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-00014945.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on January 15, 2025. It captures the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who refutes the suggestion that the targeting of vulnerable children for sexual abuse is merely 'clinical lore'. Rocchio asserts that this phenomenon is substantiated by multiple data sources beyond clinical observation, including prevalence data and studies of offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00014944.jpg
This document is page 68 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 Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on expert analysis of 'Victim Selection' and the 'grooming process,' discussing scientific literature and professional agreement regarding behaviors used by offenders to build trust and attachment.
DOJ-OGR-00014939.jpg
This document is page 63 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 an expert in psychology or forensics. Rocchio testifies about clinical training regarding 'vulnerability factors' and groups at higher risk for child sexual abuse, specifically mentioning that women and girls are a higher-risk demographic.
DOJ-OGR-00014938.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who is discussing vulnerabilities and risk factors such as domestic violence and poverty, citing them as well-established in scientific literature.
DOJ-OGR-00014935.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio. He is asked to analyze a passage from an article about the term 'grooming'. Dr. Rocchio finds the author's point confusing, agreeing that single behaviors are not sole predictors of abuse, but strongly disagreeing with the assertion that grooming cannot involve behaviors that appear normal or prosocial.
DOJ-OGR-00014934.jpg
This page is a transcript from the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The government moves to admit 'Government Exhibit 5,' an article written by Park Dietz, which is accepted without objection. Dr. Rocchio explains that he provided this article to the government to clarify the concepts of 'grooming' and 'seduction' as established patterns in sexual abuse dynamics, noting specifically how older literature often used terminology that victim-blamed.
DOJ-OGR-00014933.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. During a direct examination, a witness named Dr. Rocchio is questioned about 'Government Exhibit 5', which he identifies as an article about the evolution of the term 'grooming' and its use by child perpetrators. Another individual, Ms. Pomerantz, is also present and speaks during the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00014930.jpg
This page contains a transcript of the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Dr. Rocchio provides expert testimony refuting an older article's conclusion that there is no consensus on 'grooming,' arguing that while universal agreement on every detail is rare in social science, there is definite scientific consensus on the phenomena of grooming and child sexual abuse.
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-00014914.jpg
This is page 38 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 15, 2025. The witness, Rocchio, is testifying on direct examination about their professional methodology for forensic evaluations, which includes reviewing police and medical records, conducting 8-10 hours of face-to-face evaluation, and collateral interviews. The witness specifically confirms experience evaluating issues of 'grooming' in civil cases involving allegations of childhood sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00014911.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript, dated January 15, 2025, from a case identified as 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It features a Q&A session, likely a deposition or testimony, where an individual (the Answerer) discusses the concept of 'grooming' in relation to child sexual abuse, its historical presence in scientific literature since the 1980s, and the foundation of their expert opinions on the subject. The discussion emphasizes grooming as a process involving increasing dependency and coercion, rather than an isolated event.
DOJ-OGR-00014905.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Jan 15, 2025) featuring the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio. Dr. Rocchio establishes their credentials as an expert in psychology, specifically regarding traumatic stress and complex trauma. The testimony focuses on the nature of childhood sexual abuse, with the expert stating that most instances occur without physical force (using coercion/control) and are committed by people known to the child.
DOJ-OGR-00014900.jpg
Page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. The witness, identified in the header as Rocchio, is undergoing direct examination regarding their professional qualifications in the field of psychology. Rocchio testifies to holding leadership positions with the American Psychological Association (Division of Trauma Psychology and Ethics Committee) and the Rhode Island Psychological Association.
DOJ-OGR-00014886.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript (Document 782, filed Jan 15, 2025) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who defines 'interpersonal violence' and 'forensic psychology' for the court. Rocchio also testifies to having completed between 500 and 1,000 hours of clinical face-to-face work with patients during their Master's and Ph.D. studies.
DOJ-OGR-00014880.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge sets a firm hearing date for November 15th to discuss jury questionnaires and motions in limine, specifically mentioning defense motions regarding co-conspirator statements, 'alleged victim 3', and Exhibit 52. The court also plans to address government motions seeking to exclude testimony from experts Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz.
DOJ-OGR-00014847.jpg
This court transcript from August 22, 2022, details a discussion about finalizing a judgment in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court informs counsel of its decision to set the end date of the criminal conspiracy as July 2004, noting this differs from the government's previous position. The government's counsel, Ms. Moe, states she will review the exhibits and will only file a written objection if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00014845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, regarding her client Ms. Maxwell's sentence. Ms. Sternheim argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized,' but the Court counters that other assets exist and proceeds to formally impose the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00014796.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a legal proceeding filed on August 22, 2022. A judge details the calculation for a defendant's sentencing, arriving at a total offense level of 37, which corresponds to a prison sentence of 210-262 months and significant fines. A representative, Ms. Moe, raises a specific objection to the judge's calculation of offense levels under guideline 3D1.4.
DOJ-OGR-00014795.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 22, 2022, detailing the sentencing guideline calculations for a defendant (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell given the victim names and case context). The judge calculates offense levels based on five specific victim groups: Jane, Annie, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa. Enhancements are applied based on the victims' ages (specifically Jane and Carolyn being under 16), undue influence into commercial sex acts, and the defendant's supervisory role in the criminal activity.
DOJ-OGR-00014782.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 22, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the commentary on a sentencing guideline for 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal, choosing to rest on her previously filed written arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00014769.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It captures a legal argument between the judge ('THE COURT') and a government attorney ('MS. MOE') about the end date of a criminal conspiracy. The judge challenges the government's use of evidence from late 2004 and 2005, arguing it constitutes inadmissible 'post conspiracy' evidence because the conspiracy was legally dependent on a person named Carolyn being under the age of 18.
DOJ-OGR-00014767.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court transcript (Document 779) filed on August 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text records a defense attorney arguing that determining when offense conduct ended is a matter for the jury, specifically to avoid Ex Post Facto violations regarding sentencing guidelines. The speaker cites the 'Tykarsky' opinion and distinguishes the current situation from 'Apprendi' case law.
DOJ-OGR-00014753.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge, government counsel Ms. Moe, and defense counsel Mr. Everdell. The primary topic is the procedure for addressing the defense's factual objections to a presentence report (PSR). The judge indicates a readiness to review each objection individually to ensure the report's accuracy before sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00008418.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 17, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion involves the admissibility of evidence regarding 'non-testifying alleged victims' and 'prior statements of Ms. Maxwell' (referred to as government 8). The government attorney, Ms. Moe, mentions producing a large volume of electronically-stored discovery to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008417.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It features a legal argument between Ms. Menninger (defense) and the Court regarding hearsay rules. Menninger argues that testimony stating other accusers did *not* mention Ms. Maxwell is not hearsay (as it is an absence of a statement) and should be admissible if the government introduces evidence suggesting other victims exist without calling them to the stand.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity