Schoeman
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. DeRosa
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Theresa Trzaskoma
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Analyst subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma's husband
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Conversation between Schoeman and Ms. Trzaskoma while walking across Foley Square. | Foley Square towards Duane ... | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness Schoeman by attorney Mr. Okula regarding the timing of a conversatio... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conference call with Judge Pauley | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Schoeman regarding juror vetting. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Meeting | The witness, Schoeman, first met Theresa Trzaskoma. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conversation | A conversation between Schoeman and Ms. Trzaskoma where Trzaskoma mentioned a possible connection... | N/A | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Cross-examination | Cross-examination of Mr. Schoeman regarding his knowledge of information connecting Juror No. 1, ... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2012-02-24 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness Schoeman regarding an analysis he performed about the identity of Ju... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2012-02-24 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of Schoeman regarding an investigation into a juror. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010106.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Schoeman. Attorney Mr. Shechtman questions Schoeman about a conversation he had on or after May 13th with Ms. Trzaskoma, in which she allegedly rejected the idea that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. After Schoeman is excused, attorney Mr. Parse calls Barry Berke, from the same law firm, as the next witness.
DOJ-OGR-00010105.jpg
This document is page 365 of a court transcript (filed Aug 22, 2022) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman by an attorney named Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on Schoeman's failure to seek more information to verify if 'Juror No. 1' was a suspended attorney, specifically discussing a 'Catherine Conrad' as an example of identity verification using names and middle initials. Okula concludes his questioning at the bottom of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00010102.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 2:02-cr-00388-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony transitions from direct examination by Mr. Shechtman to cross-examination by Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on establishing the timeline of a conversation Schoeman had with Ms. Trzaskoma relative to the receipt of a juror's note during deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00010101.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript concerning the direct examination of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony details a conversation between Schoeman and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding 'Juror No. 1' (Ms. Conrad). They discussed whether the juror might be a disbarred lawyer with the same name, but concluded she was not based on her educational background revealed during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00009976.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript index (concordance) dated February 15, 2012, for the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.'. It lists words alphabetically (from 'revisit' to 'sessions') alongside their frequency counts and specific page:line citations within the transcript. While the content pertains to the Daugerdas tax fraud case, the header indicates this document was filed on March 10, 2022, as Document 646-2 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, which is the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, suggesting it was used as a legal exhibit or precedent in her trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009426.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman. An attorney questions Schoeman on whether his analysis regarding Juror No. 1 would have been improved by knowing the juror was a suspended attorney. Schoeman defends his conclusion based on the information he had, but concedes that matching names and middle initials make it statistically likely two records refer to the same person.
DOJ-OGR-00009425.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a former Assistant U.S. Attorney named Schoeman. The questioning centers on what Schoeman knew about allegations that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended attorney, referencing a potential Westlaw report and an internal firm email he claims not to have seen. Schoeman maintains he was unaware of the specific information and only took action by asking about the voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00009424.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman, filed on February 24, 2012. The questioning centers on why Schoeman did not conduct a more thorough follow-up investigation into a concern raised by Ms. Trzaskoma about a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a 'suspended attorney.' Schoeman states that the basis for the concern was simply that they shared the same name, and the issue was dismissed after reviewing voir dire responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009423.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2012. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman by an attorney, Mr. Okula, regarding the timing of a conversation Schoeman had with a Ms. Trzaskoma. The questioning aims to establish whether this conversation occurred on the same day or several days after a juror's note was received in court during deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009422.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness by Mr. Schoeman. The testimony details a conversation between the witness and Ms. Trzaskoma while walking across Foley Square, concerning Juror No. 1 (Ms. Conrad). They discussed a disbarred lawyer with the same name as the juror but concluded it was a different person because the juror's educational background did not include law school.
DOJ-OGR-00009421.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where the witness, Schoeman, is being questioned about his relationship with a lawyer named Theresa Trzaskoma. Schoeman explains that he met her around the year 2000 and they became family friends, and that he also had a prior professional connection to her husband from the law firm Paul Weiss. The witness confirms that Ms. Trzaskoma was a lawyer for David Parse during a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009297.jpg
This document is a word index (concordance) page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the case 'United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.' It lists keywords alphabetically from 'revisit' to 'sessions', along with their frequency counts and page/line citations. The document bears a header indicating it was filed on February 24, 2022, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), suggesting it was submitted as an exhibit in that trial.
Relationship with lawyer Theresa Trzaskoma
The witness, Schoeman, answers questions about how he knows lawyer Theresa Trzaskoma, explaining they became family friends around 2000 and that he knew her husband professionally. He also confirms her role as a lawyer for David Parse in a trial.
Unspecified information related to a juror's note.
Mr. Schoeman had a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma after a juror's note was received in court, which is the subject of the testimony.
Identity of Juror No. 1 / Ms. Conrad
Trzaskoma mentioned a disbarred lawyer had the same name as Juror No. 1/Ms. Conrad, but concluded it was not the same person because the juror's voir dire did not indicate law school education.
Unknown topic related to case
Conversation occurred after a juror's note was received.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity