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-00018658.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) is questioning a witness named Mr. Flatley regarding Government Exhibit 418B, which contains the metadata properties for Exhibit 418. The court also admits Exhibit 418 under seal due to the presence of third-party telephone numbers.
DOJ-OGR-00018657.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Ms. Pomerantz conducting a direct examination of witness Mr. Flatley. Mr. Flatley identifies Government Exhibits 418 and 418R, confirming they are accurate copies of a document he reviewed. Subsequently, Ms. Pomerantz offers the exhibits into evidence to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018656.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz. Flatley reads into the record excerpts from an email sent by 'gmax' (gmax1@mindspring.com) to 'MarkhamCPM@earthlink.net'. The email content discusses the creation of a household manual, specific cleaning supply preferences (Tide, Downy, Bounce), purchasing locations (Publix, Sam's Club-PB Gardens), and coordination with an individual named John regarding checkoff lists.
DOJ-OGR-00018655.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Flatley. The testimony focuses on an email exchange from May 25, 2001, sent by 'Sally' to 'Ms. Maxwell' regarding a 'PB manual' (likely Palm Beach manual) and a conversation with 'John'.
DOJ-OGR-00018654.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Witness Mr. Flatley reads an email dated May 25, 2001, from 'gmax1@mindspring.com' to Sally Markham. The email details specific failures by a staff member named John, including issues with a Mercedes ('black Merc'), a dirty pool deck, technical issues with a computer, and disorganized massage creams in Jeffrey Epstein's ('JE') bathroom.
DOJ-OGR-00018653.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz, focusing on the authentication and admission of Government Exhibit 424, which is described as an email. The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, offers no objection, and the Judge admits the exhibit into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018648.jpg
This document is page 50 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz regarding forensic evidence. Flatley identifies Government Exhibit 54 as a hard drive he examined, noting its unique identifier 'NYC024350', and begins describing the forensic process involving a write blocker.
DOJ-OGR-00018647.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz. Flatley provides technical definitions for digital evidence, computers, and hard drives, and confirms that he examined digital evidence relevant to the case, noting that forensic examiners usually know nothing about the case details while analyzing data.
DOJ-OGR-00018645.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, covering the beginning of testimony from a government witness, Stephen Flatley. After being sworn in, Flatley is questioned by attorney Ms. Pomerantz and establishes his identity and his employment with the FBI's Computer Analysis Response Team in the New York division.
DOJ-OGR-00018614.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and counsel for the government (Mr. Rohrbach) and an opposing party (Ms. Menninger). Mr. Rohrbach confirms that the government will not question a witness, Mr. Flatley, about 'CDs' during direct examination, which resolves a procedural issue and satisfies the court and Ms. Menninger. The judge remarks that prior preparation for this line of questioning is now moot but may be saved for future use.
DOJ-OGR-00018597.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the examination of witnesses KATE, PATRICK McHUGH, KELLY MAGUIRE, and KIMBERLY MEDER by various attorneys, listing the page numbers for each direct, cross, redirect, and recross examination. The document also lists several government exhibits that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018477.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a portion of a cross-examination of a witness named Kate regarding her U visa status. During the proceeding, attorney Ms. Sternheim moves to admit Exhibits K-8 and K-10, which the court accepts under seal to protect the witness's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00018476.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on whether she has discussed her alleged abuse by Epstein with other victims and probes her memory of a meeting with the government concerning her U visa application, which her lawyer, Mr. Edwards, attended. The witness states she has not discussed her experiences with others and does not recall specific details about the meeting or her lawyer's actions during it.
DOJ-OGR-00018475.jpg
This document is page 138 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim cross-examines a witness named Kate regarding her memory of being asked to wear a uniform and an alleged conversation with Ghislaine about 'St. Trinian's,' which the witness does not recall. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) successfully objects to questions about costumes as being 'beyond the scope' of redirect.
DOJ-OGR-00018474.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Kate. Under questioning by Ms. Pomerantz, Kate explains that money received from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund represented recognition of her pain and truth, rather than just financial gain, and she explicitly denies having a financial stake in the outcome of the current trial. The page concludes with Ms. Sternheim beginning recross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018469.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and three attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Rohrbach, and Ms. Pomerantz) regarding an objection to having an agent testify about exhibits. The discussion clarifies that the agent in question is the one who conducted a search, not the current witness, after which the judge concludes the matter and calls for the witness and jury to enter.
DOJ-OGR-00018466.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Pomerantz, and Ms. Sternheim about the admissibility of email evidence. The judge rules that the dates of the emails can be presented to the jury, but the content and subject matter must be redacted, and information identifying a witness must be sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00018465.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues for the admission of evidence showing the dates a female witness ('she') maintained contact via email with a male subject ('him') to prove a relationship existed after the events in question. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) argues that the witness already admitted to the dates, making the evidence cumulative.
DOJ-OGR-00018463.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Court regarding the admissibility of evidence—specifically an email—under the doctrine of 'past recollection recorded.' The Judge questions what specific details the witness failed to recall that would necessitate admitting the prior record.
DOJ-OGR-00018462.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal exchange between Ms. Sternheim (Defense) and Ms. Pomerantz (Prosecution) regarding an exhibit labeled 'Defendant's K-8' or '3513-019'. Ms. Pomerantz begins a legal argument citing the 'recorded recollection rule' as an exception to hearsay.
DOJ-OGR-00018461.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz discuss the admissibility and origin of two exhibits: a visa application bearing the name 'Kate' (Exhibit K-9) and emails between a witness and Mr. Epstein (Exhibit K-7). Ms. Pomerantz clarifies that the visa form was provided by the witness's counsel during a previous meeting to discuss visa status.
DOJ-OGR-00018458.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a brief exchange where an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, requests a lunch break during the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The Court grants the request, announcing to the jury a break for 45 minutes to an hour starting at 12:45.
DOJ-OGR-00018457.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, questions Kate about her employment in the music industry and her limited knowledge of the requirements for a U visa, specifically its connection to being a victim of a crime. After the questioning concludes, another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, requests a break from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018456.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on the justification for her visa, which she claims is based on an 'extraordinary ability' related to music coaching. The attorney challenges this basis, and an objection from another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, is sustained by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018449.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a cross-examination of a person named Kate. The questioning covers a $1,200 payment for therapy and Kate's familiarity with a man named Ray Hamilton, whom she describes as an acquaintance and a friend of a friend, known both in 'the states' and London.
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.
Audio volume
Instruction to speak into the microphone.
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.
Professional Capacity
Questioning regarding duties as president-elect of the division of trauma psychology.
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.
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.
Grooming by proxy
Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio about their knowledge of the term 'grooming by proxy' in scientific or clinical literature.
Clarification on Detective Byrne
Disputing a representation regarding Detective Byrne and noting tech support was available.
Evidence Request
Requesting jurors view Government Exhibit 16.
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.
CBP Record Keeping
Questioning regarding whether CBP records in the 1990s were paper and if they were logged in systems prior to 9/11.
Direct Examination
Establishing that 'Kate' is a pseudonym and directing her to the evidence binder.
Direct Examination
Questions regarding Flatley's background, role in CART, and experience.
Redirect Examination
Questioning regarding the emotional significance of compensation funds and potential financial interest in the trial outcome.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding metadata dates and titles of Government Exhibits 420, 418R, and 418B.
Direct Examination regarding 1995 trip
Q&A regarding a trip to NY in 1995, meeting Epstein, and identifying a photo.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding travel logistics to New York and payment of flight.
Witness Transition
Pomerantz ends questioning of Farmer and calls David Mulligan; Sternheim requests a sidebar.
Clarification of questioning regarding grooming
Discussion regarding a distinction between third-party presence and sexual gratification in the context of grooming strategies.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity