MR. ROHRBACH
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Chapell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
90 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Opposing counsel |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional adversarial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Opposing counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Gill Velez
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Co counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Supervisory Investigator Brown
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Representation |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
William Brown
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Tracy Chapell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-10-22 | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 22 | Courtroom | View |
| 0022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 0022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding stipulations and witness subpoenas | Courtroom | View |
| 0022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017863.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. A witness, Mr. Besselsen, is being examined by Mr. Rohrbach regarding a Salesforce report titled 'MJS Report' generated from Interlochen's database. The testimony confirms that a specific individual (whose name is withheld in this segment) attended Interlochen arts camp during the summers of 1994, 1995, and 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00017862.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Besselsen by government attorney Mr. Rohrbach. The testimony confirms that 'Green Lake Lodge' is a two-bedroom home formerly known as the 'Jeffrey Epstein Scholarship Lodge,' and a photo of the lodge (Exhibit 745) is admitted into evidence without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017861.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Besselsen by Mr. Rohrbach. The testimony discusses a document (likely a letter) regarding 'Jeffrey's personal inventory' (linens, etc.) stored at a facility on the Interlochen campus. The witness confirms that the 'Epstein Scholarship Lodge' is also known as 'Green Lake Lodge'.
DOJ-OGR-00017860.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where a witness, Mr. Besselsen, reads a letter from 1994 into evidence. The letter, from Interlochen's Vice President Tim Ambrose to Ghislaine Maxwell, discusses finding a lost envelope in the 'Epstein Lodge' and confirms a reservation of the lodge for 'Jeffrey's use'. The transcript establishes a connection between Ghislaine Maxwell, a 'Jeffrey' (presumably Epstein), and the Interlochen institution in 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00017857.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Besselsen regarding the verification of a camper's file and application photo from the institution 'Interlochen.' During the testimony, Government Exhibit 743 is admitted under seal to protect the identity of a student testifying under a pseudonym.
DOJ-OGR-00017855.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the admission of Government Exhibit 741 (GX-741), an eight-page document, into evidence without objection. Following this, attorney Mr. Rohrbach questions witness Mr. Besselsen about record-keeping practices at Interlochen, specifically establishing that student files are kept in manila folders in a locked room in the Maddy Administration Building.
DOJ-OGR-00017854.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. The witness, Mr. Besselsen, testifies about Government Exhibit 741, identifying it as correspondence retrieved from a locked filing cabinet in the basement of the McWhorter dorm at Interlochen. The correspondence involves a letter from Interlochen's Vice President of Advancement to Jeffrey Epstein discussing the cost and concept of building a 'scholarship lodge' on the campus.
DOJ-OGR-00017850.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding on August 10, 2022. It records the conclusion of testimony from a witness named Matt, who is excused by the court. Immediately following, counsel for the government, Mr. Rohrbach, calls the next witness, Daniel Alan Besselsen, who is then sworn in to testify.
DOJ-OGR-00017824.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge and several attorneys (Ms. Moe, Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Rohrbach) regarding trial procedures. Key topics include clarifying testimony about Ms. Maxwell, the status of contacts with a witness named 'Jane', and confirming an agreement that victim-witnesses will not observe the trial until after both the prosecution and defense have rested their cases.
DOJ-OGR-00017621.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Moe, regarding a witness's testimony. The discussion centers on clarifying the witness's past residences in Palm Beach as a teenager, specifically distinguishing between a 'first address' identified as a pool house and a 'second address'.
DOJ-OGR-00017617.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that a photograph of a witness's house was not disclosed earlier because it was intended solely as impeachment material to contradict the witness's testimony, rather than evidence for the case-in-chief. The Judge and Mr. Everdell discuss Rule 16 discovery obligations, with the Judge noting that prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach likely agrees with the procedural distinction.
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place without the jury present, where the Judge discusses procedural issues involving Rule 16/608 regarding impeachment evidence and the protection of witness identities via pseudonyms. The legal teams (Menninger/Everdell for defense, Comey/Rohrbach for prosecution) determine who will argue the specific legal motions.
DOJ-OGR-00015022.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, concerning statistical data on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) disclosure rates, specifically discussing a study where 50% of participants did not disclose abuse until after age 19. The transcript also captures administrative exchanges regarding exhibit binders and microphone usage between the attorneys (Pomerantz, Rohrbach, Pagliuca) and the Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00014978.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated January 15, 2025, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on a phone call in April 2021 where Rocchio allegedly defined terms such as 'child,' 'sexual abuse,' and 'nonconsensual' to a group of Assistant US Attorneys (Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, Rohrbach). Rocchio states they do not specifically recall the definitions given or the context of the notes taken by the AUSAs.
DOJ-OGR-00014920.jpg
This document is page 44 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct testimony of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, discussing methods of substantiating abuse cases, including legal convictions and medical evidence (specifically gonorrhea in children). During the testimony, the government introduces 'Government Exhibit 2,' an article regarding 'coercive control' authored by Jacquelynn Duron, Laura Johnson, Gretchen Hoge, and Judy Postmus, which is admitted into evidence without objection from the defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca.
DOJ-OGR-00008352.jpg
This court transcript from a pretrial conference on December 10, 2021, documents several procedural discussions. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, successfully requests a limited exclusion from Rule 615 to allow his witnesses (Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus) to review another witness's (Dr. Rocchio's) testimony. The court also establishes a deadline for the government to provide its witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00008348.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of a court proceeding dated December 10, 2021, discussing jury instructions related to New Mexico law concerning illegal sexual activity. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach deliberate on how to present evidence and frame the charges for the jury, with the Court indicating it will refine the instructions for clarity. The discussion highlights the legal interpretation of 'force or coercion' in the context of the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00008347.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021, detailing a legal discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The conversation centers on the admissibility and relevance of evidence concerning sexual conduct in New Mexico to a federal conspiracy charge under the Mann Act, particularly in relation to New York's age of consent laws. The judge acknowledges the complexity and indicates the need for a legally correct jury charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008345.jpg
This court transcript from December 10, 2021, details a discussion between attorney Mr. Rohrbach and the judge regarding the legal framework of the case. They clarify that the charges are based on New York statutes, not New Mexico law, despite alleged sexual conduct occurring in New Mexico. The judge reiterates a prior instruction, explaining that because the witness was over the age of consent in New Mexico at the time, the conduct there was not illegal under local law, a point relevant for jury instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00008344.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on December 10, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge regarding jury instructions for an enticement charge. The core issue is whether the legality of sexual activity under New Mexico law is relevant or potentially prejudicial for a charge based on violating New York law, with the judge expressing concern about confusing the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008339.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. They are clarifying a point of law regarding the testimony of 'witness 3' about sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein. The core of the conversation is whether the defendant can be convicted 'solely' on this testimony or if it must be considered in combination with other evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008336.jpg
This document is page 26 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on December 10, 2021. It records a procedural argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Court regarding the sufficiency of the government's disclosures (Rule 16 and 3500 materials) concerning their expert witness, Mr. Flatley. The Judge warns the government that if their notice is insufficient regarding the expert's opinions, they may face issues later in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008335.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. In the transcript, the judge discusses the disclosure of expert witness opinions with defense counsel, Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach. The judge agrees to a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the defense to provide these opinions and reminds them of their obligation under Rule 16 to provide a clear notice of the opinions, stating that it is not a "scavenger hunt."
DOJ-OGR-00008334.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the scope of expert testimony provided by a Mr. Flatley concerning digital forensics and metadata. The judge instructs the parties on how to handle differing expert opinions on forensic principles.
DOJ-OGR-00008333.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. Attorneys Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before the court about the nature of a witness, Mr. Flatley. The central issue is whether Mr. Flatley will testify as a fact witness or an expert witness regarding his methods for user data extraction, and whether sufficient notice was provided to the opposing side.
Admissibility of Evidence
Discussion regarding whether personnel forms constitute hearsay or business records.
Insurance records
Mr. Rohrbach states he will 'go have a conversation with Ms. Gill about this' (referring to records).
Surprise at receiving the defendant's filing.
Mr. Rohrbach mentions a letter his side sent, which indicated they were surprised to receive a filing from the defendant.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the authenticity of personnel records for Sky Roberts.
Identification of Government Exhibit 802
Mr. Rohrbach questions Ms. Chapell to identify Government Exhibit 802. She identifies it as an invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account and confirms it is an accurate copy of a version held by FedEx.
Update on factual development and witness Brian
Mr. Rohrbach informs the court that the government could not complete its factual investigation by 6 o'clock, was unable to speak with Jane, and has decided not to call Brian as a witness.
Verdict Sheet Edit
Requesting to change a 'T' in parentheses to a checkmark on the verdict sheet.
Clarification on the legal standard for conviction based ...
A dialogue between Mr. Rohrbach and the Court about whether adding the word 'solely' to a statement of law is correct, specifically concerning the conviction of a defendant based on the testimony of 'witness 3' regarding sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein.
Evidentiary basis for comments on witness interviews
Mr. Rohrbach, for the government, argues that Ms. Menninger's comments about how witness interviews were conducted are supported by evidence from Special Agent Young's testimony, which was elicited by Ms. Comey. The Court disagrees and overrules the government's request.
Argument against defendant's motion regarding enticement ...
Mr. Rohrbach argues that the defendant's motion should be denied because the defendant enticed Jane to travel to New York by building a relationship with her and playing on her hopes and desires, which fits the legal definition of enticement.
Admissibility of evidence
Mr. Rohrbach argues for the relevance and admissibility of a phone number and Mar-a-Lago personnel records, explaining the expected testimony of Ms. Gill to establish them as business records.
Legal argument on conspiracy charges and the Mann Act
Mr. Rohrbach agrees with the Court's summary and adds a point about 'minor Victim 2' being charged only with conspiracy, arguing that events in New Mexico are relevant to proving intent for illegal sexual activity in New York under the Mann Act.
Admissibility of evidence, specifically a deposition tran...
Mr. Rohrbach argues for the admission of a deposition transcript of Mr. Epstein concerning a move in 1996, comparing the issue to a matter involving 44 Kinnerton Street.
Calling and examining a witness
Mr. Rohrbach calls Janine Gill to the stand and begins the direct examination by greeting her.
Government Exhibits 21 and 22
Mr. Rohrbach questions Supervisory Investigator Brown about Government Exhibit 22, an image capture from an ID card application. Brown confirms it depicts the same person as in Exhibit 21 and explains the record is stored in a DMV photosystem database.
Identification of Government Exhibit 802
Mr. Rohrbach questions Ms. Chapell to identify Government Exhibit 802. She identifies it as an invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account and confirms it is an accurate copy of a version held by FedEx.
Argument for relevance of documents
Mr. Rohrbach argues that documents, such as a birth certificate, are relevant to connect Virginia Roberts (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the person who was present at Mar-a-Lago in 2000, corroborating testimony from Juan Alessi and Carolyn.
Details of a package shipment from 2002
Mr. Rohrbach questions witness Ms. Chapell about the sender's address, recipient's first name, delivery location, and shipment date of a package sent on December 3, 2002. They also refer to Government Exhibits GX-11 and GX-803/801.
Admissibility of a document under the business records ex...
Mr. Rohrbach argues that a document should be admitted into evidence because it was used in cross-examination and qualifies as an 'adoptive business record' of a school, as the school integrated it into its files and relied upon it.
Argument against defendant's motion on enticement charges...
Mr. Rohrbach argues that the defendant's motion should be denied because the defendant built a relationship with 'Jane' over a multi-year period by playing on her hopes and desires, which constitutes enticement and persuasion leading to her travel to New York.
Update on factual investigation and witness list
Mr. Rohrbach informs the court that the government cannot complete its investigation by 6 o'clock, partly because Jane's counsel is unavailable, and therefore elects not to call Brian as a witness. He also states the government does not believe any court rule has been violated.
Withdrawal of request regarding Counts Five and Six
Discussion regarding statutory language 'foreign commerce' and editing jury instructions/charges.
Admissibility of record 824
Discussion regarding legal citation and business records exception for Exhibit 824.
Impeachment of witness Juan Alessi
Mr. Rohrbach argues against the impeachment, stating that the details of the prior burglary are a collateral matter and not central to the current trial.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the witness's employment.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity