Dr. Loftus
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
the defense
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Secret Service
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional expert witness litigant |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Justice
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Case related |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney (Q)
|
Witness examiner |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Defense expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defense witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Defense witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Witness for defense |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Potential expert witness |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional comparison |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Consultation | Dr. Loftus consulted with various government agencies involved in the case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Expert testimony given by Dr. Loftus regarding the nature of memory. | court | View |
| N/A | Consultation | Dr. Loftus consulted with the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Secret Service. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of Dr. Loftus regarding a passage from her book, "Witness for the Defense", whi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Dr. Loftus in court case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Discussion regarding Dr. Loftus's opinions on suggestive questioning, Agent Young's testimony, a ... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing date of the court document (Transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-09 | Testimony | The court heard from Dr. Loftus, as mentioned by Ms. Menninger. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-15 | N/A | ORDER regarding Government's motion to preclude certain testimony. Deadlines set for responses re... | Court | View |
| 2021-12-15 | N/A | Order requiring Defense response to Government motion to preclude testimony of Dr. Loftus (by 7:4... | Court | View |
| 2021-12-15 | N/A | Order issued regarding defense witnesses Dr. Loftus and Alexander Hamilton | Court Docket | View |
| 1970-01-01 | N/A | Dr. Loftus received Ph.D. in psychology. | Stanford | View |
| 1966-01-01 | N/A | Dr. Loftus received bachelor's degree. | UCLA | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014880.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge sets a firm hearing date for November 15th to discuss jury questionnaires and motions in limine, specifically mentioning defense motions regarding co-conspirator statements, 'alleged victim 3', and Exhibit 52. The court also plans to address government motions seeking to exclude testimony from experts Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz.
DOJ-OGR-00008385.jpg
A legal letter from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter argues that the government used suggestive questioning techniques on accusers, specifically citing an instance where a witness named 'Jane' changed her testimony regarding a trip to New York and seeing 'The Lion King' after pressure from AUSA Rossmiller. The defense uses this to justify the necessity of expert testimony from Dr. Loftus regarding memory and suggestive questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00008352.jpg
This court transcript from a pretrial conference on December 10, 2021, documents several procedural discussions. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, successfully requests a limited exclusion from Rule 615 to allow his witnesses (Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus) to review another witness's (Dr. Rocchio's) testimony. The court also establishes a deadline for the government to provide its witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00008255.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Dec 8, 2021) discussing pre-trial motions in limine. The Court discusses the schedule for ruling on the Government's motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert witnesses Drs. Loftus and Dietz (likely Elizabeth Loftus and Park Dietz). The text also mentions disputes regarding Government Exhibit 52 and the introduction of co-conspirator statements, with a final pretrial conference scheduled for November 23.
DOJ-OGR-00020705.jpg
This document is a docket report from the SDNY regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing events from December 15 to December 17, 2021. It records minute entries for the jury trial held on December 16, 2021, listing all present attorneys for the defense and prosecution. The document also details various court orders regarding the admissibility of witness testimony (specifically mentioning Dr. Loftus and Alexander Hamilton) and procedural disputes over prior inconsistent statements.
DOJ-OGR-00020685.jpg
This document is a docket report from the SDNY for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated November 8-9, 2021. It details several filings, including the Government's opposition to bail reconsideration, a motion to preclude expert testimony from Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus, and letters regarding legal mail. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued orders scheduling a conference for November 10, 2021, denying the renewed request for bail, and establishing protocols for the defendant's transport and access to legal counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00020543.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries on November 8 and 9, 2021. It details various pre-trial motions and orders, including the denial of a renewed bail request, the scheduling of a conference regarding Rule 412 (evidence of sexual behavior) and expert witnesses (Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus), and orders regarding the humane transport of the defendant and delivery of legal mail. The document lists correspondence between the prosecution (AUSAs) and the Judge, as well as filings by the defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00020459.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries from December 12 to December 16, 2021. It details various legal filings including letters regarding witness lists, privilege stipulations, and expert testimony, as well as orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan denying defense motions for witness anonymity and setting deadlines for responses regarding witnesses Dr. Loftus and Alexander Hamilton. The document also references the placement of sealed documents in a vault.
DOJ-OGR-00020442.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426), covering filings and orders on November 8 and 9, 2021. Key events include the denial of Maxwell's renewed request for bail, motions to preclude expert testimony from Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus, and the scheduling of a conference regarding Rule 412 (sexual behavior evidence) motions. The document also addresses logistical issues such as the delivery of legal mail to the MDC and humane transport protocols for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00017169.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger challenges the reliability of witness memories, citing manipulation and the passage of time, while contrasting the credibility of expert witnesses Dr. Loftus and Dr. Rocchio. She concludes by introducing the six counts against Maxwell, including conspiracy, and tells the jury they have the opportunity to acquit her.
