Professor Loftus
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
criminal defendants
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial neutral |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Professor Wells
|
Professional academic |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Ifo
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
University of Washington
|
Former employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense Attorneys
|
Professional consultant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Questioner (Q.)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror witness |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trial | The trial of the defendant, Maxwell, where Juror 50 served on the jury. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Psychological experiment | Professor Loftus conducted an experiment where she tried to convince people they saw Bugs Bunny a... | Disneyland | View |
| N/A | Psychological experiment | Professor Loftus conducted an experiment where she told people that a stop sign was a yield sign. | lab | View |
| N/A | Psychological experiment | Professor Loftus performed experiments on memory, such as trying to convince people they saw Bugs... | a lab; Disneyland | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Filing date of the court document. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Cross-examination / testimony | Professor Loftus is being cross-examined regarding her presence during other testimony and her co... | courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Testimony | Professor Loftus provides testimony about her professional and academic background. | Courtroom or deposition set... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Professor Loftus regarding memory malleability. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Professor Loftus in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | 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 | N/A | Conclusion of Professor Loftus's testimony | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination of Professor Loftus in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwe... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Professor Loftus in court regarding memory stages. | Courtroom | View |
| 2002-01-01 | N/A | Loftus joined the faculty at UC-Irvine. | Irvine, CA | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017189.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a rebuttal by Ms. Comey in a criminal case. She argues against the defense's claim that four women (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) are misremembering their experiences, asserting that their core memories of trauma involving the defendant (Maxwell) and Epstein are solid and reliable. The prosecutor highlights specific, vivid memories of the victims to counter the defense's theory of a 'massive false memory event'.
DOJ-OGR-00017108.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court summation by Ms. Menninger, likely the defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues that the testimonies of accusers, including Carolyn, Jane, and Annie, are unreliable because their memories were manipulated and changed over time. She suggests this was motivated by a desire for financial compensation and to hold someone accountable for the actions of the deceased Jeffrey Epstein, and she cites an expert, Professor Loftus, to challenge the validity of how these memories allegedly formed.
DOJ-OGR-00017090.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation delivered by Ms. Moe. She argues that the testimony of the defense's expert on memory, Professor Loftus, is irrelevant to the case, which concerns traumatic memories of sexual abuse. Ms. Moe attempts to discredit Loftus by highlighting her career as a paid witness for criminal defendants and contrasting her academic experiments (e.g., Bugs Bunny at Disneyland) with the serious nature of the alleged crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00016673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing the end of Professor Loftus's testimony. Under redirect by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, Loftus confirms her testimony would remain unchanged regardless of which side called her. Following her excusal, defense attorney Mr. Everdell calls the next witness, Michael Aznaran.
DOJ-OGR-00016670.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of Professor Loftus by counsel Ms. Sternheim. The questioning establishes Professor Loftus's extensive 50-year career in experimental psychology and confirms she was previously questioned about various studies, including some involving sexual abuse. Counsel Ms. Pomerantz makes an objection which is sustained by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00016642.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of Professor Loftus during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Pomerantz questions Loftus, establishing her background as a researcher and consultant who has worked with defense attorneys in criminal cases hundreds of times. The page marks the transition from direct examination by Ms. Sternheim to cross-examination by Ms. Pomerantz.
DOJ-OGR-00016636.jpg
This document is page 153 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of Professor Loftus by Ms. Sternheim following a lunch break. The testimony focuses on the psychological concept that memory confidence is malleable and can be artificially inflated by confirming information, referencing research by Professor Wells from Iowa State.
DOJ-OGR-00016622.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several lawyers (Rohrbach, Sternheim, Pomerantz) regarding procedural matters. The discussion focuses on narrowing the scope of an affidavit to a few paragraphs and determining the schedule for the remainder of the day's proceedings. Logistical issues are raised, including arranging a Webex for a 'Mr. Hamilton' and estimating the time required for a 'Professor Loftus'.
DOJ-OGR-00016604.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests permission for expert witness Professor Loftus to use courtroom monitors as a whiteboard to demonstrate the stages of memory to the jury. After the prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) raises no objection and the Judge approves, Professor Loftus begins testifying about the 'acquisition stage' of memory.
DOJ-OGR-00009130.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, analyzes post-trial interviews given by 'Juror 50' in the Maxwell case. The document recounts the juror's statements to media outlets like Reuters and The Independent, where he discussed his initial impartiality, his handling of the juror questionnaire regarding his own experience of sexual abuse, and the jury's reasoning for their verdict. The filing argues that a full review of the juror's interviews demonstrates his impartiality and the care taken during deliberations, countering the defendant's claims of bias.
DOJ-OGR-00013980.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of Professor Loftus by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, specifically discussing the 'acquisition stage' of memory. The transcript details a procedural moment where the defense requests permission to use courtroom monitors as a whiteboard for demonstrative purposes, to which the prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) has no objection.
DOJ-OGR-00013974.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript where Professor Loftus is being questioned about a study on false memories. The study involved planting false memories in people's minds, such as witnessing parental violence or sexual activity as a child, and measuring their emotional reactions.
DOJ-OGR-00013963.jpg
This page is a transcript from the direct examination of Professor Loftus in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Loftus testifies about her expertise in memory science, specifically false memories, and details her academic career, including her current role at UC-Irvine and past positions at the University of Washington and the New School for Social Research.
DOJ-OGR-00009809.jpg
This document is page 9 (filed as page 11 of 49) of a government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It analyzes post-trial media interviews given by 'Juror 50' to Reuters and The Independent regarding his failure to disclose his own sexual abuse history on the jury questionnaire. The text argues that despite this omission, Juror 50 remained impartial, citing his skeptical approach to evidence and specific reasons for convicting on some counts while acquitting on others (specifically regarding victim 'Jane').
DOJ-OGR-00014487.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court summation given by Ms. Menninger, likely the defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues that the testimonies of accusers like Carolyn, Jane, and Annie are unreliable because their memories have been manipulated and have changed over time. She suggests this shift is motivated by a desire to hold someone accountable for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein's actions and cites expert testimony from Professor Loftus to support her claim about the nature of memory.
DOJ-OGR-00014469.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Moe, filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Moe argues against the credibility and relevance of the defense's expert witness, Professor Loftus, who specializes in memory. She contrasts Loftus's academic experiments on malleable memory with the powerful, traumatic memories of sexual abuse victims, portraying Loftus as a biased, paid advocate for the defense whose testimony is a distraction from the actual facts of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00014525.jpg
Defense attorney Ms. Menninger delivers a closing argument attacking the credibility of a witness named Kate. Menninger highlights that Kate received $3.25 million from the victims' fund, sought a U visa claiming to be 'exceptional,' and admitted to emailing Epstein for decades while having no proof of contact with Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues Kate's memory is flawed due to substance abuse and suggestiveness, specifically challenging her claim of meeting Maxwell at 44 Kinnerton Street in 1994 to qualify for victim compensation.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Defense/Defendant | Professor Loftus | $0.00 | Witness compensation for time. | View |
Redirect examination
Asking if testimony would differ if called by the government.
Cross-examination regarding consulting history
Pomerantz questions Loftus about her history consulting with defense attorneys in criminal cases 'hundreds of times'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity