The comparison between Ghislaine Maxwell and Kristina Khorrum misses the mark because it fundamentally misrepresents their roles and levels of power within the criminal enterprises they were allegedly tied to. Ghislaine Maxwell operated as a partner to Jeffrey Epstein—his chief recruiter, enabler, and co-conspirator in a global sex trafficking operation. She was embedded in the core infrastructure of Epstein’s scheme, allegedly participating in abuse and directly managing the grooming and procurement of girls. Kristina Khorrum, by contrast, is not accused of building or leading a criminal network. While her name has surfaced in connection with allegations involving Sean Combs, there is no indication she held a central operational role akin to Maxwell’s. Positioning Khorrum as a "Maxwell-type" distorts the dynamics at play and exaggerates her authority within the hierarchy.

A more appropriate comparison is between Kristina Khorrum and Sarah Kellen Vickers, one of Epstein’s assistants who functioned as a gatekeeper and scheduler for abuse but operated under Epstein and Maxwell’s control. Like Vickers, Khorrum has been portrayed in some accounts as someone who facilitated logistics—setting up appointments, flights, and possibly assisting with Combs’ social circles—but not as a mastermind or commanding authority figure. Both women occupied roles that blurred the line between assistant and enabler, raising difficult legal and ethical questions about complicity versus coercion. Importantly, neither was the architect of the criminal enterprise they were allegedly part of; they were the gears, not the engine. Drawing parallels to Vickers allows for a more nuanced and realistic evaluation of Khorrum’s alleged actions—one that accounts for power dynamics, proximity to abuse, and potential pressures, rather than flattening them under the weight of sensational comparisons.


to contact me:

[email protected]