MS. POMERANTZ
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Aznaran
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Janice Swain
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
STEPHEN FLATLEY
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Flatley
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
witness
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
STEPHEN FLATLEY
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Lisa Rocchio
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Swain
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Lisa Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Aznaran
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Professor Loftus
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Farmer
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Questioner
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination testimony of witness Flatley. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness 'Kate' | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Stephen Flatley | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 5 into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of A. Farmer's testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Calling of witness David Mulligan. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Lisa Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination testimony regarding sexual abuse disclosure statistics. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness 'Kate' regarding exhibits 3513-014. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Defendant's Exhibit MA1 into evidence under seal. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding the 'Craven article' and the definition of grooming. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court testimony regarding the nature of Epstein and Maxwell's relationship. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 424 into evidence during the testimony of Mr. Flatley. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of Dr. Rocchio regarding Government Exhibit 3. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of Jane | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Lisa Rocchio | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Sidebar/Discussion without Jury | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Witness Kate is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz about a visit to Maxwell's house and is shown Governm... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Direct examination of ANNIE FARMER by Ms. Pomerantz, starting on page 2049. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Redirect examination of ANNIE FARMER by Ms. Pomerantz, starting on page 2213. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Direct examination of DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN by Ms. Pomerantz, starting on page 2231. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Redirect examination of DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN by Ms. Pomerantz, starting on page 2245. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Direct examination of JANICE SWAIN by Ms. Pomerantz, starting on page 2247. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Witness Annie Farmer is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz, identifies the defendant in the courtroom, a... | courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013031.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the beginning of a court session where the direct examination of witness Kimberly Meder is continued by Ms. Comey, who is representing the Government. The examination picks up from the previous day, referencing 'Government Exhibit 1101'.
DOJ-OGR-00013011.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript, specifically from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the page numbers for the testimony of witnesses Kate, Patrick McHugh, Kelly Maguire, and Kimberly Meder, detailing the attorneys responsible for their direct and cross-examinations. The document also lists numerous government exhibits (series 223R-287R, 18, 109, 702) that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00009106.jpg
This document is a single page (page 9 of 10) from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records the voir dire examination of a prospective juror who confirms they do not listen to podcasts or follow criminal cases in the news. The juror affirms their ability to be fair and impartial to both sides, and both Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim decline to ask further questions.
DOJ-OGR-00009104.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. It captures the voir dire examination of Juror No. 50, where the court questions the prospective juror about their age (35), residence (Manhattan), education (bachelor's in finance), and employment history as an executive assistant in finance.
DOJ-OGR-00013996.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a trial break. The judge instructs the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell) to confer and narrow their disagreements regarding a witness's prior inconsistent statements. The judge states an intention to review these statements during the lunch break to help resolve the issues later that day.
DOJ-OGR-00013993.jpg
This page contains a transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of memory expert Dr. Loftus, who testifies about the reliability of memory in relation to trauma and post-event suggestion. Loftus explains that while core details of traumatic events may be remembered, they are still subject to distortion, and discusses the correlation between memory confidence and accuracy under pristine conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00013991.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Loftus. Loftus testifies that human memory is a "constructive process," where recollections are built rather than simply replayed like a video. During the testimony, an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, successfully objects to a question on the grounds that it is leading, and the examination is continued by Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00013990.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Loftus by attorney Ms. Sternheim. The questioning concerns psychological concepts of memory, specifically the "forgetting curve" and "post-event information." Opposing counsel, Ms. Pomerantz, successfully objects to the line of questioning multiple times, with the court sustaining the objections and instructing the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013980.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of Professor Loftus by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, specifically discussing the 'acquisition stage' of memory. The transcript details a procedural moment where the defense requests permission to use courtroom monitors as a whiteboard for demonstrative purposes, to which the prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) has no objection.
DOJ-OGR-00013979.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures the moment attorney Ms. Sternheim proffers Professor Elizabeth Loftus as an expert witness on memory science. After the court overrules an objection from Ms. Pomerantz and accepts Loftus as an expert, she begins her testimony by explaining to the jury that human memory is a complex, multi-stage process and not a simple recording device.
DOJ-OGR-00013951.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of Ms. Espinosa's testimony, confirming she worked at Jeffrey Epstein's Madison Avenue office but never at his homes or Palm Beach property. Following her dismissal, defense attorney Mr. Everdell calls the next witness, Mr. Raghu Sud, who is sworn in.
DOJ-OGR-00013950.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Ms. Espinosa. During questioning, Ms. Espinosa states that in the six years she worked for Ghislaine, she never saw Ghislaine or Jeffrey Epstein engage in any inappropriate activity with underage girls. The page concludes with counsel Ms. Pomerantz beginning her cross-examination of the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013949.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa states she left her job with Ghislaine after 9/11 to move back to California and be with her family. She speaks positively of her professional experience with Ghislaine, noting she was a 'very good resource' for her career, but objections are sustained when the questioning turns to personal feelings or experiences with 'Ms. Maxwell'.
DOJ-OGR-00013948.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. Espinosa testifies that she worked for Ghislaine Maxwell from 1996 to 2002 and confirms she never saw Maxwell pregnant nor was told she was pregnant during that time. She also confirms having a videoconference with the government regarding the case in November 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00013947.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The questioning attorney attempts to establish the date of a prior videoconference interview between Espinosa and prosecutors. As the witness cannot recall the specific date, the attorney, Mr. Everdell, with the court's permission, directs her to a document to refresh her memory.
DOJ-OGR-00013945.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a short recess where the jury and witness, Ms. Espinosa, leave the courtroom. Upon returning, the Court instructs defense attorney Mr. Everdell to continue his direct examination of Ms. Espinosa.
DOJ-OGR-00013944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness testifies about the timeline of a relationship between Ghislaine and Ted Waitt, estimating it began around 2001. The proceedings are then paused for a 15-minute break at the request of an attorney, Mr. Everdell, after he conferred with the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00013942.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The testimony focuses on Espinosa booking hotels for Ghislaine Maxwell in Miami during the 2000s, establishing that Maxwell did not always stay at Jeffrey Epstein's residence when in Florida. The testimony also identifies Ted Waitt as a man Maxwell dated and eventually became a couple with during that time period.
DOJ-OGR-00013939.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness identifies Sarah Kellen as having occupied an office previously used by Ghislaine. The transcript also captures a procedural discussion between the attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Pomerantz) and the judge regarding the presentation of Government's Exhibit 327 to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013937.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. Espinosa testifies that she perceived Jeffrey Epstein and Celina Midelfart to be a couple and notes that this relationship may have been concurrent with his relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. She further confirms that she bought flowers for Midelfart on Epstein's behalf and that Ghislaine Maxwell was unaware of this specific action.
DOJ-OGR-00013936.jpg
This page of court testimony features the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa describes guests visiting Jeffrey Epstein's office, noting that doors were usually shut during visits. The questioning focuses on Celina Midelfart, confirming that Espinosa was tasked with sending her flowers, specifically orchids and bouquets. The page ends with the prosecution asking if Espinosa perceived a romantic relationship between Epstein and Midelfart, which draws an objection from defense attorney Ms. Pomerantz that is overruled by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013934.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The testimony focuses on Espinosa's observations beginning in 1996, specifically regarding the romantic relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Espinosa testifies that they initially appeared to be a couple who were 'flirty,' but later 'went their separate ways' as Ghislaine began dating other men and they stopped arriving at the office together.
DOJ-OGR-00013927.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a direct examination of a witness named Espinosa regarding headshots and an envelope. It also records a motion by defense counsel Mr. Everdell to admit exhibits CE3 through CE8 temporarily under seal to protect witness privacy, which the Court granted, allowing a witness to testify under pseudonym.
DOJ-OGR-00013923.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. Espinosa testifies that an individual named Jane was treated as 'extra special' in their office because Jane's mother had claimed Jane was 'Jeffrey's goddaughter'. The questioning also touches upon Jane's siblings and the contact between Jane's mother and someone named Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013921.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The testimony focuses on frequent phone calls received at the office from 'Jane's mother,' who was persistently asking to speak with Jeffrey Epstein. The questioning is interrupted by an objection from Ms. Pomerantz regarding hearsay, prompting the judge to request a proffer.
Scheduling concerns
Asking if there are concerns regarding the Friday morning session plan.
Displaying Government Exhibit 604
Ms. Pomerantz asks Ms. Drescher to pull up Government Exhibit 604 for the witness, parties, and the Court.
Reliability and validity of psychological judgments on gr...
Rocchio answers questions about the concepts of validity and reliability in psychological science, specifically in the context of identifying grooming behaviors. Validity is measured by the overlap between victim and offender accounts, while reliability is measured by the agreement among professionals. Ms. Pomerantz then directs Rocchio to a specific page and section of a document.
Conferring
(Counsel confer) noted in transcript.
A peer-reviewed article from October 2020
Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio about an article he provided to the government, confirming its publication date, peer-review status, and the conclusions of the study regarding perpetrator behaviors.
Agreement with an article's conclusions
Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio about an article, focusing on a specific passage. Dr. Rocchio states that he does not agree with the article's conclusions and finds the specified text to be incomplete.
Professional Capacity
Questioning regarding duties as president-elect of the division of trauma psychology.
A peer-reviewed article from October 2020
Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio about an article he provided to the government, confirming its publication date, peer-review status, and the conclusions of the study regarding perpetrator behaviors.
Witness's professional qualifications in psychology
Ms. Pomerantz questions the witness, Rocchio, about their specialization in trauma psychology, leadership roles in professional organizations like the Rhode Island and American psychological associations, and how they maintain their expertise.
Audio volume
Instruction to speak into the microphone.
Grooming by proxy
Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio about their knowledge of the term 'grooming by proxy' in scientific or clinical literature.
Exhibit management
Discussion regarding providing binders and locating Tab 6 for the witness and judge.
Request for a lunch break
Ms. Pomerantz requests that the proceedings break for lunch and resume afterward.
Calling next witness
Ms. Pomerantz calls the witness 'Kate' on behalf of the government.
Allegations of sexual abuse against Epstein and the defen...
Ms. Pomerantz outlines the facts of the case, detailing the sexual abuse committed by Epstein against teenage girls and the defendant's alleged role as an essential accomplice who recruited, groomed, and facilitated the abuse.
Allegations of sexual abuse and recruitment against the d...
Ms. Pomerantz outlines the prosecution's case, alleging the defendant recruited multiple underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein and facilitated their sexual abuse at various locations, including New York, Florida, and New Mexico.
Direct examination of Dr. Lisa Rocchio's professional qua...
Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio about her profession as a clinical and forensic psychologist, the definitions of those fields, and her educational background from Emory University and the University of Rhode Island.
Allegations of recruiting underage girls for sexual abuse
Ms. Pomerantz outlines the prosecution's case, alleging the defendant recruited multiple underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse under the guise of massages, citing specific examples involving victims named Jane, a 16-year-old, and a 17-year-old in various locations.
Clarification on questioning a witness
Ms. Pomerantz asked for clarification about a planned line of questioning for a witness, initially believing it concerned an unsigned declaration involving the witness's ex-husband.
Basis of witness testimony and knowledge of the case
Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio, who confirms he has not interviewed witnesses, has no personal knowledge of the case facts, and that his testimony will not be based on information from this specific case. He also states he is being paid hourly for his time.
Relationship between Epstein and Maxwell; events at a ranch
Ms. Pomerantz questions the witness, A. Farmer, about her observations of the relationship between Epstein and Maxwell during a weekend at a ranch, and who was staying at the residence.
Explanation of a forensic practice
Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio, asking him to explain to the jury what a forensic practice entails. Dr. Rocchio describes being hired by attorneys to conduct psychological evaluations for various legal matters.
Relationship between Epstein and Maxwell; events at a ranch
Ms. Pomerantz questions the witness, A. Farmer, about her observations of the relationship between Epstein and Maxwell during a weekend at a ranch, and who was staying at the residence.
Opening Statement (Prosecution)
Ms. Pomerantz instructs the jury to pay attention to evidence, follow the judge's instructions, and use common sense to reach a guilty verdict for Ghislaine Maxwell.
Clarification of Dr. Rocchio's testimony regarding a thir...
Ms. Pomerantz addresses the court to state the government's understanding that the Court's opinion excluded Dr. Rocchio's opinion on the presence of a third party. She references a specific part of the transcript to distinguish this from the defense's concept of 'grooming by proxy'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity