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 |
DOJ-OGR-00016649.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning attorney accuses Loftus of using testimony from past high-profile cases to market their services and earn more money, an accusation Loftus explicitly denies. Loftus does admit to providing lists of prior cases to defense attorneys, but only when asked.
DOJ-OGR-00016647.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript documenting the cross-examination of an expert witness named Loftus. The questioning focuses on the witness's long career testifying since 1975, their work on hundreds of cases including high-profile defense cases, and their history of compensation.
DOJ-OGR-00016646.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Professor Loftus. The questioning establishes two key points: first, that Professor Loftus was not present in the courtroom to hear any other testimony in the case, and second, that she is being compensated by the defendant at a rate of $600 per hour for her services.
DOJ-OGR-00016645.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Loftus. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, questions Dr. Loftus about a specific passage from her book, "Witness for the Defense," concerning the dual role of a psychologist as both an advocate and an impartial educator in court. The book and the specific passage on page 238 are identified as Government Exhibit 1518.
DOJ-OGR-00016640.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of expert witness Loftus (likely Elizabeth Loftus), who is testifying about the science of memory, specifically addressing how post-event information, personal motives, and the trustworthiness of information sources can influence the creation of false memories. The witness confirms that people are more likely to accept suggestive information if it fits their prior beliefs or comes from a trusted source.
DOJ-OGR-00016639.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal testimony from August 10, 2022, featuring a witness named Loftus. Loftus states her hourly rate is $600 and discusses memory science, confirming that her testimony is independent of the party that retained her. She also identifies various media, including television, social media, podcasts, books, and movies, as potential sources of post-event information that can influence or implant memories.
DOJ-OGR-00016638.jpg
This page contains a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim is examining a witness, Professor/Judge Loftus, establishing that they did not go into great detail about the witness's CV to save time. Sternheim successfully moves to admit the CV (Exhibit EF-1) into evidence over an objection by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz. Sternheim then questions Loftus to confirm she is being compensated for her time but has no stake in the trial's outcome.
DOJ-OGR-00016637.jpg
This document is page 154 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination testimony of an expert witness named Loftus regarding memory science. Loftus explains the concepts of 'confidence malleability' and 'prestige enhancing memory distortion,' describing how humans often inaccurately remember themselves in a more positive light without intending to lie.
DOJ-OGR-00016635.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim, over the admissibility of a question for a witness. The judge sustains an objection on '401 ground', limiting the line of questioning. The transcript concludes with the court preparing to bring in the jury and call witnesses Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Williams to testify.
DOJ-OGR-00016634.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Sternheim and Rohrbach argue before the Judge regarding the admissibility of a statement allegedly made by 'Kate' claiming the case against Maxwell was strengthening because accusers were 'strengthening their stories.' The prosecution argues against its admission as an inconsistent statement because Kate was not challenged on it during cross-examination, while the defense appears to argue for its admission under a bias framework.
DOJ-OGR-00016633.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of a witness's testimony. Attorneys Sternheim and Rohrbach debate with the judge whether a statement allegedly made by someone named Kate, "It fell into my lap," can be used as evidence to show bias concerning Mr. Hamilton. The judge rules that the statement is permissible for the jury to consider for bias, but prohibits the witness, Mr. Hamilton, from speculating on its meaning.
DOJ-OGR-00016632.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Rohrbach before a judge. The core issue is whether extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the testimony of a witness named Kate by showing bias. The discussion references the legal precedent set in *United States v. Harvey* and focuses on whether a specific statement, "it fell into my lap," is sufficient to create an inference of bias for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016630.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim before a judge. The discussion centers on a '401 objection' regarding the admissibility of evidence to impeach a witness named Kate. Mr. Rohrbach argues the evidence is extrinsic and on a collateral matter, while Ms. Sternheim contends it is permissible to show the witness's motive and bias.
DOJ-OGR-00016629.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about admitting testimony from a witness. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that testimony about a conversation with a woman named 'Kate' regarding Jeffrey Epstein is necessary to show Kate's financial motive and bias, suggesting she is interested in a 'windfall'. The government, represented by Mr. Rohrbach, objects to this line of testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016627.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The dialogue involves the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Comey discussing procedural matters, including agreed-upon witnesses, a potential government rebuttal expert, and an affidavit by a Mr. Hamilton that the court is reviewing.
DOJ-OGR-00016625.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Mr. Pagliuca) regarding the testimony of a witness named Loftus and the admission of an FBI 302 report. The defense argues for a live witness to highlight an inconsistent statement regarding whether 'Virginia' approached 'Carolyn' to offer $300 at a party or at a house in Virginia.
DOJ-OGR-00016624.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Menninger, Comey, and Pagliuca discuss scheduling and stipulations regarding 'prior inconsistent statements' found in FBI 302 reports for witnesses identified as Carolyn, Jane, and Annie. The court focuses on resolving issues related to 'Carolyn' immediately as she is an out-of-state witness present to testify that afternoon.
DOJ-OGR-00016623.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell regarding the scheduling of the next witness. Mr. Everdell indicates the next witness will be either Richard Barnett or Michael Aznaran from Customs and Border Protection, after which the court takes a 45-minute recess.
DOJ-OGR-00016620.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. With the jury not present, the judge excuses a witness for a break and then discusses procedural matters with the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell). The primary focus is on resolving 'prior inconsistent statements,' with the judge urging the lawyers to confer and narrow the points of disagreement.
DOJ-OGR-00016618.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of expert witness Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. Loftus testifies about the fallibility of memory, specifically explaining 'rich false memories' and how scientific studies have successfully planted entire false events into people's minds, such as being attacked by an animal or nearly drowning.
DOJ-OGR-00016617.jpg
This court transcript page from August 10, 2022, details the testimony of a witness named Loftus on the subject of memory. Loftus explains that while traumatic experiences can create strong memories of core events, they are susceptible to distortion from post-event suggestion. The witness also clarifies that a person's confidence in their memory is a reliable indicator of accuracy only under 'pristine' conditions, free from suggestion over a short period of time.
DOJ-OGR-00016615.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct testimony of expert witness Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, questioned by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, regarding the fallibility and constructive nature of human memory. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz successfully objects to a leading question posed by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00016614.jpg
This document is page 131 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of a witness named Loftus (likely memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus) by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The testimony focuses on the concepts of the 'forgetting curve' and 'post-event information,' with several objections raised by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz regarding leading questions and witness commentary.
DOJ-OGR-00016613.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Loftus. Loftus, likely an expert on memory, explains how labeling ambiguous objects or events can significantly alter a person's subsequent recollection. The testimony uses examples such as remembering an object as either 'eyeglasses' or 'dumbbells' and an event as an 'incident' versus a 'fight' to illustrate how labels shape memory construction.
Testimony as a defense witness
Loftus admits to participating in interviews with the press about her testimony if asked.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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