Rocchio
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Attorney (Q)
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Questioner
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Attorney (Q)
|
Witness examiner |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Author of the document
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Unidentified Attorney
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional contractual |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Unidentified Attorney (Q)
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed colleague
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Questioner (unnamed)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Litigation Parties (Plaintiffs/Defendants/Prosecutors)
|
Professional contractual |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unnamed attorney
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unnamed attorney
|
Witness examiner |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unidentified Questioner
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Witness presented a list of 77 behaviors identified in literature as grooming. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Rocchio regarding forensic psychology methodology. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Guest editor role for a special issue of a journal. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination testimony of witness Rocchio regarding expert opinion and methodology. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Rocchio regarding forensic psychology credentials and definitions o... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding psychology of false allegations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Rocchio regarding grooming, trauma verification, and scientific lit... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Rocchio regarding the psychology of delayed disclosure in childhood... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Rocchio regarding forensic evaluation procedures. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Participation in eating-disorder research group | Butler Hospital | View |
| N/A | N/A | Founding of independent psychology practice | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Witness worked with hundreds of patients dealing with eating disorders, grief, and traumatic stress. | Graduate school (unspecified) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Witness worked for six months in a partial hospital program treating adults. | Yale New Haven Hospital | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding the 'Craven article' and the definition of grooming. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination testimony of witness Rocchio. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding forensic psychology definitions and document review. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Rocchio in court. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Rocchio regarding clinical assessment of child sexual abuse victims. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding expert witness hiring practices and independence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Previous legal cases where Rocchio testified or was deposed. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Rocchio regarding clinical opinions on child sexual abuse risk fact... | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | American Psychological Association Annual Conference | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Meeting | The witness, Rocchio, met with the government multiple times in connection with the case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A legal argument against the admissibility of Rocchio's proposed expert testimony in case 1:20-cr... | N/A | View |
EFTA00028211.pdf
This document is an email chain between Assistant United States Attorneys and legal staff from the Southern District of New York dated November 7-8, 2021. The discussion concerns the drafting of a 'Daubert motion' specifically intended to preclude the testimony of experts 'Dietz' and 'Loftus' (likely referring to defense experts in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The emails detail the collaborative writing process, assigning specific sections (Dietz, Loftus, Rocchio) to different team members with a deadline to get the draft to their 'chiefs' by the following morning.
EFTA00018897.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 2021 between Assistant United States Attorneys for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The correspondence concerns the urgent drafting of a 'Daubert motion' to preclude expert witnesses, specifically naming Dietz, Loftus, and Rocchio (likely defense experts for the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The team is coordinating late-night revisions to have a draft ready for their supervisors ('chiefs') by the following morning.
DOJ-OGR-00017970.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. During a cross-examination, a witness confirms that a study concluded it is not possible to prospectively or reliably predict 'grooming behavior'. After the witness's confirmation, the questioning attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concludes his examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017968.jpg
This page contains the cross-examination of a witness named Dr. Rocchio regarding a study conducted by authors at John Jay College. The questioning focuses on the methodology of the study, specifically the use of six vignettes—five depicting stages of grooming and one control vignette—presented to 393 undergraduate students.
DOJ-OGR-00017963.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The questioning concerns literature on child sexual abuse, leading to objections from attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the use of the term 'perpetrator' and the scope of the witness's answer. The court overrules these objections and directs the witness to continue.
DOJ-OGR-00017960.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00017959.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning establishes that Rocchio has a contract with the government for up to $45,000, has not reviewed witness statements or performed psychological evaluations, and is not offering opinions on the case's events or witness credibility. The witness confirms their limited information comes exclusively from government lawyers.
DOJ-OGR-00017958.jpg
This document is page 85 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio, who confirms they are testifying as a 'blind expert' regarding the topic of grooming and subject matter expertise, without having evaluated any specific parties or witnesses in the case. The questioning explores potential professional disagreements with other experts like Dr. Dietz and Dr. O'Donohue.
DOJ-OGR-00017950.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge. They discuss the permissible scope of cross-examination, with the judge warning against introducing new, undisclosed expert testimony. The judge references a prior Daubert hearing and instructs another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, to object if the rules are violated.
DOJ-OGR-00017948.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and a lawyer (MS. POMERANTZ). Ms. Pomerantz raises a concern about the scope of questioning by another lawyer, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding a witness's testimony on the delayed disclosure of sexual abuse. The discussion centers on defining the line between permissible cross-examination and improperly soliciting expert opinions.
DOJ-OGR-00017946.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the permissible scope of cross-examination for a psychology expert witness. The discussion focuses on the concept of 'delayed disclosure' in sexual abuse cases and whether the defense can question the expert about alternative reasons for such delays beyond what was presented in direct testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017943.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys (Ms. Pomerantz, Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge regarding a question posed to a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The judge clarifies why a specific question about grooming and sexual gratification was objected to and ultimately precluded, citing the narrow basis for excluding testimony on the theory of 'grooming by proxy'.
DOJ-OGR-00017942.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a judge's remarks during a hearing. The judge explains the reasoning for sustaining an objection related to a prior "Daubert" ruling on the scope of testimony about child grooming. The judge highlights a significant misunderstanding between opposing counsel, Mr. Pagliuca and another unnamed lawyer, but concludes that the violation of the ruling was not intentional.
DOJ-OGR-00017941.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a legal argument between attorney Ms. Pomerantz and the Judge regarding the admissibility of questions related to 'grooming' and 'sexual gratification.' The Judge references a 'Daubert context' (expert witness admissibility) and compares the testimony to a 'pimp-prostitute context.'
DOJ-OGR-00017940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, and the judge ('THE COURT') after the jury has been excused for a break. Ms. Pomerantz seeks to clarify the record regarding the scope of Dr. Rocchio's testimony, stating the government's understanding that his opinion on the presence of a third party was excluded, and distinguishing this from the defense's theory of 'grooming by proxy'.
DOJ-OGR-00017935.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who discusses the commonality of delayed disclosure of sexual abuse in clinical and forensic practices. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question regarding the witness being the first person patients disclose abuse to, but the objection is overruled by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00017933.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case, filed on August 10, 2022, capturing the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. Rocchio testifies that it is common for children to delay disclosing abuse, often not speaking about it until adulthood, and that the younger a child is, the more likely they are to delay disclosure. The testimony identifies this as a recognized phenomenon and mentions ongoing research into the "internal and external barriers" that prevent children from reporting abuse sooner.
DOJ-OGR-00017931.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on expert definitions of 'coercive control' and its relationship to 'grooming,' specifically how positive reinforcements are interspersed with abuse to maintain victim attachment and entrapment. The witness explains how this psychological dynamic confuses victims of childhood sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00017929.jpg
This document is page 56 of a court transcript (Document 747) filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who is providing expert testimony on the risk factors associated with child abuse, specifically citing parental conflict, financial difficulties, prior parental abuse, and family isolation. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00017929.
DOJ-OGR-00017928.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, regarding the factors that place a child at increased risk of sexual abuse. The judge sustains an objection and strikes a portion of the testimony before Dr. Rocchio begins to detail personal risk factors such as prior victimization, health issues, and disadvantaged circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00017927.jpg
This document is page 54 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The page captures a brief exchange during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, where the Judge ('The Court') addresses a procedural disagreement regarding a question asked by Mr. Pagliuca, noting the necessity of the court reporter. The majority of the page is blank, indicating the session continued on the next page.
DOJ-OGR-00017926.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question from Ms. Pomerantz, claiming it violates a prior agreement with the government. The Court sustains the objection, expressing bafflement at the apparent misunderstanding or breach of the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00017925.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar conference during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The Judge admonishes Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) for approaching a line of questioning regarding 'grooming by proxy' or 'third-party involvement' in a 'pimp-prostitute context,' which the Judge states was precluded or limited during a previous Daubert hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00017923.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. During the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, the judge sustains an objection to a line of questioning about anecdotal treatment discussions, deeming it beyond scope. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, acknowledges the ruling and prepares to continue.
DOJ-OGR-00017921.jpg
This is page 48 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, Rocchio (likely an expert witness), is testifying about the psychological trauma of victims realizing they were fooled in a relationship they trusted. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca interrupts the testimony to request a sidebar conference with the Judge.
Definitions of abuse and witness's clinical experience
A transcript of a direct examination where an unnamed questioner asks the witness, Rocchio, to define 'childhood sexual abuse' and 'child', and to describe their clinical experience with patients during their graduate studies.
Witness's professional background and employment
An unnamed questioner interviews the witness, Rocchio, about their current employment. Rocchio states they are a Clinical Assistant Professor at Brown University School of Medicine's department of psychiatry, a position they have held since June 2020.
Direct Examination regarding grooming and coercive control
Witness defines coercive control and explains how the grooming process creates attachment and entrapment for victims of childhood sexual abuse.
Opinions on vulnerable individuals and sexual abuse
A letter from the government to the witness containing opinions, including one that individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse.
Interview/Discussion
Discussion regarding definitions of 'child', 'sexual abuse', and 'nonconsensual'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity