Southern District
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Eastern District
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Main Justice
|
Co negotiators |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | A criminal investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators by the Southern District. | Southern District | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations with Main Justice and Southern District | Unknown | View |
DOJ-OGR-00015024.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the validity of "offender-generated data" and the findings of several studies, including one by McElvaney and Culhane, about the disclosure patterns of child victims. Key points discussed include the potential for cognitive distortions in self-reports and a study finding that a majority of children first disclosed to their mothers and peers.
DOJ-OGR-00015023.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the specifics of studies Rocchio cited, including survivor statistics and a 2015 study by Leclerc and Wortley on offender-generated data. Rocchio acknowledges that some details questioned were not present in the summaries they reviewed for their testimony.
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-00015017.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on a 2020 study by Winters and Jeglic, which found that grooming behaviors could not be predicted among a group of 393 undergraduate students. The questioner uses the study's findings to challenge the witness's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00015015.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding an article written in 2006 by Ms. Craven. The questioning focuses on the academic understanding of the term 'sexual grooming of children,' specifically highlighting a quote stating that the phenomenon is not clearly understood in the public domain.
DOJ-OGR-00015011.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning centers on scientific articles Rocchio provided to the government, discussing their relevance to the Daubert standard, the recency of an article labeled Exhibit 3, and a specific 'Winters article' from 2020. The witness clarifies the scope of their testimony and corrects the questioner on the recency of the evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00015001.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, specifically the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, filed on January 15, 2025. The questioning centers on a study about "predatory alienation," a term the questioner asserts was created by an advocacy group. Rocchio clarifies that the study is qualitative rather than subjective, while the questioner probes its methodology and origins.
DOJ-OGR-00014992.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, focusing on the distinction between normal parenting behaviors (providing food, education, presents) and 'grooming.' The witness testifies that grooming requires a coercive or controlling context/intent.
DOJ-OGR-00014990.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript involving the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio (likely an expert witness). The questioning focuses on the witness's academic or professional definition of 'grooming,' noting that while they haven't published a specific definition, they rely on common literature. The dialogue references a list of '77 specific behaviors' associated with grooming and debates whether intent and context determine if an act constitutes grooming.
DOJ-OGR-00014989.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on the connection between vulnerability factors and becoming a victim of sexual abuse. The witness provides a formal definition of 'grooming' as a set of deceptive strategies used to establish coercion and control for the purpose of sexual exploitation and abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00014985.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination filed on January 15, 2025. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions a witness named Rocchio about a letter from the government dated April 23, 2021. The questioning establishes and confirms various categories of vulnerable individuals who are often targeted for sexual abuse, including the economically disadvantaged, those without family, and individuals with cognitive or emotional disabilities.
DOJ-OGR-00014984.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on January 15, 2025. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, a psychologist, regarding the definition of forensic psychology versus therapeutic roles and the potential for 'dual roles' or boundary violations. The witness confirms they are testifying in a forensic capacity subject to APA guidelines and acknowledges reviewing a letter sent by the government on April 23rd that outlined their opinions.
DOJ-OGR-00014976.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated January 15, 2025. In it, an attorney named Mr. Pagliuca requests the time records of a witness, Rocchio, to establish potential financial motive and bias related to a contract. The judge questions the legal basis for this request, prompting Mr. Pagliuca to argue his entitlement under the legal precedents of Brady and Giglio.
DOJ-OGR-00014975.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions a witness, Rocchio, about a contract with the government. Rocchio confirms the contract is for up to $45,000 at a rate of $450 per hour, but clarifies that they have not yet been paid because an invoice has not been submitted.
DOJ-OGR-00014974.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. Mr. Pagliuca argues that under Rule 16, he should be able to examine all materials a witness, Dr. Rocchio, used to prepare her testimony. The judge challenges this broad interpretation, clarifying that only materials that form the actual basis of her opinion, not discarded notes or unrelated contracts, are relevant.
DOJ-OGR-00014967.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal testimony from January 15, 2025, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. Rocchio explains that their expert opinions on disclosure-related behaviors in both forensic and clinical practice are founded upon scientific and clinical literature. This literature includes research studies and anonymous surveys that determine the prevalence of traumatic events such as rape, sexual assault, and childhood sexual abuse, which in turn informs the understanding of disclosure patterns.
DOJ-OGR-00014962.jpg
This is page 86 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio (likely a clinical expert), who is testifying about the importance of asking patients about their disclosure history regarding child sexual abuse. The witness explains that delayed disclosure often correlates with a lack of immediate medical care and that the response a victim receives upon disclosure significantly impacts outcomes.
DOJ-OGR-00014960.jpg
This document is page 84 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who appears to be an expert testifying about memory science. Rocchio explains to the court how sexual abuse survivors retain 'central details' (which they attached significance to) while 'peripheral details' may fade or change over time.
DOJ-OGR-00014956.jpg
This document is page 80 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the direct examination of an expert witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on the psychological reasons abuse victims may not report crimes immediately, including shame, affection for the abuser, and fear of consequences. The witness defines the concept of 'delayed disclosure' specifically regarding sexual assault.
DOJ-OGR-00014955.jpg
This document is page 79 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of expert witness Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz. Dr. Rocchio defines grooming as a pattern of coercive control and testifies that a relationship of trust between a victim and perpetrator causes the victim confusion regarding what constitutes abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00014954.jpg
This document is page 78 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 15, 2025. It features direct examination testimony from a witness named Rocchio, likely an expert on sexual abuse dynamics. The dialogue focuses on comparing 'grooming' strategies used by pimps to procure victims for third parties versus grooming for direct abuse, with the witness confirming that the coercive behaviors and techniques remain the same regardless of who receives the sexual gratification.
DOJ-OGR-00014950.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The judge questions the witness about the grooming process for sexual abuse, specifically whether the presence of a third party can facilitate the abuse by building a victim's trust. The witness provides general statements about how offenders create trustworthy environments, but the judge presses for specific literature to substantiate the claim that a third party's inclusion is a recognized strategy for building trust.
DOJ-OGR-00014948.jpg
This document is page 72 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features a dialogue between the Court and a witness (Rocchio) regarding the forensic analysis of grooming. The witness explains that while prior sexual abuse increases vulnerability to subsequent abuse, that history alone does not determine whether grooming occurred in a specific instance.
DOJ-OGR-00014947.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court proceeding filed on January 15, 2025, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on the psychological definitions of 'grooming' versus 'consensual sexual activity,' with the witness clarifying that prior victimization increases the likelihood of subsequent victimization and risky sexual behavior in adolescents, rather than consensual activity leading to grooming susceptibility. The Judge (The Court) intervenes to clarify the distinction regarding susceptibility to grooming tactics.
DOJ-OGR-00014946.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on whether a victim's prior sexual behavior or experience is relevant to their vulnerability to grooming. Rocchio testifies that there is no scientific literature or theoretical basis to support the idea that prior sexual activity makes someone more vulnerable to being groomed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity