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-00009040.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of Ms. Maxwell's defense, arguing against the reliability of her accusers' memories. It highlights similarities between the claims of accusers (Jane, Carolyn, Kate, Annie Farmer) and those of Juror No. 50, who also claims to be a victim of abuse. The document focuses on Juror No. 50's assertion that his memory can be 'replayed like a video,' directly contradicting the expert testimony of Dr. Loftus, who stated that memory is a constructive process, thereby questioning the validity of such memory claims and suggesting potential juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00013887.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between several attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Comey, Ms. Sternheim) and the judge. The discussion covers procedural issues such as making photocopies, a request for a brief recess, and a request to use a screen for a potential witness, Dr. Loftus. The court resolves the copying issue and prepares to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013878.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records a discussion during a hearing concerning the relevance of Dr. Loftus's opinions, Agent Young's testimony, and a motion to preclude Alexander Hamilton's testimony. The court also addresses a defense response regarding a witness and references a legal precedent from 'Hamilton in Federal '78'.
DOJ-OGR-00013877.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a judge's ruling. The judge denies the government's motion to preclude testimony from Dr. Loftus, an expert on 'suggestive activities,' on the condition that she testifies as a 'blind expert' without applying her opinions to the specific facts of the case. The judge finds that the defense has established a proper foundation for this testimony by cross-examining a witness, Jane, about the government's own potentially suggestive questioning tactics.
DOJ-OGR-00013876.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between counsel and the judge regarding the admissibility of testimony. The parties discuss potential testimony from Mr. Grumbridge concerning the prior ownership of a property called Stanhope Mews. The court then addresses a government motion to exclude parts of Dr. Loftus's anticipated expert testimony on suggestive interview techniques.
DOJ-OGR-00009896.jpg
This legal filing argues that the government is mischaracterizing the record concerning Juror No. 50's responses during jury selection. The document contends that, unlike other jurors, Juror No. 50's specific claim of childhood sexual abuse was directly relevant to the case, and had he disclosed his belief that memory works 'like a video-tape' during the trial, the Court would have questioned his ability to fairly evaluate expert testimony on the topic.
DOJ-OGR-00009836.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against the defendant's claim that the court improperly handled the voir dire of Juror 50. It provides transcripts from the voir dire of two other jurors, Juror 189 and Juror 239, as examples of the standard procedure used by the court to assess impartiality. The document asserts that these examples demonstrate the court's process was sufficient and that the defendant's claim is contradicted by the record.
DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that refutes the defendant's argument that the court failed to properly question Juror 50 about potential biases. The filing asserts that Juror 50 repeatedly confirmed his ability to be impartial and decide the case based on the evidence, and that the court's voir dire process was correct in not delving into specific defense theories, citing legal precedent about the purpose of jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009743.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that Juror No. 50 was not impartial and failed to honestly disclose his past as a victim of sexual abuse during jury selection. The filing contends that this omission prevented the Court and defense from properly assessing his ability to be fair, particularly regarding the testimony of Dr. Loftus and the defense of Ms. Maxwell. The document suggests that had the juror been truthful, further inquiry would have been made, and his claim of impartiality is not credible.
DOJ-OGR-00014547.jpg
This document is a page from a legal summation in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The speaker, likely Ms. Menninger, argues about the unreliability and malleability of memory, using Annie Farmer's incorrect recollection of an April 1996 date as an example and citing expert testimony from Dr. Loftus. The speaker also asserts that Dr. Loftus is not just a defense witness, as she has previously consulted for the Department of Justice, FBI, and Secret Service, the same agencies involved in the prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00014544.jpg
This document is a page from the defense summation (closing argument) by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The attorney attacks the credibility of witness Mr. Alessi, citing his inconsistent memory regarding dates (1994 vs 1999) and disputing the frequency with which he drove 'Jane'. The text then transitions to discussing the defense's expert witness, Dr. Loftus, a memory scientist intended to challenge the reliability of memories presented in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00014504.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a defense summation by Ms. Menninger in a criminal trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorney argues that a witness's testimony is unreliable due to significant memory lapses and inconsistencies, specifically highlighting contradictory accounts given to the FBI versus in court regarding the location and circumstances of the first instance of sexual abuse involving Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011663.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing procedural discussions in a criminal case. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, requests and receives permission from the government and court to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with two other witnesses, Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. The court also sets a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the government to provide its order-of-witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity