THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00015006.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the conclusion and methodology of a study. The judge interrupts the proceedings to call for a 30-minute lunch recess and advises the attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, to focus his questioning more on underlying 'Daubert questions' rather than points for a jury to make better use of the court's time.
DOJ-OGR-00014999.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a cross-examination by Mr. Pagliuca in the case Rocchio - Cross. The discussion centers on an article titled 'Observing Coercive Control Beyond Intimate Partner Violence' and its study, specifically questioning the witness about the 22 unidentified professional participants. The Court intervenes briefly for clarification during the testimony.
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-00014987.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions a witness, Rocchio, about the existence of a definitive list of vulnerable populations, referencing the DSM 5 and the American Psychological Association. The witness states that while such lists exist in scientific literature, they have not personally written one down but are aware of these populations through their professional training and knowledge.
DOJ-OGR-00014982.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Cross-examination of witness Rocchio) filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The questioning focuses on Rocchio's qualifications as a forensic psychologist, specifically challenging whether they were explicitly qualified as an expert on 'grooming' in previous cases. Rocchio argues that grooming falls under 'interpersonal violence,' but admits to only testifying as a forensic psychologist approximately six times and being deposed four times.
DOJ-OGR-00014977.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Dr. Rocchio's definition of a 'child' (age of consent vs. under 18) and references a prior interview with the government on April 9, 2021, documented in '3500 material' (Jencks Act disclosures).
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-00014973.jpg
Transcript page from the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell). The witness confirms possession of his engagement agreement and time logs, prompting defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca to request immediate production of the file. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz responds that the government has already fulfilled its Jencks Act obligations by producing notes from meetings and calls with the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00014971.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. It captures the beginning of a cross-examination where counsel Mr. Pagliuca questions a witness, Dr. Rocchio, about the frequency of his meetings with the government. Dr. Rocchio acknowledges that he may have had around 14 contacts with the government in the past year, clarifying that this number would include telephone calls for scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00014968.jpg
This document is page 92 of a court transcript (Document 782, filed 01/15/25) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on statistical methodologies for tracking sexual abuse disclosure rates, comparing retrospective studies with real-time data (such as children with STDs), and confirms the expert's opinion that childhood sexual abuse creates higher risks for victims.
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-00014952.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. A witness under direct examination by Rocchio discusses the psychological mechanisms of how trust is established in abusive relationships, citing an example where a victim trusted their abuser because the abuser was best friends with an older, respected person in their 'troop'. The Court questions the witness on whether this specific scenario is documented in academic literature, and the witness clarifies that while the general principles of creating an 'aura of trust' are studied, this highly specific example may not be.
DOJ-OGR-00014951.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The discussion focuses on whether the presence of a single other individual helps create trustworthiness that facilitates abuse. The witness states that while specific literature on a 'single other adult' in child sexual abuse is scarce, pimping and trafficking literature supports group activity, and their own forensic experience confirms that offenders frequently surround themselves with others to facilitate abuse.
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-00014949.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on January 15, 2025, showing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by attorney Ms. Pomerantz. The questioning centers on the concept of 'grooming by proxy,' a term the witness is unfamiliar with in scientific literature. The judge intervenes to clarify the witness's expert opinion: that the presence of another individual can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors.
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.
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-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-00014928.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. Dr. Rocchio is questioned about an article and states that he disagrees with its conclusions. He specifically identifies a highlighted portion of the text as being incomplete.
DOJ-OGR-00014923.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz. Dr. Rocchio testifies about the psychological concepts of 'trauma bonding,' 'coercion,' and 'grooming' in the context of sex trafficking and pimp/sex worker relationships. The prosecution also introduces Government Exhibit 3, an academic article validating a model of child sexual abusers, authored by Georgia Winters, Elizabeth Jeglic, and Leah Kaylor.
DOJ-OGR-00014922.jpg
This document is page 46 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The witness, Rocchio, is testifying about an academic study regarding 'coercive control' and victimization tactics. The Judge interrupts to ask specifically about the comparison between 'trauma bonding' and the relationship between a pimp and a sex worker.
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.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $750,000.00 | Total fine imposed. | View |
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $250,000.00 | Fine imposed on each count. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $9,500,000.00 | Value of real property offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | security company | THE COURT | $1,000,000.00 | Bond co-signed by a security company. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $550,000.00 | Cash offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | THE COURT | $28,500,000.00 | Proposed total bond amount. | View |
| 2020-12-14 | Received | Sureties (Family/... | THE COURT | $0.00 | Meaningful pledges of cash or property in amoun... | View |
| 2020-07-13 | Received | Unidentified co-s... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount by the defense, which the ... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure Maxwell's appear... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Defense/Co-signers | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom of... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure appearance. | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Ms. Maxwell / Ass... | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom us... | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $22,500,000.00 | Proposed bond amount representing all of the co... | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | MR. EPSTEIN | THE COURT | $0.00 | Defense offer to put up 'any amount' of collate... | View |
| 2019-07-11 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | THE COURT | $77,000,000.00 | Valuation of Manhattan residence to be mortgage... | View |
| 2010-07-01 | Received | Epstein's counsel | THE COURT | $5,000.00 | Proposed sanction fine for discovery violations. | View |
Sidebar Conference
Discussion regarding excusing the jury, the government resting its case, the upcoming defense case, and the Rule 29 motion.
Conference Call
Court inquired why defense counsel was presenting two different versions of facts.
Unknown (Identified as Government Exhibit 28)
Letter at the Court identified as Government Exhibit 28.
July 21st letter
A letter submitted to the court.
A matter related to a fact that had come to light after a...
A letter submitted to the court on July 21st, which included an attached Westlaw opinion. The questioning revolves around whether this letter was intended to mislead the court about when the information was discovered.
Legal representation of facts
Comparison of facts in this letter versus a legal brief.
Disclosure of research/internal communications
A letter addressing the Court's question regarding information on Juror Number One, disclosing the firm's earlier research.
Information regarding the investigation of Juror No. 1.
A letter dated July 21 was sent to the Court containing information about an investigation into Juror No. 1. The Court questions the witness about whether her law firm would have disclosed this information without being prompted.
Information regarding the investigation of Juror No. 1.
A letter dated July 21 was sent to the Court containing information about an investigation into Juror No. 1. The Court questions the witness about whether her law firm would have disclosed this information without being prompted.
Epstein's Compliance
Stating Epstein has already registered and recognizes the duty, but reserving right to appeal.
SORA Registration
Explaining that the offense is registrable in Florida and recognized by NY State Board of Examiners.
Scheduling
Reference to a statement made 'yesterday' regarding witness timing and closing arguments.
Awareness of issues concerning Juror Number One [Conrad]
A conference call where the Court sought to determine if the defendants were aware of disturbing information about Juror Conrad. Trzaskoma responded on the call.
Argument for unsealing
Media organizations arguing for public access to the housing letters.
Question 49
Juror 50 answered a question regarding his history, which the court notes he did not read closely.
Financial Disclosure
Epstein will provide more specific information regarding assets in a sealed supplemental disclosure.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity