MR. ROHRBACH
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
William Brown
|
Witness examiner |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Gill
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brown
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Paul Kane
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Gill
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Paul Kane
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANINE GILL VELEZ
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Besselsen
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Janine Gill Velez
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Tracy Chapell | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Janine Gill Velez | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Briefing on Government Exhibit 52. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding witness recall and sequestration violations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of technical testimony about CD burning and file dates (cre... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Paul Kane | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Lisa Rocchio | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Direct examination of WILLIAM BROWN by Mr. Rohrbach, starting on page 2042. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Examination of witness Tracy Chapell, including direct examination and cross-examination, as part... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Direct examination of witness DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN by Mr. Rohrbach. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A court hearing took place where the disclosure of expert witness opinions was discussed. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Deadline | A deadline was set for the defense to provide the opinions of their expert witness. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Direct examination of witness JANINE GILL VELEZ by Mr. Rohrbach. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A discussion in court between the judge and attorneys regarding the admissibility of evidence and... | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Court hearing involving cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 2 into evidence | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing (filing date) regarding the admissibility of evidence (contact book vs household ma... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury instructions (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), specifically discussing Instr... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing of court document 761 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Discussion of Exhibits 823 and 824 | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) discussing legal text and jury instructions. | Southern District (New York) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing date of the court transcript document. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008331.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 12/10/21) detailing a legal argument regarding expert witnesses. The defense discusses the potential testimony of Mr. Kelso, noting it depends on the testimony of government witness Mr. Flatley, who will speak about metadata retrieved from devices seized at Epstein's home. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach responds that the government has provided ample notice and '3500 information' regarding Flatley's expected testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018990.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Comey, and the judge regarding whether the defense had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine a witness named Mr. Alessi. The judge also mentions a planned briefing on "Government Exhibit 52" as indicated by a Mr. Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00018989.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the examination of a witness named Rodgers. The proceedings involve a discussion between the Court, Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell regarding the redaction of a name ('Carolyn') and phone numbers from evidence. Mr. Everdell also coordinates the placement of folders for the jury ahead of cross-examination, and the parties agree to discuss an 'in limine instruction' after the lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00018894.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. It captures the moment an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, concludes his questioning of a witness, Gill Velez, by pointing the jury to an exhibit labeled "father of child." Subsequently, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins her cross-examination of the same witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018893.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, questions a witness, Ms. Gill (Gill Velez), about a personnel action notice for an individual named Sky Roberts, which is entered as Government Exhibit 823. The key information established from the document is that Sky Roberts' date of hire was April 11, 2000.
DOJ-OGR-00018892.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Gill Velez. The testimony concerns the authentication of Government Exhibit 823, which is identified as a personnel action notice regarding the original hiring of Sky Roberts at Mar-a-Lago. The exhibit is admitted into evidence over an objection by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00018889.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the beginning of court proceedings for the day, where the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, calls witness Janine Gill Velez to the stand. The transcript records the witness being sworn in and the start of the direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018887.jpg
This document is page 25 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorney Mr. Rohrbach argues to the Court regarding the reliability of forms filled out by Mr. Roberts, an employee of Mar-a-Lago, concerning his dependents and insurance coverage. The argument centers on whether Mr. Roberts had a business duty to be truthful to his employer, distinguishing the situation from the precedent set in United States v. Lieberman, though the Court remains skeptical.
DOJ-OGR-00018886.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a procedural discussion between the judge and counsel (Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Comey) about Exhibit 52. After confirming no further witnesses will testify about the exhibit, Mr. Rohrbach informs the court of his plan to submit a letter that evening arguing for its admission. The judge instructs him to confer with defense counsel on the matter before the court takes a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00018885.jpg
This document is page 23 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The dialogue involves a debate between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) regarding the admissibility of 'record 824' and the implications of testimony provided by Juan Alessi concerning the year 2001. The proceedings are paused by the Judge to wait for a juror experiencing train issues.
DOJ-OGR-00018882.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding dated August 10, 2022, discussing legal arguments related to factual records, employer practices, and the admissibility of evidence. Key points include an objection to Government Exhibit 761, a Professional Children's School application for Jane, due to unverified financial guarantor information, and the Court's ruling on the relevance of Mr. Epstein's alleged financial assistance to a witness's family. The discussion also touches upon legal precedents for adoptive business records.
DOJ-OGR-00018877.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge regarding the admission of exhibits 823 and 824, followed by a recess due to a juror's train delay. The Judge cites the case 'United States v. Lieberman' in relation to arguments about insurance cards and employer verification of employee information.
DOJ-OGR-00018876.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The judge discusses the admissibility of insurance forms under the business records exception. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises a minor issue regarding a 'fourth witness' identified as Mr. Rogers, and the court prepares to break until the jury arrives.
DOJ-OGR-00018875.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether employee insurance documents from Mar-a-Lago should be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are retained for business purposes like potential disputes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain hearsay and are not integral to Mar-a-Lago's business. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before making a ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00018874.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues against admitting insurance requests as business records, stating they do not prove Virginia Roberts was employed by or present at Mar-a-Lago. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach clarifies the government's intent is to show Virginia Roberts was the dependent of Sky Roberts, who is confirmed to be a Mar-a-Lago employee.
DOJ-OGR-00018872.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing legal arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence. Ms. Sternheim objects to documents based on relevance and foundation, arguing there is no tie between Virginia Roberts and Mar-a-Lago or the Trump company. Mr. Rohrbach argues the documents are relevant to connect the Virginia Roberts named on a birth certificate (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the individual present at Mar-a-Lago in the year 2000, corroborating testimony from Juan and Carolyn Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00018870.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Judge and attorneys regarding jury instructions concerning an alleged victim named 'Kate' and the applicability of New Mexico law. Additionally, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim anticipates the government calling Janine Gill as a witness, noting she has been employed by a property company related to the Trump Organization since 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00018868.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge, defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding witness strategy. The defense is undecided about recalling 'Jane' or calling 'Brian', while the prosecution flags the possibility of calling 'victim 2' to the stand that day.
DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg
This is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense (Mr. Rohrbach) argues that the recall of witness 'Jane' should be limited to a prior consistent statement. The prosecution (Ms. Menninger) argues that Jane's potential contact with her subpoenaed younger brother violates a sequestration order and should be open for questioning. The Court discusses a lack of a specific order prohibiting witnesses from speaking to each other and references a text message from June 15th.
DOJ-OGR-00018866.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense attorney (Ms. Menninger) and the prosecutor (Mr. Rohrbach) are discussing a potential witness named Brian before the Judge. The government has decided not to call Brian, and the defense is debating whether to call him despite having him under subpoena, due to concerns about his prior inconsistent statements regarding his sister and the risk of opening the door to prior consistent statements.
DOJ-OGR-00018864.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. The dialogue involves a procedural dispute between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the potential recalling of a witness named Jane and the subpoena status of a witness named Brian. The defense raises concerns about missing disclosures regarding conversations Jane had with her brother, questioning the truthfulness of the recounting of events.
DOJ-OGR-00018853.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about witness scheduling. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, informs the court that an investigation could not be completed and they will not call a witness named Brian. In response to a request from defense counsel, the court directs that an updated witness list be provided that evening.
DOJ-OGR-00018758.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion between a judge and attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger. The main topics are a potential violation of a witness sequestration order, after Ms. Menninger admits to speaking briefly with a Ms. Moe, and the scheduling of future proceedings. The judge requires the attorneys to brief the sequestration issue and indicates a decision on whether a person named Brian will testify is pending their input.
DOJ-OGR-00018757.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach). They discuss procedural issues, including a potential motion to call a witness's brother, a past request from a November 23rd pretrial conference to share Dr. Rocchio's expert testimony, and the government's communication with a witness named Jane after she left the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00018756.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Court, Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding deadlines for submitting briefs and the results of a factual investigation concerning a male witness. The text also addresses a conflict where the defense has moved to preclude this witness's testimony while simultaneously holding him under a defense subpoena.
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.
Insurance records
Mr. Rohrbach states he will 'go have a conversation with Ms. Gill about this' (referring to records).
Admissibility of Evidence
Discussion regarding whether personnel forms constitute hearsay or business records.
Verification of forms at Mar-a-Lago
Mr. Rohrbach interviewed Ms. Gill regarding whether Mar-a-Lago independently verifies information on forms.
Jury instructions on 'dominant purpose'
Mr. Rohrbach argues to the judge that the law only requires a criminal purpose to be 'one of the dominant purposes' of a trip, not the sole or a sufficient purpose. He references legal precedents 'Sand' and 'Miller' to support his argument that the current instruction is not in error and that an alternative interpretation adds an unnecessary requirement.
Objection to a question
Mr. Rohrbach objects to a question on the grounds that it is attenuated from any notion of bias or motive (a '401' objection).
Identification of Government Exhibit 802
Mr. Rohrbach questions witness Ms. Chapell to identify Government Exhibit 802. Ms. Chapell confirms she recognizes it as an invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account and that it is an accurate copy of a version held by FedEx.
Witnesses observing the trial
Mr. Rohrbach confirms an understanding that witnesses testifying as victims will not observe the trial until both sides have rested.
Testimony regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico
Mr. Rohrbach clarifies that he believes witness Jane only testified to a single incident of sexual abuse in New Mexico, which was disclosed in the 3500 material and should not have been a surprise to the defense.
Expertise and research on the topic of grooming
Mr. Rohrbach questions Dr. Rocchio, who confirms he has not published his own research or conducted metadata studies on grooming. Dr. Rocchio also confirms his testimony is based on studies by other experts and acknowledges there is disagreement in the scientific literature on the topic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Calling and examining a witness
Mr. Rohrbach calls Janine Gill to the stand and begins the direct examination by greeting her.
Scope of evidence and examination regarding investigation...
Mr. Rohrbach argues to the court, disagreeing with Mr. Everdell, that while the defense can cross-examine witnesses about who was present during certain events, they cannot call a case agent in their direct case to question investigative steps that were not taken, citing the Watson and Brady cases.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Admissibility of testimony regarding photos in Epstein's ...
Mr. Rohrbach asks the Court for clarification regarding the government's plan to question a witness about photos of celebrities and nude women in Epstein's house, without presenting the photos as exhibits. The Court indicates it sees no issue with the question but reserves judgment on admitting any exhibits.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity