Loftus
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
CIA
|
Consultant lecturer |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Questioner
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unidentified Attorney
|
Witness examiner |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unidentified Attorney
|
Witness counsel |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Professional adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defense attorney
|
Witness counsel |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Collaborators/Sympathizers
|
Professional academic |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney (Q)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
National Science Foundation
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Federal Bureau of Investigation
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Central Intelligence Agency
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Interrogator
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Federal government
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Secret Service
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Professors (Unnamed)
|
Academic professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney (Q)
|
Witness examiner |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
National Institute of Mental Health
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination testimony of witness Loftus in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Consulting workshops conducted by the witness. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Psychological study | A study was conducted where subjects were presented with true memories from their childhood and o... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lectures/Consulting by Loftus | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Loftus regarding false memory studies. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination testimony of expert witness Loftus. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Scientific experiment | Experiments conducted by Loftus involving videos of car crashes and people being lost in malls. | malls | View |
| N/A | Experiment | A memory experiment where people watched a short video of a blue car rushing towards a person. | science museum | View |
| N/A | Psychological experiment | A study was conducted to see if people could be made to believe they met Bugs Bunny at Disneyland... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination testimony of witness Loftus regarding memory and interviewing techniques. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Commencement ceremony delayed due to COVID | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Leadership role | Loftus served as president of the Western Psychological Association on two separate occasions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Leadership role | Loftus served as president of divisions of the American Psychological Association, such as the Am... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Consultation | Witness Loftus consulted with various government agencies at different points in their career. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Research funding | Witness Loftus's research was supported by grants and funds from various organizations. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Psychological study | An experiment conducted by Loftus about planting a false memory of someone being lost in a mall. ... | mall | View |
| N/A | Leadership role | Loftus served as president of the Western Psychological Association twice. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Experiment | A memory experiment involving a simulated accident where the detail of a yield sign versus a stop... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Academic publication | Loftus published a paper titled 'Reactions to Blatantly Contradictory Information'. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Experiment | A study was conducted where participants viewed a simulated accident and were questioned about th... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of expert witness Loftus regarding the stages of memory (acquisition, retentio... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony at high-profile trials | Courts | View |
| N/A | Scientific study | Studies conducted by Loftus involving interviews with people who were sexually abused about their... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Classic psychology study regarding traffic signs (Stop vs Yield) | Academic/Laboratory setting | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Filing date of the transcript document. | Court | View |
EFTA00028278.pdf
This document is an email dated November 12, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York to a colleague. The sender requests the preparation of a binder for an upcoming court appearance on the following Monday, attaching various legal documents related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, including motions regarding 'MV-3' (Minor Victim 3), expert witnesses Dietz and Loftus, and responses to the defense.
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.
EFTA00027641.pdf
An email dated November 9, 2021, from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York. The email transmits an attached legal motion ('Motion_to_preclude_-_ECF.pdf') concerning 'Dietz and Loftus,' likely referring to expert witnesses (Dr. Park Dietz and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus) relevant to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial proceedings occurring around that time.
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.
EFTA00018896.pdf
An email dated November 8, 2021, from an Assistant US Attorney in the Southern District of New York to the USANYS team. The email attaches a draft 'Daubert motion' aimed at precluding testimony related to 'Dietz and Loftus' (likely experts Park Dietz and Elizabeth Loftus). The sender notes that the Dietz section is complete and praised a colleague's work on it, while the Loftus section is undergoing revisions.
DOJ-OGR-00015221.tif
This document is a bibliography or publication list detailing numerous psychological research papers, reviews, and book chapters authored or co-authored by E.F. Loftus and various collaborators between 1978 and 1980. The publications primarily focus on memory, eyewitness testimony, and related psychological phenomena, appearing in various academic journals and edited volumes.
DOJ-OGR-00020871.jpg
This document appears to be a court exhibit containing excerpts from media interviews (MailOnline, The Independent) with a juror named 'David' following the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. David explains that the jury was swayed by the 'pattern' of grooming established by multiple accusers (Kate, Jane, Annie Farmer, Carolyn), despite the defense's attempts to challenge memories via expert Loftus. He specifically notes that while accuser Kate's testimony could not be used for charges due to UK laws, it was crucial for establishing the grooming methodology.
DOJ-OGR-00017091.jpg
This document is page 70 of a court transcript from the summation in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues against the testimony of expert witness Loftus regarding false memories, citing a study where researchers failed to implant false memories of a 'rectal enema.' Moe argues that, like the enema, sexual abuse is a traumatic event that cannot be suggested or falsely implanted, and notes that Loftus admitted traumatic memories are stronger than others.
DOJ-OGR-00016672.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the redirect examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning establishes that Loftus has worked as a consultant for multiple U.S. federal agencies, including the Secret Service, DOJ, FBI, and IRS, while also having a history of testifying for the defense in criminal cases. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, makes several objections to the line of questioning on grounds of mischaracterization and foundation.
DOJ-OGR-00016671.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the redirect examination of a witness named Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus), who explains the ethical restrictions placed on psychologists by human subjects review committees, specifically noting they cannot deliberately plant memories of sexual abuse. The page concludes with the defense attorney asking Loftus about the government's suggestion during cross-examination that she is a 'profiteer' for testifying for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00016669.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning focuses on the nature of memory experiments Loftus has conducted, establishing that while they have studied memories of car crashes and interviewed sexual abuse survivors, they have never conducted unethical studies such as arranging for abuse to occur or attempting to implant false memories of abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00016668.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus on the subject of traumatic memories. Loftus affirms that people tend to remember the core details of trauma more strongly than peripheral ones, and that memory is stronger for participants and for repetitive events.
DOJ-OGR-00016666.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning focuses on the susceptibility of memory to suggestion, specifically referencing a study by researcher Kathy Pezdek that attempted to implant false memories in subjects, such as being lost in a mall and receiving a rectal enema.
DOJ-OGR-00016665.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus about her research on false memories. The questioning focuses on her famous 'lost in the mall' study, confirming that about 25% of participants came to remember parts of the fabricated event. The transcript also touches on Loftus's other research, including a published paper, showing that people can resist blatantly false suggestions.
DOJ-OGR-00016664.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00016663.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning focuses on Loftus's past psychological research into memory manipulation, specifically referencing a study where details like a car's color were altered to mislead subjects, and another experiment from the mid-1990s that involved implanting a false memory of being lost in a mall.
DOJ-OGR-00016662.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning focuses on the methodology of memory experiments conducted by Loftus, specifically probing the details of a study involving a simulated accident with a stop/yield sign and another experiment that took place at a science museum.
DOJ-OGR-00016660.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the cross-examination of defense expert witness Elizabeth Loftus by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz regarding 'Government Exhibit 1511,' a study on false memories. The questioning focuses on a specific experiment where 16% of participants falsely recalled meeting Bugs Bunny at Disney.
DOJ-OGR-00016657.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the cross-examination of an individual named Loftus. The transcript captures a brief procedural exchange where an unnamed speaker offers to explain their reasons at a sidebar, the judge reviews an item numbered '1511', and a request is made to 'Ms. Williams' to erase a background.
DOJ-OGR-00016656.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning focuses on a psychological study Loftus conducted, which successfully implanted false memories in participants by suggesting they had met the Warner Brothers character Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. The transcript concludes with an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, objecting to the line of questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00016655.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning establishes that Loftus is an experimental psychologist, not a licensed clinical psychologist, does not treat patients, and that their expert opinions on memory are based on their own research, including experiments on misinformation that involved the character Bugs Bunny.
DOJ-OGR-00016654.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of defense expert witness Elizabeth Loftus during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz questions Loftus about her history of testifying for high-profile defendants, her interactions with the press, the potential business benefits of such testimony, and clarifies that her work is research-based rather than clinical. The text mentions Loftus's book, 'Witness for the Defense'.
DOJ-OGR-00016653.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a ruling by the judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus (likely expert Elizabeth Loftus). The judge admonishes attorney Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) not to draw prejudicial associations with other defendants Loftus has testified for, citing Rule 403 grounds, but allows general questions regarding incentives to testify in high-profile cases.
DOJ-OGR-00016651.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conference regarding the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim objects to the prosecution's questioning as 'character assassination,' while prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz argues the questioning establishes the witness's 'financial incentive' to testify for the defense as a career expert witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016650.jpg
This document is page 167 of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. During the cross-examination of an expert witness identified as 'Loftus' (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus), the questioning attorney asks if she testified for Harvey Weinstein in his criminal trial. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim objects immediately, and the Court pauses the proceedings to hear arguments, presumably at a sidebar.
Testimony as a defense witness
Loftus admits to participating in interviews with the press about her testimony if asked.
Professional affiliations and publications
An unnamed questioner asks the witness, Loftus, to describe their professional affiliations. Loftus details their membership and leadership roles in several psychological organizations.
Memory experiments
An unnamed questioner cross-examines the witness, Loftus, about the details and methodology of memory experiments she has conducted, specifically one involving a simulated accident with a stop/yield sign and another at a science museum.
Psychological studies on false memories and suggestion.
An unnamed questioner cross-examines Loftus about her research, focusing on the 'lost in the mall' study, its results, and other studies concerning resistance to blatantly false suggestions.
The effect of language on memory
A witness, Loftus, answers questions about studies concerning how language can influence memory, providing a specific example of an experiment involving a simulated car accident.
Suggestibility in memory retrieval and professional quali...
A questioner asks the witness, Loftus, about situations where information exchange can be suggestive. Loftus provides examples from law enforcement interviews and psychotherapy. The questioner then clarifies that Loftus has a doctorate in psychology but is not a practicing therapist.
The effect of labeling on memory
An unidentified questioner asks witness Loftus about how memory can be affected by labeling. Loftus explains that applying labels to ambiguous objects (e.g., eyeglasses vs. dumbbells) or events (e.g., incident vs. fight) can alter how they are later remembered and constructed.
Direct Examination regarding memory science
Discussion regarding whether post-event information can be intentional or inadvertent, and the impact of secondary gain, motive, or trusted sources on the formation of false memories.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding CV detail and compensation.
Professional Honors and CV
Witness discusses their extensive CV (47 pages) and highlights their election to the National Academy of Sciences in 2004.
Direct Examination regarding credentials and research
Loftus describes her awards from psychological associations and explains her history of conducting hundreds of experiments on human memory.
Memory studies
Loftus admitted on cross-examination that core memories of trauma are stronger than other types of memory.
Direct Examination
Discussion regarding the reliability of memory involving trauma and the correlation between confidence and accuracy in memory retrieval.
Memory Retention and Contamination
Discussion regarding the stages of memory (acquisition, retention, retrieval) and the impact of post-event suggestion on memory accuracy.
Expertise in the science of memory
This is a transcript of a direct examination where a witness, Loftus, answers questions about her expertise. She discusses her history of testifying as an expert on memory, distinguishing her psychological expertise from the field of neuroscience.
Memory formation, misinformation, and autosuggestion
This is a transcript of a direct examination of Loftus, who explains the difference between externally supplied misinformation and internal 'autosuggestion' in memory creation. Loftus also details factors that affect the initial acquisition of a memory, such as lighting, distance, distraction, and the influence of drugs like marijuana.
Memories of trauma
A questioner cross-examines witness Loftus about the nature of traumatic memories. Loftus confirms that core memories of trauma are stronger than peripheral details, that participants remember events better than observers, and that repetitive experiences enhance memory.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity