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-00016671.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the redirect examination of a witness named Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus), who explains the ethical restrictions placed on psychologists by human subjects review committees, specifically noting they cannot deliberately plant memories of sexual abuse. The page concludes with the defense attorney asking Loftus about the government's suggestion during cross-examination that she is a 'profiteer' for testifying for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00016670.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of Professor Loftus by counsel Ms. Sternheim. The questioning establishes Professor Loftus's extensive 50-year career in experimental psychology and confirms she was previously questioned about various studies, including some involving sexual abuse. Counsel Ms. Pomerantz makes an objection which is sustained by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00016669.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning focuses on the nature of memory experiments Loftus has conducted, establishing that while they have studied memories of car crashes and interviewed sexual abuse survivors, they have never conducted unethical studies such as arranging for abuse to occur or attempting to implant false memories of abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00016660.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the cross-examination of defense expert witness Elizabeth Loftus by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz regarding 'Government Exhibit 1511,' a study on false memories. The questioning focuses on a specific experiment where 16% of participants falsely recalled meeting Bugs Bunny at Disney.
DOJ-OGR-00016659.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a cross-examination. Ms. Pomerantz argues for the relevance of a witness's experiments on memory, distinguishing them from other evidence related to Dr. Rocchio, while Mr. Pagliuca briefly interjects. The Court ultimately rules 'Overruled' on an unspecified objection or motion.
DOJ-OGR-00016654.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of defense expert witness Elizabeth Loftus during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz questions Loftus about her history of testifying for high-profile defendants, her interactions with the press, the potential business benefits of such testimony, and clarifies that her work is research-based rather than clinical. The text mentions Loftus's book, 'Witness for the Defense'.
DOJ-OGR-00016653.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a ruling by the judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus (likely expert Elizabeth Loftus). The judge admonishes attorney Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) not to draw prejudicial associations with other defendants Loftus has testified for, citing Rule 403 grounds, but allows general questions regarding incentives to testify in high-profile cases.
DOJ-OGR-00016651.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conference regarding the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim objects to the prosecution's questioning as 'character assassination,' while prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz argues the questioning establishes the witness's 'financial incentive' to testify for the defense as a career expert witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016642.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of Professor Loftus during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Pomerantz questions Loftus, establishing her background as a researcher and consultant who has worked with defense attorneys in criminal cases hundreds of times. The page marks the transition from direct examination by Ms. Sternheim to cross-examination by Ms. Pomerantz.
DOJ-OGR-00016638.jpg
This page contains a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim is examining a witness, Professor/Judge Loftus, establishing that they did not go into great detail about the witness's CV to save time. Sternheim successfully moves to admit the CV (Exhibit EF-1) into evidence over an objection by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz. Sternheim then questions Loftus to confirm she is being compensated for her time but has no stake in the trial's outcome.
DOJ-OGR-00016622.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several lawyers (Rohrbach, Sternheim, Pomerantz) regarding procedural matters. The discussion focuses on narrowing the scope of an affidavit to a few paragraphs and determining the schedule for the remainder of the day's proceedings. Logistical issues are raised, including arranging a Webex for a 'Mr. Hamilton' and estimating the time required for a 'Professor Loftus'.
DOJ-OGR-00016620.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. With the jury not present, the judge excuses a witness for a break and then discusses procedural matters with the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell). The primary focus is on resolving 'prior inconsistent statements,' with the judge urging the lawyers to confer and narrow the points of disagreement.
DOJ-OGR-00016617.jpg
This court transcript page from August 10, 2022, details the testimony of a witness named Loftus on the subject of memory. Loftus explains that while traumatic experiences can create strong memories of core events, they are susceptible to distortion from post-event suggestion. The witness also clarifies that a person's confidence in their memory is a reliable indicator of accuracy only under 'pristine' conditions, free from suggestion over a short period of time.
DOJ-OGR-00016615.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct testimony of expert witness Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, questioned by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, regarding the fallibility and constructive nature of human memory. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz successfully objects to a leading question posed by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00016614.jpg
This document is page 131 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of a witness named Loftus (likely memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus) by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The testimony focuses on the concepts of the 'forgetting curve' and 'post-event information,' with several objections raised by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz regarding leading questions and witness commentary.
DOJ-OGR-00016604.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests permission for expert witness Professor Loftus to use courtroom monitors as a whiteboard to demonstrate the stages of memory to the jury. After the prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) raises no objection and the Judge approves, Professor Loftus begins testifying about the 'acquisition stage' of memory.
DOJ-OGR-00016603.jpg
This document is a page from the trial transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim examines Professor Elizabeth Loftus, successfully proffering her as an expert witness in memory science despite objections from prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz. Loftus begins her testimony by explaining to the jury that human memory does not function like a recording device but is a complex reconstruction process.
DOJ-OGR-00016589.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of Dr. Loftus by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The dialogue focuses on introducing Dr. Loftus's CV (Exhibit EL-1) and listing her honorary degrees from various international universities.
DOJ-OGR-00016575.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It shows the conclusion of the cross-examination of a witness, Espinosa, who confirms working at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan office but not his homes. Following this, the defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, calls the next witness, Raghu Sud, to the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00016574.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the testimony of a witness named Espinosa, who states under questioning by Mr. Everdell that during her six years working for Ghislaine Maxwell, she never saw Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein engage in inappropriate activity with underage girls. Following this testimony, Mr. Everdell concludes his questioning, and Ms. Pomerantz begins her cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00016572.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa confirms having a videoconference with the government in November 2020. The questioning then shifts to Espinosa's employment with Ghislaine Maxwell from 1996 to 2002, during which Espinosa denies ever seeing or being told that Maxwell was pregnant.
DOJ-OGR-00016571.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. The witness, identified as 'Espinosa', is being questioned by Mr. Everdell about a prior videoconference interview with prosecutors that took place during the summer. The attorney introduces a document (3501.063-002) to refresh the witness's recollection regarding the specific date of that interview.
DOJ-OGR-00016570.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of Ms. Espinosa. The questioning by Mr. Everdell focuses on Ms. Espinosa's past employment, the departure of Ghislaine, and the management of Epstein's properties by Sarah Kellen. An objection raised by Ms. Pomerantz regarding Sarah Kellen's marital status is sustained by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00016566.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The testimony focuses on Espinosa's recollection of booking hotels in Miami for a woman (implied to be Ghislaine) and confirms that Ghislaine dated and was in a relationship with a man named Ted Waitt in the 2000s. A question about whether the woman stayed at 'Epstein's residence' was asked, but an objection to it was sustained by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00016563.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa by attorney Mr. Everdell. The witness identifies 'Sarah Kellen' as the person who sat in the office where Ghislaine Maxwell used to sit. The remainder of the page concerns procedural discussions between the defense, prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz), and the Judge regarding the publication of 'Government's Exhibit 327' to the jury.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clarification on Detective Byrne
Disputing a representation regarding Detective Byrne and noting tech support was available.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding Government Exhibits 16 and 18.
Redirect Examination
Questioning regarding memory of abuse and reliance on documentation.
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.
Redirect Examination
Questioning regarding the emotional significance of compensation funds and potential financial interest in the trial outcome.
CBP Record Keeping
Questioning regarding whether CBP records in the 1990s were paper and if they were logged in systems prior to 9/11.
Evidence Request
Requesting jurors view Government Exhibit 16.
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.
Direct Examination regarding 1995 trip
Q&A regarding a trip to NY in 1995, meeting Epstein, and identifying a photo.
Work location cross-examination
Pomerantz confirms Espinosa worked at the Madison Ave office, not the homes or Palm Beach house.
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