Dr. DeRosa
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Suann Ingle
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
David Elbaum
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Edelstein
|
Professional contentious |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Schoeman
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Acquaintance |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Edelstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Confrontation | A past event where Ms. Edelstein allegedly stood at a podium and raised her voice at Dr. DeRosa f... | podium | View |
| N/A | Trial support | Suann Ingle created graphics for the opening and closing statements and operated a PowerPoint pre... | court | View |
| N/A | Court presentation | Suann Ingle created graphics for opening and closing statements and operated the PowerPoint prese... | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Edelstein questioning Dr. DeRosa at a podium. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009268.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, of the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad (a juror/attorney) in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The header indicates this document was filed in 2022 as part of the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), likely as a defense exhibit regarding juror misconduct precedents. The text details Conrad's affirmation that she followed Judge Pauley's instructions, her legal background from Brooklyn Law School, and her deliberations regarding witnesses Dr. DeRosa and Paul Shanbrom, and defendants Brubaker and Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009265.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, from the case 'United States v. Daugerdas', filed as Exhibit A-5661 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad (likely the infamous juror Catherine Conrad), who admits to lying and omitting information during voir dire to make herself 'more marketable as a juror.' The questioning covers her husband's criminal record (convicted felon, 7.5-year sentence), her own disciplinary suspension by the Bar Association, and her flippant 'smart ass' attitude toward the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010102.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 2:02-cr-00388-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony transitions from direct examination by Mr. Shechtman to cross-examination by Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on establishing the timeline of a conversation Schoeman had with Ms. Trzaskoma relative to the receipt of a juror's note during deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00010084.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-00083-AJN) filed on Feb 24, 2022. Ms. Edelstein is being questioned about whether a legal brief she was involved with misleadingly suggested that her team only learned of an Appellate Division suspension report regarding Catherine Conrad (Juror 50 in the Maxwell trial) after receiving a letter or juror note. Edelstein admits the brief might convey that impression but denies any intent to mislead.
DOJ-OGR-00009998.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on March 23, 2022. Brune testifies about juror research conducted by the Nardello firm, clarifying it was strictly limited to database research and did not involve fieldwork. Brune also outlines the role of team member Suann Ingle, who was responsible for creating and presenting trial graphics.
DOJ-OGR-00009995.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript, filed on March 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The witness identifies attorneys (Melissa Desori, Ms. Edelstein, David Elbaum) and paralegals (Brendan Henry, Jenson Smith, Ariel Stoddard) who worked on a case referred to as the 'Parma matter'. The testimony clarifies the roles of these individuals, such as working on legal issues or expert testimony involving a Dr. DeRosa.
DOJ-OGR-00009944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on her credibility, exploring her past actions as a juror for a Mr. Okula, her understanding of financial matters from an expert named Dr. DeRosa, and her failure to disclose a prior disciplinary suspension from the Bar Association during jury selection. The transcript also reveals personal details, such as her husband being a convicted felon, which are used to challenge her character and motivations.
DOJ-OGR-00009423.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2012. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman by an attorney, Mr. Okula, regarding the timing of a conversation Schoeman had with a Ms. Trzaskoma. The questioning aims to establish whether this conversation occurred on the same day or several days after a juror's note was received in court during deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009405.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness, Ms. Edelstein, is being questioned about a legal brief. The questioner suggests the brief creates a misleading impression about the timeline of when her side learned about an 'Appellate Division suspension report' relative to receiving a 'juror note' and a letter from Catherine Conrad. While Edelstein concedes the brief might convey that impression, she denies any intent to mislead.
DOJ-OGR-00009319.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, where an individual named Brune is being questioned. Brune clarifies that the jury research conducted by the Nardello firm was strictly limited to database searches per his instructions. He also details the role of Suann Ingle of Ingle Communications, who was part of his team and responsible for creating and presenting graphics for opening and closing statements, some of which were for a Dr. DeRosa.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity