| 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 |
This document is a page from the opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz in the trial of US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It details how the defendant and Epstein groomed a 14-year-old victim identified as 'Jane' through gifts, money, and outings before escalating to sexual abuse at Epstein's Palm Beach home. The text emphasizes the defendant's role in normalizing the abuse by being present in the room while Epstein, a man in his 40s, abused the minor.
This document is page 35 of a court transcript (Document 741, filed 08/10/22) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). In this opening statement, Ms. Pomerantz describes how the defendant and Epstein used a 'cover' of mentorship to gain the trust of aspiring young girls and their parents. The text details the grooming methodology, specifically how the defendant normalized sexual topics and used 'massage' as a ruse to lure girls into sexually abusing Epstein at his Palm Beach and Manhattan properties.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Opening Statement by Ms. Pomerantz) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text outlines Maxwell's role as the 'lady of the house' and 'second in command' to Jeffrey Epstein, detailing how she managed his properties and enforced a strict culture of silence among employees. It further describes their 'playbook' for grooming victims, which involved targeting vulnerable girls—often from single-mother households—by flaunting wealth and promising to pay for their education.
This document is a page from the court transcript of the opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The prosecutor outlines the evidence to be presented, detailing Jeffrey Epstein's wealth, luxury properties (Palm Beach, Manhattan, NM, Paris, USVI), and private planes. It specifically defines the relationship between Maxwell and Epstein as intimate partners starting in the early 1990s, transitioning to 'best of friends' and closest associates.
This document is page 28 of a court transcript from the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz delivers an opening statement describing how Maxwell acted as a predator alongside a 'middle-aged man' (Epstein) between 1994 and 2004. The text details grooming tactics such as shopping trips and normalizing sexual topics to traffic young girls, including a victim named 'Jane,' for sexual abuse.
This document is a page from the court transcript of the opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz (Government) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The prosecutor describes an event in the summer of 1994 where a 14-year-old girl named 'Jane' was approached at a camp for talented kids by a man and a woman (implied to be Epstein and Maxwell). The pair claimed to be donors to the camp, established a connection via their shared residence in Palm Beach, Florida, and obtained the minor's phone number.
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. Before the jury is brought in, the judge confirms with attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim that there are no preliminary matters. The judge then announces that overflow courtrooms have been successfully set up to ensure public access, thanking the district executive's and clerk's offices for their assistance.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a legal debate regarding witness testimony: first, confirming a female witness will testify only to facts and not offer opinions on 'grooming' (Rule 702), and second, a defense objection by Mr. Pagliuca regarding the government's use of Mr. Buscemi as a 'summary witness' under Rule 1006. The defense argues Buscemi should not analyze complex business or phone records.
This court transcript page, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. The conversation centers on the testimony of a witness named Jane regarding a single incident of sexual abuse in New Mexico and whether a specific limiting instruction should be added to the jury charge. The judge ultimately denies the request, stating that the defense failed to ask for it at the appropriate time and that the charge is based on a violation of New York law.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript details a discussion where defense attorney Ms. Sternheim confirms the defense will not call a witness named Mr. Hamilton, citing concerns over public access limitations during remote testimony. Additionally, prosecutor Ms. Comey discusses the scheduling of custodian witnesses for a brief rebuttal presentation.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of the recross-examination of a witness named Aznaran, focusing on whether paper records were logged into the CBP system in the 1990s. Following Aznaran's dismissal, defense attorney Ms. Menninger calls a new witness, Dominique Hyppolite, to the stand for the defense.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It features the recross-examination of Officer Aznaran regarding Customs and Border Protection (CBP) record-keeping practices during the 1990s and prior to 9/11. The witness confirms that records during that era were paper-based.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. A witness named Aznaran confirms that a record for Annie Farmer reflects an actual border crossing at an airport related to a Düsseldorf flight, and that this information is not dependent on airline data. After attorney Mr. Everdell concludes his questions, attorney Ms. Pomerantz begins a new recross examination regarding the absence of digital kiosks in the 1990s.
This document is page 228 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the redirect examination of a witness named Aznaran regarding the technical details of how airline flight reports integrate with immigration (TECS) data when passengers pass through kiosks. The discussion specifically focuses on distinguishing record-keeping practices prior to September 11, 2001, clarifying that records initially reflect flight times but are updated when a passport is physically stamped at an immigration site.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Aznaran by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony establishes that travel records for individuals named Jane, Kate, and Annie before September 11, 2001, are not exhaustive. The witness confirms that prior to 9/11, airlines were not as complete in providing passenger manifests as they were afterward, suggesting a reason for the incomplete records.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Aznaran. The questioning, led by Ms. Pomerantz, focuses on the reliability and completeness of travel records from before the 9/11 attacks. The witness concedes that the records may be incomplete and that individuals could have taken international trips in the 1990s that are not documented, before being directed to a specific flight record from July 20, 1997, in 'Defendant's Exhibit MA-1'.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Aznaran by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on the reliability of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) records, specifically highlighting that records prior to 9/11 were less reliable than those created after the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and subsequent mandates on the airline industry. The witness states that records regarding 'onboard status' became significantly more reliable around 2009 or 2010.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Aznaran regarding travel records for Annie Farmer. The testimony confirms a flight by Farmer on July 20, 1997, from Düsseldorf to Newark, and notes that there were no border crossing records for her in the TECS system during 1996.
This page is a transcript from the trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran. The witness confirms retrieving 'person encounter lists' (border crossing records) from the TECS system regarding three individuals: Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer, which were generated on December 14, 2021. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, successfully moves to admit these records as Exhibit MA1 under seal to protect the privacy of the witnesses testifying under pseudonyms.
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for the admissibility of records to potentially impeach a witness's testimony regarding public assistance timelines relative to the charged conspiracy. Following a recess, the defense and prosecution (represented by Ms. Pomerantz) agree on redactions for a specific exhibit to be presented to the witness.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues regarding the relevance of travel records for a woman named 'Kate,' noting a discrepancy where she claimed to be on public assistance while simultaneously 'flying all over the world' and maintaining contact with Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) suggests redacting information that postdates the charged conspiracy.
This document is a page from a court transcript (US v. Maxwell) detailing a sidebar discussion while the jury is not present. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz debate the admissibility of 'Exhibit MA1,' which contains victim travel records spanning 15 years (up to 2010). The prosecution objects to records outside the charged indictment period citing relevance and victim privacy, while the defense argues the 2010 cutoff was previously negotiated with the government.
This document is page 191 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (US v. Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records the swearing-in and commencement of the direct examination of defense witness Michael William Aznaran by attorney Mr. Everdell. Before questioning begins, there is a brief procedural discussion regarding the timing of a sidebar to address a government objection to a forthcoming exhibit.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing the end of Professor Loftus's testimony. Under redirect by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, Loftus confirms her testimony would remain unchanged regardless of which side called her. Following her excusal, defense attorney Mr. Everdell calls the next witness, Michael Aznaran.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the redirect examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning establishes that Loftus has worked as a consultant for multiple U.S. federal agencies, including the Secret Service, DOJ, FBI, and IRS, while also having a history of testifying for the defense in criminal cases. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, makes several objections to the line of questioning on grounds of mischaracterization and foundation.
Ms. Pomerantz asks Ms. Drescher to pull up Government Exhibit 604 for the witness, parties, and the Court.
Asking if there are concerns regarding the Friday morning session plan.
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.
(Counsel confer) noted in transcript.
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.
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.
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.
Discussion regarding providing binders and locating Tab 6 for the witness and judge.
Instruction to speak into the microphone.
Ms. Pomerantz questions Dr. Rocchio about their knowledge of the term 'grooming by proxy' in scientific or clinical literature.
Questioning regarding duties as president-elect of the division of trauma psychology.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ms. Pomerantz questions the witness, Annie, about her age during a trip to New York and asks her to identify Jeffrey Epstein in a photograph. She then asks Annie to describe her first meeting with Epstein.
Establishment of witness age (42) and introduction of Government Exhibit 13.
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.
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.
Ms. Pomerantz clarifies their understanding of a question posed to Dr. Rocchio regarding third parties and support in literature, before deferring to the judge's point.
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'.
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.
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