DOJ-OGR-00017168.jpg
This document is a page from a legal summation in a court case, filed on August 10, 2022. The speaker argues that memory is a constructive and fallible process, using Annie Farmer's incorrect recollection of an April 1996 date as an example. The speaker also defends the credibility of an expert, Dr. Loftus, by stating she has consulted for the Department of Justice, FBI, and Secret Service, countering the implication that she is solely a defense witness.
DOJ-OGR-00017125.jpg
This document is a page from the closing arguments (summation) of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), delivered by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The text focuses on attacking the credibility of a witness by highlighting a major inconsistency between her court testimony (claiming abuse started in a Florida pool house) and a December 2019 FBI interview (claiming abuse started at age 14 in New York during a headshot session). Menninger references expert testimony from Dr. Loftus regarding memory and trauma to suggest the witness's story is unreliable.
DOJ-OGR-00016808.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing a sidebar conference. Prosecutor Comey argues that FBI Agent Young should be allowed to testify about non-suggestive interview training to rebut defense claims (supported by Dr. Loftus) that witness memories may have been implanted via leading questions. The Judge expresses skepticism, suggesting the line of questioning is 'beyond the scope' and risks 'opening the door' to broader issues regarding interview conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00016759.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell). The conversation centers on the prior testimony of a witness named Jane, specifically her memory of a trip to New York around 1997 and whether that memory was influenced by her attorney, Mr. Rossmiller. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, also informs the court of their intent to call Special Agent Amanda Young as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016658.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. Mr. Pagliuca objects to the cross-examination of expert witness Dr. Loftus focusing on a single study, arguing it's prejudicial and inconsistent with a prior ruling involving another expert, Dr. Rocchio. The discussion revolves around the proper use of studies to impeach a witness versus introducing affirmative evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016589.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of Dr. Loftus by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The dialogue focuses on introducing Dr. Loftus's CV (Exhibit EL-1) and listing her honorary degrees from various international universities.
DOJ-OGR-00016511.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. The attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Comey, Ms. Sternheim) and the judge discuss procedural issues, including who will make photocopies and a request for a recess. Ms. Sternheim also informs the court about the need for a screen for an upcoming witness, potentially Dr. Loftus.
DOJ-OGR-00016502.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, generally associated with the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings cover rulings on the testimony of Dr. Loftus regarding suggestive questioning and Agent Young. The court then addresses a motion to preclude the testimony of a witness named Alexander Hamilton, leading to a joke by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim about Broadway tickets and a counter-quote by the Judge referencing Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.
DOJ-OGR-00016501.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. The judge is ruling to deny the government's motion to preclude the testimony of defense expert Dr. Loftus regarding 'suggestive activities,' provided she testifies as a 'blind expert' similar to Dr. Rocchio. The transcript mentions the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane,' focusing on suggestive questioning by the government and a specific correction regarding the release date of the movie 'The Lion King' (1997).
DOJ-OGR-00016500.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between counsel (Mr. Rohrbach) and the court. The parties discuss the potential testimony of Mr. Grumbridge regarding the ownership of a property called Stanhope Mews and agree to confer on a stipulation. The court then moves to address a government motion to exclude parts of the anticipated expert testimony of Dr. Loftus concerning suggestive investigative and therapeutic techniques.
DOJ-OGR-00009157.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing from February 24, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues against the defendant's claim that Juror 50's questionnaire responses prevented proper voir dire, comparing the situation to Jurors 189 and 239, who also answered 'yes' to Question 48 (regarding sexual abuse) but were qualified without objection after brief questioning. The filing asserts that the record disproves the defense's theory that they were deprived of the opportunity to examine Juror 50's views.
DOJ-OGR-00009156.jpg
This document is page 37 of a legal filing (Doc 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's claim that the Court should have further probed 'Juror 50' regarding his ability to set aside past traumatic experiences and fairly evaluate the testimony of defense expert Dr. Loftus. The filing cites voir dire transcripts from November 16, 2021, where Juror 50 affirmed his ability to be impartial, and references case law (*United States v. Pirk*, *United States v. Barnes*) regarding the limited purpose of voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00009052.jpg
This document is page 51 (internal page 44) of a legal filing (Document 613) dated February 24, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that 'Juror No. 50' was dishonest during jury selection (voir dire) by failing to disclose that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse and crime (referencing Questions 48 and 25). The text asserts that this nondisclosure prevented the defense from probing his ability to be impartial regarding Dr. Loftus's testimony and Maxwell's defense strategy concerning false memories.
DOJ-OGR-00009041.jpg
This legal document discusses the critical issue of juror impartiality and memory reliability in court proceedings. It references the Sampson v. United States case, where a new penalty-phase hearing was ordered due to a juror's undisclosed personal experiences as a crime victim, drawing parallels to concerns about Juror No. 50's ability to fairly evaluate evidence in the current case. The document also incorporates expert testimony from Dr. Loftus regarding the confidence and accuracy of memories, emphasizing the potential for bias when jurors' personal experiences align with case details.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity