MS. POMERANTZ
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness Flatley regarding the location of a desktop computer used to create ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the admission of email evidence. The judge rules that the dates o... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Witness Annie Farmer is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz in a courtroom proceeding. | courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of a witness named Flatley regarding the analysis of a hard drive. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Ms. Espinosa by attorney Mr. Everdell. | In open court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A dialogue between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the scope of cross-examination of a witne... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness A. Farmer regarding a conversation with her sister about a trip to ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal discussion during a court proceeding to determine the scope of questioning for a witness ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | A court hearing where a journal entry from 'Annie' (A. Farmer) was presented as Government Exhibi... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where witness Mr. Flatley is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the authent... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Admission of evidence | Government Exhibit 424, an email, is offered and admitted into evidence by the Court without obje... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Swain by Ms. Pomerantz, with objections from Ms. Menninger sustaine... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Recess | The court took a recess. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court session resumes after a recess, where the judge discusses bringing in the jury and a witn... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Flatley in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Meeting | Attorneys were instructed to confer to narrow issues of disagreement. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the nature of his forensic p... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Court testimony of witness A. Farmer (Annie) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, where Government Exhibits... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A cross-examination of witness A. Farmer, during which a legal argument occurs over the relevance... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing of Document 741 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN | Court (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Ms. Swain by Ms. Pomerantz, during which Government Exhibit 13 (Ann... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of a witness named Mulligan regarding conversations with a person named Annie a... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness A. Farmer, as recorded in this transcript. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Dr. Rocchio by attorney Ms. Pomerantz regarding risk factors for ch... | courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017924.jpg
This document is page 51 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the direct examination of expert witness Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding whether a 'groomer' is always the recipient of sexual gratification. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the questioning, the objection is sustained by the Court, and Ms. Pomerantz subsequently requests a sidebar conference.
DOJ-OGR-00017909.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination in a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio, who confirms he has no personal knowledge of the case facts, has not interviewed any witnesses, and that his testimony will not be based on specifics from this case. Dr. Rocchio also states he is being paid an hourly rate for his time preparing and testifying.
DOJ-OGR-00017902.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorney Ms. Pomerantz questions a witness, Dr. Rocchio, about the nature of his forensic practice. Dr. Rocchio explains that he is hired by attorneys to conduct psychological evaluations to assess mental health issues related to alleged abuse or to determine the role of mental health in criminal cases for sentencing purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00017896.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the beginning of the direct examination of Dr. Lisa Rocchio. Called as a witness by the Government, Dr. Rocchio, a clinical and forensic psychologist, is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz about her professional expertise and educational qualifications, including her degrees from Emory University and the University of Rhode Island.
DOJ-OGR-00015034.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the testimony of witness Lisa Rocchio, detailing page numbers for direct examination by Ms. Pomerantz and cross-examination by Mr. Pagliuca. It also lists Government Exhibits 1-5 and Defendant Exhibits A and B introduced during this testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00015022.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, concerning statistical data on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) disclosure rates, specifically discussing a study where 50% of participants did not disclose abuse until after age 19. The transcript also captures administrative exchanges regarding exhibit binders and microphone usage between the attorneys (Pomerantz, Rohrbach, Pagliuca) and the Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00015020.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is cross-examining a witness named Rocchio regarding 'Government Exhibit 6,' a study analyzing delayed reporting of psychological issues. Pagliuca attempts to establish that the current case does not involve allegations of delayed reporting by males, leading to an objection by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz on the grounds that the witness does not know the specific details of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00015019.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It documents the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding 'Exhibit 6,' a study on barriers to and facilitators of delayed disclosure in abuse cases. The witness defends their opinion as being based on the totality of their professional experience rather than a single article.
DOJ-OGR-00015018.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio regarding a 2016/2017 scientific article about the difficulty of identifying predatory behaviors and child molesters ahead of time. The dialogue includes a debate on 'hindsight bias' in characterizing grooming behaviors and concludes with the admission of Defendant's Exhibit B into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00015015.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding an article written in 2006 by Ms. Craven. The questioning focuses on the academic understanding of the term 'sexual grooming of children,' specifically highlighting a quote stating that the phenomenon is not clearly understood in the public domain.
DOJ-OGR-00014978.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated January 15, 2025, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on a phone call in April 2021 where Rocchio allegedly defined terms such as 'child,' 'sexual abuse,' and 'nonconsensual' to a group of Assistant US Attorneys (Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, Rohrbach). Rocchio states they do not specifically recall the definitions given or the context of the notes taken by the AUSAs.
DOJ-OGR-00014973.jpg
Transcript page from the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell). The witness confirms possession of his engagement agreement and time logs, prompting defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca to request immediate production of the file. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz responds that the government has already fulfilled its Jencks Act obligations by producing notes from meetings and calls with the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00014971.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. It captures the beginning of a cross-examination where counsel Mr. Pagliuca questions a witness, Dr. Rocchio, about the frequency of his meetings with the government. Dr. Rocchio acknowledges that he may have had around 14 contacts with the government in the past year, clarifying that this number would include telephone calls for scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00014968.jpg
This document is page 92 of a court transcript (Document 782, filed 01/15/25) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on statistical methodologies for tracking sexual abuse disclosure rates, comparing retrospective studies with real-time data (such as children with STDs), and confirms the expert's opinion that childhood sexual abuse creates higher risks for victims.
DOJ-OGR-00014955.jpg
This document is page 79 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of expert witness Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz. Dr. Rocchio defines grooming as a pattern of coercive control and testifies that a relationship of trust between a victim and perpetrator causes the victim confusion regarding what constitutes abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00014949.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on January 15, 2025, showing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by attorney Ms. Pomerantz. The questioning centers on the concept of 'grooming by proxy,' a term the witness is unfamiliar with in scientific literature. The judge intervenes to clarify the witness's expert opinion: that the presence of another individual can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00014944.jpg
This document is page 68 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on expert analysis of 'Victim Selection' and the 'grooming process,' discussing scientific literature and professional agreement regarding behaviors used by offenders to build trust and attachment.
DOJ-OGR-00014943.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct examination of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on the 'victim-selection model' as the first stage of grooming, discussing how offenders choose victims based on specific vulnerability factors established by professional literature and offender interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00014936.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a case filed on January 15, 2025, containing the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio. Dr. Rocchio testifies about the tactics of grooming for sexual abuse, explaining how offenders manipulate children to build trust and attachment. He highlights the similarity between grooming behaviors in literature and his own clinical and forensic experience, and describes the resulting psychological harm to victims, including confusion, self-blame, and shame.
DOJ-OGR-00014934.jpg
This page is a transcript from the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The government moves to admit 'Government Exhibit 5,' an article written by Park Dietz, which is accepted without objection. Dr. Rocchio explains that he provided this article to the government to clarify the concepts of 'grooming' and 'seduction' as established patterns in sexual abuse dynamics, noting specifically how older literature often used terminology that victim-blamed.
DOJ-OGR-00014930.jpg
This page contains a transcript of the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Dr. Rocchio provides expert testimony refuting an older article's conclusion that there is no consensus on 'grooming,' arguing that while universal agreement on every detail is rare in social science, there is definite scientific consensus on the phenomena of grooming and child sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00014929.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, capturing the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz. Rocchio explains the psychological concepts of validity and reliability as they apply to identifying grooming behaviors, defining validity by the consistency between victim and offender reports and reliability by the consensus among professionals. The examination concludes with Ms. Pomerantz directing the witness to a specific section of another document.
DOJ-OGR-00014928.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. Dr. Rocchio is questioned about an article and states that he disagrees with its conclusions. He specifically identifies a highlighted portion of the text as being incomplete.
DOJ-OGR-00014926.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, dated January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It features testimony, likely a direct examination by Rocchio, discussing a study on 'grooming' behaviors, including stages like gaining access, isolation, and trust development. The testimony validates the study's empirical approach to understanding and modeling the grooming process.
Displaying Government Exhibit 604
Ms. Pomerantz asks Ms. Drescher to pull up Government Exhibit 604 for the witness, parties, and the Court.
Scheduling concerns
Asking if there are concerns regarding the Friday morning session plan.
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.
Professional Capacity
Questioning regarding duties as president-elect of the division of trauma psychology.
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.
Exhibit management
Discussion regarding providing binders and locating Tab 6 for the witness and judge.
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.
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.
Audio volume
Instruction to speak into the microphone.
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.
Grooming by proxy
Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio about their knowledge of the term 'grooming by proxy' in scientific or clinical literature.
Redirect Examination
Questioning regarding Epstein's actions in bed and previous cross-examination questions about his penis.
Questioning about Jeffrey Epstein's actions
Ms. Pomerantz asks the witness, A. Farmer (Annie), to describe what Jeffrey Epstein did when he got into bed with her. This follows objections from Ms. Menninger which were overruled by the court.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding Government Exhibits 16 and 18.
Evidence Request
Requesting jurors view Government Exhibit 16.
Diary entry from January 25, 1996
Ms. Pomerantz questions the witness, Annie (A. Farmer), about a diary entry dated January 25, 1996, and asks her to read it to the jury. The entry details the witness's activities in New York.
Questioning about a diary entry from January 25, 1996
MS. POMERANTZ questions the witness, Annie Farmer, about an entry in what appears to be a diary or journal. The entry, dated January 25, 1996, is admitted as Government's Exhibit 604, and the witness is asked to read it to the jury.
Direct Examination
Establishing that 'Kate' is a pseudonym and directing her to the evidence binder.
Redirect Examination
Questioning regarding memory of abuse and reliance on documentation.
Clarification on Detective Byrne
Disputing a representation regarding Detective Byrne and noting tech support was available.
Exhibit Identification
Exchange regarding identifying exhibit K-8 / 3513-019.
Redaction Dispute
Discussion regarding a dispute over redactions on page 2370, lines 14 to 18, concerning an objection to a question lacking predicate foundation.
Objection Ruling
Judge sustains an objection regarding the line of questioning, prohibiting the attorney from drawing associations with other defendants the witness has testified for to avoid prejudice under Rule 403.
Scheduling and Scope of Cross-Examination
Ms. Pomerantz asks about the timing for the next witness and flags an issue regarding 'hindsight bias' questions being asked of a lay witness who happens to be a psychologist.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity