SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00018098.jpg
A court transcript page from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of witness John Alessi. Alessi testifies that following an incident involving a picture, he reached an agreement with Jeffrey Epstein where Epstein would not press criminal charges but would instead treat the incident as a loan. Alessi confirms he repaid Epstein $6,300 via money order and was interviewed by the police at Epstein's request.
DOJ-OGR-00018084.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, covering the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the admission of exhibits 2C through 2W, arguing they were not written by Mr. Alessi or his wife and lack authentication. The Court (Judge) asks to see 'the book' containing the exhibits and subsequently overrules the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018065.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing a sidebar conversation during the direct examination of witness Alessi (likely Juan Alessi). The prosecutor, Ms. Comey, and the Judge discuss the admissibility of Alessi reading from an exhibit not in evidence; Alessi claims the document is a 'later version' because his name and his wife's name are missing from it.
DOJ-OGR-00018060.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the direct examination of witness Juan Alessi by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The Judge sustains a defense objection regarding a lack of foundation for Alessi's claim that an object was a 'later version of the book,' instructs the jury to disregard that statement, and allows the examination to proceed regarding a 'booklet.'
DOJ-OGR-00018055.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the admission of Exhibit 52 (and sub-exhibits A, D, E, F, G, H) in redacted form. The header indicates this occurred during the direct examination of witness Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00018031.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Alessi by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The witness confirms seeing two underage females at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence; one is referred to by the pseudonym 'Jane' to protect her identity, and the witness explicitly identifies the second female as Virginia Roberts.
DOJ-OGR-00018015.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The dialogue focuses on a procedural confusion regarding an exhibit where the pages are out of numerical order (jumping from page 42 to 49, then 50, 51, and back to 43). Ms. Comey is the attorney questioning the witness, with the Judge (The Court) intervening to clarify the document structure.
DOJ-OGR-00018014.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Alessi (likely Juan Alessi). The witness is being asked to verify their memory of specific pages (33 through 42) of an unidentified exhibit; the witness confirms recognizing pages 34-41 but states they do not remember pages 33 or 42.
DOJ-OGR-00017964.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio. The testimony focuses on the definition of 'grooming' in abuse cases, with Dr. Rocchio clarifying that grooming is not a single specific behavior but a 'series and a pattern of behavior' used to deceive a child and build trust for abuse. The questioning attorney attempts to establish that individual behaviors within that pattern can appear benign or non-grooming in isolation.
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-00017958.jpg
This document is page 85 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio, who confirms they are testifying as a 'blind expert' regarding the topic of grooming and subject matter expertise, without having evaluated any specific parties or witnesses in the case. The questioning explores potential professional disagreements with other experts like Dr. Dietz and Dr. O'Donohue.
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-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-00017931.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on expert definitions of 'coercive control' and its relationship to 'grooming,' specifically how positive reinforcements are interspersed with abuse to maintain victim attachment and entrapment. The witness explains how this psychological dynamic confuses victims of childhood sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00017924.jpg
This document is page 51 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the direct examination of expert witness Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding whether a 'groomer' is always the recipient of sexual gratification. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the questioning, the objection is sustained by the Court, and Ms. Pomerantz subsequently requests a sidebar conference.
DOJ-OGR-00017921.jpg
This is page 48 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, Rocchio (likely an expert witness), is testifying about the psychological trauma of victims realizing they were fooled in a relationship they trusted. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca interrupts the testimony to request a sidebar conference with the Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00017893.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Kane by Ms. Menninger. The questioning concerns a document describing a student as a 'self-employed interior decorator' who is represented by an agent. Defense attorney Mr. Rohrbach objects to the agent's name being read aloud, arguing lack of relevance, and the Court sustains the objection, instructing the jury to look at the document themselves instead.
DOJ-OGR-00017889.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting a sidebar objection by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. She argues against the admissibility of a school record, comparing it to a police report with third-party hearsay, specifically regarding a form that lists Jeffrey Epstein as 'financially responsible' for a student referred to as 'Jane'. The defense argues it is unclear who wrote Epstein's name on the form (Jane or her mother) and challenges the reliability of that specific information.
DOJ-OGR-00017888.jpg
This document is page 15 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It captures a brief exchange during the direct examination of a witness named Kane, where attorney Ms. Menninger raises an objection citing Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) (Business Records Exception). The Judge acknowledges the objection and allows counsel to approach the sidebar to make a record of the argument.
DOJ-OGR-00017878.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) before a judge. The discussion centers on the admissibility of a 'contact book' versus a 'household manual,' with the government arguing that the contact book belongs to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) and/or Jeffrey Epstein and constitutes statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy. The judge acknowledges the government's argument regarding the hearsay exception.
DOJ-OGR-00017874.jpg
This document is the cover page for the court transcript of the jury trial in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, case number 20 CR 330 (AJN). The proceedings took place on December 2, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with Judge Alison J. Nathan presiding. The document lists the appearances of the legal counsel for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as other individuals present.
DOJ-OGR-00017870.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) detailing a sidebar conference between the Court, Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Sternheim. The discussion centers on the legal procedure for 'piercing the privilege' regarding lawyer witnesses under subpoena. Specifically, the parties are discussing the prosecution's intent to call a witness named Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00017839.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Matt. He recounts a conversation with 'Jane' in which she revealed that the 'godfather' helping pay her and her family's bills was Jeffrey Epstein. The testimony is interrupted by an objection from the Court requiring a more specific question regarding when Jane met Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00017837.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 Matt by prosecutor Ms. Moe. Matt testifies about conversations he had with 'Jane' regarding her childhood financial hardship, specifically detailing how her family went broke paying for her father's medical treatments before he died. The testimony highlights extreme poverty, noting that Jane, her mother, and two brothers lived in a small place where the three children shared a single bed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity