MS. POMERANTZ
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | An afternoon session of a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) during the cross-examination of witness ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness A. Farmer regarding the dating of a past event. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | The cross-examination of witness Espinosa concludes, and the defense calls its next witness, Ragh... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Witness testimony | A witness identified as 'Kate' is called by the government and sworn in to testify. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Redirect examination | Ms. Sternheim conducts a redirect examination of Professor Loftus regarding her career in psychol... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness A. Farmer regarding her knowledge of Ghislaine's involvement in her ... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Direct examination | Ms. Pomerantz questions witness Dr. Rocchio in a legal proceeding. | Courtroom or deposition set... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness A. Farmer regarding a past incident and statements made to a victims... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Redirect examination of a witness named Loftus in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The questioning focuses... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court trial, specifically the cross-examination of a witness named Kate, is taking a lunch break. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Lunch break | The court announced a lunch break starting at 12:45 for a duration of 45 minutes to an hour. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the direct examination of witness Mr. Flatley. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness A. Farmer regarding their memory of a trip to New Mexico. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Kate regarding her correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | A sidebar discussion in court regarding the admissibility of evidence to test a witness's memory. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion was held regarding the jury deliberation schedule, a jury note requesting transcript... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, during which a legal objection was raised and ru... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Loftus regarding the constructive process of memory. An obj... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Redirect examination of witness A. Farmer in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript shows a legal... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Pomerantz. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court with the jury not present, where a witness is excused and procedural matter... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A sidebar discussion during a trial regarding the admissibility of a witness's prior consistent s... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness A. Farmer regarding her public statements and involvement in legal m... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio regarding literature on child sexual abuse. The testimony is int... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Expert witness testimony | Professor Elizabeth Loftus is qualified as an expert witness in the field of memory science and b... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018382.jpg
This document is page 45 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the trial related to Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the direct examination of a witness named Kate by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony details an incident where Ghislaine Maxwell gave the witness massage oil and closed the door to a small, dimly lit room where Jeffrey Epstein was standing naked, after which the witness gave him a massage.
DOJ-OGR-00018373.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Kate testifies about visiting Ghislaine Maxwell's house for tea. Kate explains she was excited to befriend Maxwell, who was friends with a man Kate was dating. She describes the house's exterior and identifies a photograph of it, marked as Government Exhibit 702, which is then offered into evidence without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018372.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the trial US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically the direct examination of a witness named Kate. The testimony establishes that Kate met Maxwell in Paris when Kate was approximately 17 years old, exchanged phone numbers, and was subsequently invited by Maxwell to her house for tea a few weeks later. The prosecutor, Ms. Pomerantz, also introduces a photograph (GX109) taken in the witness's backyard.
DOJ-OGR-00018368.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 'Kate,' regarding the admission of her driver's license (Government Exhibit 18) under seal to protect her anonymity. Kate testifies that she finished 'some high school' and currently works with women suffering from trauma and substance use disorder.
DOJ-OGR-00018367.jpg
Transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Witness 'Kate' is under direct examination by Ms. Pomerantz. Kate identifies Government Exhibit 16 as her birth certificate. The prosecution then moves to discuss Government Exhibit 18, prompting the Judge to instruct the jury to close their binders temporarily until the evidence is admitted.
DOJ-OGR-00018366.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the beginning of the direct examination of a witness using the pseudonym 'Kate' to protect her privacy. The prosecutor, Ms. Pomerantz, requests the jury look at Government Exhibit 16, which is noted as being under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00018364.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The court admits a series of redacted government exhibits into evidence and the government calls its next witness, 'Kate', who will testify under a pseudonym. The judge provides a limiting instruction to the jury regarding Kate's upcoming testimony about her interactions with the defendant and a 'Mr. Epstein'.
DOJ-OGR-00018101.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the testimony of three witnesses: Paul Kane, Lisa Rocchio, and Juan Patricio Alessi, detailing the attorneys who questioned them (Rohrbach, Menninger, Pomerantz, Comey) and the corresponding page numbers. It also lists various Government Exhibits (Nos. 761, 298, 297, 299, 606, 113, 114, and 2A/2C-2W) and the pages where they were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017970.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. During a cross-examination, a witness confirms that a study concluded it is not possible to prospectively or reliably predict 'grooming behavior'. After the witness's confirmation, the questioning attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concludes his examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017963.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The questioning concerns literature on child sexual abuse, leading to objections from attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the use of the term 'perpetrator' and the scope of the witness's answer. The court overrules these objections and directs the witness to continue.
DOJ-OGR-00017962.jpg
This document is page 89 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio regarding psychological concepts including confabulation, delayed disclosure, secondary gain, and malingering. Ms. Pomerantz repeatedly objects to the questioning, and the Court sustains most objections.
DOJ-OGR-00017961.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio, where the defense asks about the impact of traumatic brain injury, alcohol, and controlled substances on memory recall and the concept of 'confabulation.' Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) successfully objects to several questions regarding memory and abuse disclosure, but an objection regarding the definition of confabulation is overruled.
DOJ-OGR-00017956.jpg
Court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The excerpt captures a procedural discussion between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Pomerantz regarding a binder of materials (including Daubert hearing testimony and '3500 material') for witness Dr. Rocchio. Following the discussion, the jury enters, and Mr. Pagliuca begins his cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio.
DOJ-OGR-00017955.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, discusses his intention to use a specific study from John Jay College during cross-examination. The study concluded that certain factors cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior, and Mr. Pagliuca receives permission from the Court to question a witness on these findings.
DOJ-OGR-00017950.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge. They discuss the permissible scope of cross-examination, with the judge warning against introducing new, undisclosed expert testimony. The judge references a prior Daubert hearing and instructs another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, to object if the rules are violated.
DOJ-OGR-00017949.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between THE COURT and MS. POMERANTZ regarding the scope of expert testimony and cross-examination. The conversation centers on whether to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on certain opinions and the Court's qualification of another expert to provide opinions on delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases. The Court sets boundaries for cross-examination, emphasizing that it will not permit the introduction of undisclosed expert opinions.
DOJ-OGR-00017948.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and a lawyer (MS. POMERANTZ). Ms. Pomerantz raises a concern about the scope of questioning by another lawyer, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding a witness's testimony on the delayed disclosure of sexual abuse. The discussion centers on defining the line between permissible cross-examination and improperly soliciting expert opinions.
DOJ-OGR-00017945.jpg
This document is page 72 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge regarding the scope of cross-examination for an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio. The defense (Pagliuca) argues that topics such as confabulation, the process of storing memories, and the effect of alcohol on memory are relevant to explaining delayed disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00017944.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor Pomerantz, and Defense Attorney Pagliuca regarding a misunderstanding of a court order, followed by a recess. After the recess, Ms. Pomerantz raises an issue regarding Mr. Pagliuca's intent to cross-examine expert witness Dr. Rocchio on topics outside her direct testimony, specifically mentioning the 'halo effect' and 'suggestive memory'.
DOJ-OGR-00017941.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a legal argument between attorney Ms. Pomerantz and the Judge regarding the admissibility of questions related to 'grooming' and 'sexual gratification.' The Judge references a 'Daubert context' (expert witness admissibility) and compares the testimony to a 'pimp-prostitute context.'
DOJ-OGR-00017940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, and the judge ('THE COURT') after the jury has been excused for a break. Ms. Pomerantz seeks to clarify the record regarding the scope of Dr. Rocchio's testimony, stating the government's understanding that his opinion on the presence of a third party was excluded, and distinguishing this from the defense's theory of 'grooming by proxy'.
DOJ-OGR-00017939.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on the psychological aspects of childhood sexual abuse, specifically the role of trust in treatment. Another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the line of questioning, leading to rulings from the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00017928.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, regarding the factors that place a child at increased risk of sexual abuse. The judge sustains an objection and strikes a portion of the testimony before Dr. Rocchio begins to detail personal risk factors such as prior victimization, health issues, and disadvantaged circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00017926.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question from Ms. Pomerantz, claiming it violates a prior agreement with the government. The Court sustains the objection, expressing bafflement at the apparent misunderstanding or breach of the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00017925.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 a sidebar conference during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The Judge admonishes Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) for approaching a line of questioning regarding 'grooming by proxy' or 'third-party involvement' in a 'pimp-prostitute context,' which the Judge states was precluded or limited during a previous Daubert hearing.
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.
Exhibit management
Discussion regarding providing binders and locating Tab 6 for the witness and judge.
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.
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.
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.
Professional Capacity
Questioning regarding duties as president-elect of the division of trauma psychology.
Exhibit Identification
Exchange regarding identifying exhibit K-8 / 3513-019.
Redirect Examination
Questioning regarding Epstein's actions in bed and previous cross-examination questions about his penis.
Cross-examination regarding consulting history
Pomerantz questions Loftus about her history consulting with defense attorneys in criminal cases 'hundreds of times'.
Work location cross-examination
Pomerantz confirms Espinosa worked at the Madison Ave office, not the homes or Palm Beach house.
Direct Examination
Establishing that 'Kate' is a pseudonym and directing her to the evidence binder.
Clarification on Detective Byrne
Disputing a representation regarding Detective Byrne and noting tech support was available.
Witness Transition
Pomerantz ends questioning of Farmer and calls David Mulligan; Sternheim requests a sidebar.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding travel logistics to New York and payment of flight.
Clarification of questioning regarding grooming
Discussion regarding a distinction between third-party presence and sexual gratification in the context of grooming strategies.
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.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding Government Exhibits 16 and 18.
Redirect Examination
Questioning regarding the emotional significance of compensation funds and potential financial interest in the trial outcome.
Direct Examination regarding 1995 trip
Q&A regarding a trip to NY in 1995, meeting Epstein, and identifying a photo.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity