MS. POMERANTZ
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Opposing counsel |
12
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Opposing counsel |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
61 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Opposing counsel |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Flatley
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Drescher
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN
|
Professional |
7
|
2 |
| 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-00014924.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, questions a witness, Dr. Rocchio, about a peer-reviewed study published in October 2020 concerning the behaviors of perpetrators. Dr. Rocchio explains that the study involved a comprehensive literature review to identify common behavioral stages and strategies.
DOJ-OGR-00014923.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz. Dr. Rocchio testifies about the psychological concepts of 'trauma bonding,' 'coercion,' and 'grooming' in the context of sex trafficking and pimp/sex worker relationships. The prosecution also introduces Government Exhibit 3, an academic article validating a model of child sexual abusers, authored by Georgia Winters, Elizabeth Jeglic, and Leah Kaylor.
DOJ-OGR-00014920.jpg
This document is page 44 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct testimony of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, discussing methods of substantiating abuse cases, including legal convictions and medical evidence (specifically gonorrhea in children). During the testimony, the government introduces 'Government Exhibit 2,' an article regarding 'coercive control' authored by Jacquelynn Duron, Laura Johnson, Gretchen Hoge, and Judy Postmus, which is admitted into evidence without objection from the defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca.
DOJ-OGR-00014902.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on Rocchio's professional background in psychology, including their involvement with the division of trauma psychology and leadership roles in the Rhode Island and American psychological associations, as well as their methods for continuing education.
DOJ-OGR-00014901.jpg
This document is page 25 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct examination of a witness identified as Rocchio by attorney Ms. Pomerantz. The witness describes their professional responsibilities as the president-elect of the Division of Trauma Psychology within the American Psychological Association.
DOJ-OGR-00014896.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on 01/15/25. It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the witness's academic credentials at Brown University and their expertise in traumatic stress and childhood trauma. During the testimony, Government Exhibit 1 is admitted into evidence without objection from the defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca.
DOJ-OGR-00014895.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, showing Ms. Pomerantz conducting a direct examination of Dr. Rocchio. Dr. Rocchio states he is a clinical assistant professor at Brown University's Alpert School of Medicine since July 2020, where he supervises and teaches psychiatry fellows. The examination leads to the introduction of his curriculum vitae as Government Exhibit 1.
DOJ-OGR-00014881.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. The court discusses upcoming trial dates with counsel, proposing a final pretrial conference for November 23rd and discussing the start of voir dire on November 16th. Counsel Ms. Pomerantz (for the government) and Ms. Sternheim agree to the proposals, with Ms. Sternheim asking for a specific start time for the voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00014880.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge sets a firm hearing date for November 15th to discuss jury questionnaires and motions in limine, specifically mentioning defense motions regarding co-conspirator statements, 'alleged victim 3', and Exhibit 52. The court also plans to address government motions seeking to exclude testimony from experts Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz.
DOJ-OGR-00014879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. The Judge discusses the necessity of sealing portions of the proceedings related to Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (sexual behavior evidence) and outlines the schedule for addressing 'Daubert' issues first. The Judge also notes a high response rate for jury summons, with 565 prospective jurors having filled out questionnaires in two days.
DOJ-OGR-00020912.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) involving the questioning (voir dire) of a potential juror. The text covers a sidebar conference where defense counsel (Ms. Sternheim) requests the Judge ask the juror if they read the case summary, specifically regarding the charges. The Judge then reads a portion of the indictment summary to the juror, stating that the defendant is charged with conspiring with and aiding Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors between 1994 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00018861.jpg
This document is an index of examinations from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the direct, cross, redirect, and recross examinations of witnesses Kimberly Meder, Stephen Flatley, and Carolyn by various attorneys. The index also lists several government exhibits that were received during the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00018817.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a moment after a recess where the judge and attorneys prepare for a witness, and the judge then addresses the jury to apologize for a delay and inform them of upcoming scheduling changes, including days off due to a personal conflict and the Christmas holiday.
DOJ-OGR-00018762.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the resumption of proceedings after a lunch break, where the jury returns and the witness, 'Carolyn,' takes the stand to continue cross-examination by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The judge reminds the witness she is under oath and instructs the attorney to adjust his microphone.
DOJ-OGR-00018679.jpg
This is a transcript page from the trial USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz questions witness Mr. Flatley confirming that all emails in 'Government Exhibit 54' came from the account 'gmax1@mindspring.com'. Subsequently, Defense attorney Ms. Menninger begins recross-examination, asking technical questions about how email clients (like Outlook) automatically refresh data from servers when connected to the internet.
DOJ-OGR-00018678.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley by attorney Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on a specific computer, establishing that Ghislaine Maxwell held the only non-default user account on the device. The defense attorney attempts to establish doubt about who physically accessed the computer, suggesting it could have been in a common area (like a kitchen) and used by others via Maxwell's logged-in account.
DOJ-OGR-00018677.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley. The questioning focuses on the creation of a document, attempting to cast doubt on whether a person named 'gmax' could have created it by highlighting that her physical location on January 29, 2002, might differ from the computer's location. The witness, Flatley, admits to not knowing who created the document or where the computer was located.
DOJ-OGR-00018673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley. The questioning attorney establishes that the witness does not know the physical location of a desktop computer at the time certain exhibits were created, suggesting it could have been in Florida, New York, or elsewhere. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, makes two objections during this line of questioning, both of which are overruled by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018671.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley. The testimony focuses on the forensic examination of a hard drive, confirming it originated from a desktop computer rather than a laptop, and establishing that the drive examined was a 'clone' of another hard drive. An objection regarding the transport of desktops on airplanes was sustained by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018668.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed 08/10/22) featuring the testimony of a Mr. Flatley. Ms. Pomerantz concludes her questioning after Flatley reads a statement describing Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as 'great partners' and 'best of friends' who complement each other well. Ms. Menninger then begins cross-examination, establishing that a hard drive (Exhibit GX54) was found in Mr. Epstein's New York home.
DOJ-OGR-00018665.jpg
This page documents the direct examination of a witness named Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz. The witness is asked to read specific details from documents, including names of workers (John and Mary Alessi), information about 'Palm Beach House Maintenance' and a FedEx account, and metadata (author 'gmax' and 2002 timestamps) from a digital file labeled 418B.
DOJ-OGR-00018664.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the metadata (creation, save, and print dates in September 2002) and titles of specific evidence documents. The documents discussed are titled 'PB New Shampoo and Massage Products' (Exhibit 420) and 'Palm Beach House Workers' (Exhibit 418R), linking the evidence to operations at a Palm Beach residence.
DOJ-OGR-00018663.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Flatley. The testimony focuses on Word document metadata, specifically for Government Exhibit 420B, establishing that the author and the person who last saved the document are both listed as "gmax".
DOJ-OGR-00018660.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Flatley, who identifies and authenticates Government Exhibits 420, 421, and 422. Following his testimony and with no objection from the opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger, the court admits the exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018659.jpg
This document is page 61 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz regarding the review of evidence using forensic software. During the proceedings, Government Exhibit 418B is admitted without objection from Ms. Menninger, and Exhibits 420, 421, and 422 are presented for identification.
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.
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.
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.
Grooming by proxy
Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio about their knowledge of the term 'grooming by proxy' in scientific or clinical literature.
Audio volume
Instruction to speak into the microphone.
Exhibit management
Discussion regarding providing binders and locating Tab 6 for the witness and judge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Request for a lunch break
Ms. Pomerantz requests that the proceedings break for lunch and resume afterward.
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.
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.
Calling next witness
Ms. Pomerantz calls the witness 'Kate' on behalf of the government.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
Direct Examination
Questions regarding Flatley's background, role in CART, and experience.
Topics for cross-examination
Conferred with defense counsel regarding topics for cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio.
Direct examination regarding a written entry
Ms. Pomerantz questions the witness, Annie, about an entry she wrote, asking her to state its date and read it to the jury.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity