant | $0.00 | Jewelry and other chattels potentially worth hu... | View |
| 2021-03-09 | Paid | defendant | Monitorship | $0.00 | Defendant offers to place some assets in a moni... | View |
| 2020-12-30 | Paid | defendant | Court | $28,500,000.00 | Proposed bail package (rejected). | View |
| 2020-12-30 | Received | Lender (implied) | defendant | $0.00 | Significant loans procured on the basis of a ne... | View |
| 2020-12-30 | Paid | defendant | Illiquid Hedge Fund | $4,000,000.00 | Investment argued by defense to be difficult to... | View |
| 2020-12-01 | Received | N/A | defendant | $3,400,000.00 | Approximate worth of assets held in defendant's... | View |
| 2020-07-14 | Paid | defendant | Court (Bond) | $0.00 | Discussions regarding a bond, transparency of f... | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Paid | defendant | Self | $3,400,000.00 | Approximate assets held in defendant's own name... | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Paid | defendant | Self | $3,400,000.00 | Approximate assets held in her own name. | View |
| 2019-07-02 | Paid | defendant | United States Gov... | $0.00 | Legal provision declaring intent to seek forfei... | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Paid | defendant | Spouse | $0.00 | Millions of dollars of assets transferred throu... | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Paid | defendant | Spouse | $0.00 | Millions of dollars of assets transferred throu... | View |
| 2009-06-01 | Paid | defendant | plaintiff | $150,000.00 | Damages sought per violation under 2006 amended... | View |
| 2009-06-01 | Paid | defendant | plaintiff | $50,000.00 | Damages minimum under 2005 statute | View |
| 2008-09-18 | Paid | defendant | victims | $150,000.00 | Minimum damages set by 18 U.S.C. § 2255 referen... | View |
| 2008-09-18 | Paid | defendant | Robert Josefsberg... | $0.00 | Defendant required to pay for services of indep... | View |
| 2008-07-17 | Paid | defendant | Code Enforcement ... | $150.00 | Administrative fee mentioned in previous minutes. | View |
| 2008-07-17 | Paid | defendant | Code Enforcement ... | $125.00 | Daily fine rate discussed. | View |
| 2008-07-17 | Paid | defendant | Code Enforcement ... | $150.00 | Administrative fee ordered in previous motion. | View |
Proposed method for asking juror background questions
A comment from the defense proposes that juror background questions be asked via a written questionnaire instead of live voir dire. The defense argues this saves time and allows for better vetting, citing precedent from other cases. The document notes that the Government objects to this proposal.
Response to Government Objection
Defense argues questions are necessary to empanel an impartial jury and handle pretrial publicity issues.
Filing deadline
Order setting a deadline for response filing.
Third Bail Motion
Proposed additional bail conditions including citizenship renunciation and asset monitoring.
Notice of Appeal
Appealing the Court's December 2020 opinion denying the Second Bail Motion.
Renewed motion for bail
Arguments regarding lack of documentary evidence and reliance on witness testimony.
Defendant's submission
Upcoming submission regarding renewed bail motion.
Reply letter regarding disclosure of information
A reply letter from the Defendant stating she is seeking to disclose factual information under seal to certain judicial officers regarding a grand jury investigation.
Financial status
Representations regarding finances which the Court deems 'woefully incomplete' and lacking candor.
Asset disclosure
Stated she possessed approx $3.4 million; claimed NH property was owned by a corporation and she was 'just able to stay there'.
Asset Disclosure
Defendant stated she possessed approx $3.4 million; claimed NH property was owned by a corporation and she was 'just able to stay there.'
Request for pre-motion conference
Defendant requested a pre-motion conference (dkt. no. 24).
Defendant's finances and other key facts
The Defendant made representations to Pretrial Services in July 2020 which the Court found to be woefully incomplete and a misrepresentation of key facts.
Defendant's finances and personal information
The Defendant made representations to Pretrial Services in July 2020 which the Court found to be 'woefully incomplete' and demonstrated a 'lack of candor'.
Trial Preparation
The document discusses the difficulties counsel faces communicating with defendants during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Asset Declaration
Defendant stated she possessed approx $3.4 million; claimed NH property was owned by a corporation and she was 'just able to stay there.'
Defendant's finances and other key facts
The Defendant made representations to Pretrial Services in July 2020 which the Court found to be woefully incomplete and a misrepresentation of key facts.
Contact Restriction
NO CONTACT WITH CO-DEFENDANT UNLESS IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL
Defense claims regarding Austrian passport expiration and...
Claimed the passport expired 32 years ago and was never used.
Unknown
Defense produced only two emails prior to court order.
Legal Testimony
The document refers to a 'second deposition' in July 2016, specifically noting 'three colloquies' that form the basis of Count Six (perjury).
Meet and confer
Meet and confer phone call regarding discovery responses.
Comments on Cassell and Edwards
Called attorneys 'unethical lawyers' who should be 'disbarred'.
Allegations made by Jane Doe #3
Request for records of communication regarding allegations; Defendant claims privilege and irrelevance.
No Subject
The defendant claims she no longer has access to her own emails from 1994 to 1997, which she hypothesizes could be exculpatory evidence.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity