| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Flatley
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Maguire
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Aznaran
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Parkinson
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Kane
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Brown
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Farmer
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Professional adversarial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Alessi
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court testimony | Direct examination of Brune regarding his professional relationship and actions as the lawyer for... | Court | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | Witness Berke is questioned about their knowledge regarding a juror's background and potential co... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| N/A | Court testimony (direct examination) | Ms. Brune is questioned about her ethical standards and actions as a former Assistant U.S. Attorn... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | Cross-examination of witness Parkinson regarding the evidentiary limitations of videos and photog... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony | A witness named Edelstein is being questioned about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma regarding t... | Southern District (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding her ethical obligations as an officer of the court. | court | View |
| N/A | Legal testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding his firm's jury selection process. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding their understanding of the voir dire (jury ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Testimony | A witness named Kate testifies about her experience at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach house. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony/deposition | Ms. Edelstein is being questioned about the potential connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspen... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Direct examination | Direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding her knowledge of potential juror misconduct. | Court | View |
| N/A | Testimony / deposition | A colloquy where an unnamed defendant was questioned about Jeffrey Epstein's activities. The defe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | A witness named Berke is cross-examined in a legal proceeding about his professional obligations ... | courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal testimony | Direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding her handling of a 'significant piece of information' an... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | Mr. Berke is questioned under oath about an attorney's ethical obligations regarding juror miscon... | Court | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | A witness named Berke is being cross-examined about their knowledge of a juror's background. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | A witness named Visoski is being questioned about their observations during flights. | court proceeding | View |
| N/A | Legal testimony/deposition | Edelstein is being questioned about a decision made with Susan Brune regarding the content of a l... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony | A witness named Alessi gives testimony under direct examination, describing the layout of Mr. Eps... | Courtroom (inferred) | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Brune regarding the decision not to research potential juror Cather... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal testimony | Direct examination of witness Brune regarding the submission of a letter and brief to the court. | The Court | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | A witness named Berke is being cross-examined about their duties as an attorney and officer of th... | Courtroom or deposition set... | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding her ethical obligations and knowledge of potential juro... | Court | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. | Court | View |
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning attorney establishes the witness's expertise in neuropsychology, confirms they are not a toxicologist, and begins to probe the relationship between memory and delayed disclosure.
This document is a partial transcript of a direct examination of Dr. Rocchio, filed on August 10, 2022, as part of a legal case. Dr. Rocchio, an expert, testifies that childhood sexual abuse is typically committed through grooming and coercion by individuals known to the child, rather than physical force by strangers. The testimony defines 'grooming' as deceptive tactics used by perpetrators to engage a child in sexual abuse and discusses its recognition within the psychological community.
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 methodology of a study or article, specifically the demographic characteristics of the "experts" and professionals involved, and challenges the response rate of the data collection, which the questioner labels a "dropout rate."
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on establishing Rocchio's expertise, specifically their extensive experience as a peer reviewer for academic publications. Rocchio states they are on the editorial board for the journal of the Division of Trauma Psychology and also serve as a guest reviewer for other journals related to psychological injury and law.
This document is a transcript of a voir dire or deposition from February 28, 2023, where an attorney questions a potential juror about an inaccurate answer on their questionnaire. The juror admits to mistakenly checking 'no' when asked if a family member had ever been accused of a crime, explaining that their stepbrother had been. The juror attributes the error to being distracted, unfocused due to a recent breakup, and skimming the form too quickly, calling it an 'inadvertent mistake' and 'one of the biggest mistakes' of their life.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) recording the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The testimony confirms that Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Roberts were passengers together on two flights on April 9, 2001, traveling from Palm Beach to Atlantic City, and then to Teterboro. It also documents a subsequent flight on April 11, 2001, from Teterboro to St. Thomas.
This document is a segment of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing testimony under cross-examination regarding the execution of warrants. The testimony confirms that first and second warrants were executed on July 6th and July 7th, 2019, respectively, with specific times provided for the initial search on July 6th and the conclusion of the search on July 7th, also mentioning a later visit on July 11th to collect CDs.
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on establishing a timeline, suggesting that Kate's contact with an unnamed male ended around 2012 or earlier. This cessation of contact coincided with her becoming a mother and her employment at a facility she ran for women recovering from substance use and trauma.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Kate, focusing on her ambition and statements she made in a 2004 interview about her intense focus on her modeling career.
This document is a page from a legal transcript dated July 26, 2017, detailing an interview about an individual's travels with an unnamed male. The interviewee states she visited his private Caribbean island and London home as a vacationing guest, not as an employee. She also recounts attending a peculiar symposium in Santa Fe, New Mexico, about cleaning homes, which she describes as "stupid."
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers regarding the residences of an unnamed male individual in New York City. The testimony establishes that the individual lived on 69th Street around 1991, when he hired the witness, and later moved to a townhouse at 9 East 71st Street in 1996.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning centers on a 1995 research paper by Loftus, which involved an experiment to implant a false memory into participants. The experiment presented subjects with three true childhood stories, obtained from their parents or siblings, and one fabricated story about being lost in a shopping mall.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Loftus. Loftus, who holds a doctorate in psychology, explains how memory retrieval can be influenced by suggestive pressures, citing examples from law enforcement interviews and psychotherapy. She also clarifies for the jury that she is not a practicing therapist and does not conduct therapy, although she does study patients.
This court transcript details a direct examination of a witness from the travel agency Shoppers Travel. The witness confirms that Jeffrey Epstein's office was a customer for whom they booked flights and other travel. The testimony also reveals that in 2016, the witness was asked to generate a report from their QuickBooks system related to Epstein's office records.
This document is a page from a deposition transcript dated August 10, 2022, where a witness, A. Farmer, is being cross-examined. The questioning focuses on the witness's knowledge of a potential trip by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to a ranch in New Mexico in April 1996. The witness denies knowledge of a flight log and has limited memory of staff present at the ranch, such as a chef, and is being shown a 2006 document to refresh their memory.
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers testifies about various aircraft owned by an unnamed male individual, confirming the purchase of a Boeing 727 in January 2001. The testimony also details the use of a smaller Cessna for flights between a ranch, Palm Beach, Florida, and St. Thomas.
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It captures the questioning of a witness about their answers on a jury selection questionnaire. The examiner probes whether the witness, who has a history of sexual abuse, intentionally provided inaccurate answers to get selected for the jury, which the witness denies. The witness also recounts the timeline of being summoned for jury duty and filling out the questionnaire on November 4th.
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It details the questioning of a potential juror regarding their answers on a juror questionnaire. The individual clarifies that their experience with sexual abuse was not what they considered when answering about being a victim of a crime, stating they no longer identify as a victim and can serve as a fair and impartial juror.
This document is a transcript of a redirect examination in a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is questioned about why they did not investigate an individual further, despite a Westlaw report indicating she was a suspended attorney. The witness explains their belief that the report had conflated two different people with the same name, and they were convinced the person in question was a 'Bronxville stay-at-home wife' and not the lawyer.
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune explains the reasoning behind filing a legal brief, noting that other lawyers on the case were surprised by their findings. The questioning focuses on a July 22nd phone call and Brune's anticipation that the government would raise a "waiver issue," for which Brune planned to answer truthfully.
This document is a page from a 2017 deposition transcript where an unnamed witness is questioned about her past. The witness denies being involuntarily sent to a juvenile facility but admits to lying to her father about visiting 'Epstein's house,' claiming she was going shopping instead. She confirms that she had previously admitted this lie to the police.
This document is a page from a legal transcript dated July 26, 2017. In it, an unnamed witness is questioned about their contact with Steven Lavelle, stating they no longer speak. The witness denies knowing two redacted female individuals by name but suggests they could identify them from photos, and also denies any knowledge of another girl who allegedly made allegations against Epstein and refused to testify before a Grand Jury.
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding dated July 26, 2017. An unnamed witness is being questioned about their past interactions with detectives from Palm Beach, including a Detective Recarey, in relation to a Grand Jury testimony that occurred when the witness was 14 or 15. The witness clarifies that their dad, not Detective Recarey, drove them to the testimony, and an attorney named Mr. Leopold objects to a repetitive question.
This document is page 5 of a deposition transcript from July 26, 2017. In this section, the deponent affirms they are fit to testify, states they are living with their aunt and uncle but cannot recall the address, and is questioned about a contempt motion filed by their mother. The transcript was prepared by Censor & Associates.
This document is a transcript page from a Q&A session featuring Steve Bannon. Bannon discusses the 2008 financial crisis, the lack of accountability for bank executives, and how this fueled the Tea Party movement. A questioner named Mario Fantini asks Bannon about how to counteract the rise of the 'Identitarians' (a neo-nativist movement) in Europe. The page concludes with a pull quote noting that despite Congressional recommendations, no bank executives were indicted following the crisis.
An unnamed questioner examines Ms. Brune about her ethical obligations as a former AUSA, specifically regarding her decision not to proactively disclose certain facts in a brief unless pressed by the court or the government.
An unidentified questioner cross-examines a witness named Rodgers about the timeline of Mr. Epstein's move to a rental property in Palm Beach around 1994-1995 while his El Brillo Way home was being renovated, and about the purchase of a residence in New Mexico in the mid-1990s.
An unnamed questioner cross-examines the witness, Berke, about their knowledge of a potential connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad, who was also involved in a personal injury lawsuit. Berke states discomfort with speculating on a hypothetical connection.
An unnamed questioner asks a witness named Rodgers to confirm the passengers on two flights. Rodgers confirms that Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Roberts were passengers on both flights, one of which occurred on January 30, 2001, from St. Thomas to Palm Beach.
An unnamed questioner is examining a witness named Brune about the roles and responsibilities within his firm for jury selection in a particular case, focusing on the duties of Ms. Trzaskoma.
A. Farmer is questioned about an incident where an unnamed male touched her leg and foot in a movie theater and why she did not report it to her sister who was present.
An unnamed questioner repeatedly asks Mr. Berke if an attorney has an obligation to report juror misconduct to the court. Mr. Berke avoids a direct yes or no answer, stating he would consult the ethics rules and has never encountered that specific situation.
A questioner repeatedly asks the defendant if Jeffrey Epstein had a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages. The defendant avoids a direct answer and ultimately denies knowledge, while their lawyer, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the questions.
A questioner repeatedly asks the defendant if Jeffrey Epstein had a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages. The defendant avoids a direct answer and ultimately denies knowledge, while their lawyer, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the questions.
An unnamed questioner cross-examines a witness named Berke about his professional duties as an attorney, specifically in a hypothetical scenario where he believes a juror has engaged in misconduct. Berke states he would research the rules and law before reporting it to the court.
An unnamed questioner asks witness A. Farmer about her flight home to Phoenix, why she did not write about her trip to New Mexico in her journal, and why she kept boots that were purchased for her by Maxwell and Epstein.
An unnamed questioner asks Brune about discussions concerning Catherine Conrad. Brune recounts how their team discovered a suspended lawyer with the same name and the subsequent strategic conversation with a jury consultant about whether to strike her from the jury.
An unnamed questioner asks Brune about discussions concerning Catherine Conrad. Brune recounts how their team discovered a suspended lawyer with the same name and the subsequent strategic conversation with a jury consultant about whether to strike her from the jury.
An unnamed questioner asks the witness, Alessi, to describe the layout of a residence, focusing on the hallway, master bedroom, and bathroom belonging to Mr. Epstein.
An unnamed questioner is cross-examining a witness named Berke about what they knew regarding a potential connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad, who was involved in a personal injury lawsuit and allegedly shared the same address as the juror.
An unnamed questioner interviews Carolyn about conversations she had with Jeffrey Epstein while giving him massages. The topics include her family, past sexual abuse, her age (15), potential travel, and the payment she received ($300-$400 per massage).
An unnamed questioner conducts a direct examination of the witness, Brune, regarding their presence at a trial, their view of the jury, and their specific observations of a juror named Ms. Conrad.
An unnamed questioner interrogates the witness, Brune, about why they did not ask Judge Pauley to inquire further into Juror No. 1's background, despite having information suggesting she was a suspended attorney. Brune clarifies the information was from a Google search by Ms. Trzaskoma and not a physical printout, and that they had concluded it was a different person.
A questioner asks the witness, Rodgers, about conversations with Mr. Epstein regarding renovations for a G2B aircraft purchased in 1994. Rodgers is also asked about travel to Michigan and to identify staff who worked at the Palm Beach house in the 1990s.
The questioner is examining the witness, Aznaran, about border crossing records for a person named Kate. The testimony establishes that Kate's earliest recorded border entry in the TECS system was on November 1, 1997, at age 20, and that there are no records for her in 1994, 1995, or 1996.
An unnamed questioner interviews Carolyn about her guilty pleas for felony possession of stolen property (an Xbox) and false verification to a pawnbroker. The questioning covers her 52-day jail sentence, subsequent drug treatment and therapy, and her current medications (methadone, Xanax, doxepine, Vyvanse) for opioid addiction.
An unnamed questioner is conducting a direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding their knowledge and recollections of events during jury selection, specifically concerning Juror No. 20 and a potential suspended lawyer.
An unnamed questioner is examining Ms. Brune about the jury selection for a long trial. Topics include the decision not to challenge a juror with a criminal record and the importance of juror availability, which was a major issue addressed by Judge Pauley.
An unnamed questioner is examining a witness about the truthfulness of their answers on a jury selection questionnaire, specifically questioning if they intentionally answered inaccurately to be selected for the jury, possibly motivated by a history of sexual abuse. The witness denies this.
A questioner is eliciting testimony from Carolyn about the sequence of events after she entered a room with Virginia, including setting up a massage table, disrobing, and the arrival of Mr. Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity