SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017974.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the direct examination of Juan Alessi (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Alessi testifies that he met Jeffrey Epstein in early 1990 through a referral by Epstein's friend, Mr. Meister, while Alessi was working for Mr. Wexner's mother. Alessi describes his initial role as a self-contractor hired to dismantle and renovate Epstein's newly purchased home at 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach, Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00017973.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct Examination of Mr. Alessi) filed on August 10, 2022. Mr. Alessi testifies about his work history, stating he moved to Florida in early 1994, worked as a maintenance man for a wealthy family in Palm Beach, was briefly self-employed, and then began working for Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00017972.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, covering the beginning of the direct examination of a witness, Juan Patricio Alessi. Mr. Alessi, questioned by Ms. Comey on behalf of the Government, provides his personal background information, including his age, his birth and upbringing in Quito, Ecuador, and his early work history after immigrating to the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00017970.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. During a cross-examination, a witness confirms that a study concluded it is not possible to prospectively or reliably predict 'grooming behavior'. After the witness's confirmation, the questioning attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concludes his examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017968.jpg
This page contains the cross-examination of a witness named Dr. Rocchio regarding a study conducted by authors at John Jay College. The questioning focuses on the methodology of the study, specifically the use of six vignettes—five depicting stages of grooming and one control vignette—presented to 393 undergraduate students.
DOJ-OGR-00017964.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio. The testimony focuses on the definition of 'grooming' in abuse cases, with Dr. Rocchio clarifying that grooming is not a single specific behavior but a 'series and a pattern of behavior' used to deceive a child and build trust for abuse. The questioning attorney attempts to establish that individual behaviors within that pattern can appear benign or non-grooming in isolation.
DOJ-OGR-00017963.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The questioning concerns literature on child sexual abuse, leading to objections from attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the use of the term 'perpetrator' and the scope of the witness's answer. The court overrules these objections and directs the witness to continue.
DOJ-OGR-00017962.jpg
This document is page 89 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio regarding psychological concepts including confabulation, delayed disclosure, secondary gain, and malingering. Ms. Pomerantz repeatedly objects to the questioning, and the Court sustains most objections.
DOJ-OGR-00017961.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio, where the defense asks about the impact of traumatic brain injury, alcohol, and controlled substances on memory recall and the concept of 'confabulation.' Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) successfully objects to several questions regarding memory and abuse disclosure, but an objection regarding the definition of confabulation is overruled.
DOJ-OGR-00017960.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning attorney establishes the witness's expertise in neuropsychology, confirms they are not a toxicologist, and begins to probe the relationship between memory and delayed disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00017959.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning establishes that Rocchio has a contract with the government for up to $45,000, has not reviewed witness statements or performed psychological evaluations, and is not offering opinions on the case's events or witness credibility. The witness confirms their limited information comes exclusively from government lawyers.
DOJ-OGR-00017958.jpg
This document is page 85 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio, who confirms they are testifying as a 'blind expert' regarding the topic of grooming and subject matter expertise, without having evaluated any specific parties or witnesses in the case. The questioning explores potential professional disagreements with other experts like Dr. Dietz and Dr. O'Donohue.
DOJ-OGR-00017957.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. The questioning establishes that Dr. Rocchio has not personally published research or conducted metadata studies on the topic of "grooming." It also confirms his testimony relies on the work of other experts and that there is scientific disagreement within the field.
DOJ-OGR-00017956.jpg
Court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The excerpt captures a procedural discussion between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Pomerantz regarding a binder of materials (including Daubert hearing testimony and '3500 material') for witness Dr. Rocchio. Following the discussion, the jury enters, and Mr. Pagliuca begins his cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio.
DOJ-OGR-00017955.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, discusses his intention to use a specific study from John Jay College during cross-examination. The study concluded that certain factors cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior, and Mr. Pagliuca receives permission from the Court to question a witness on these findings.
DOJ-OGR-00017953.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the admissibility of a question about 'hindsight bias phenomena' and victim blaming. The Judge rules that the proposed question is 'beyond the scope' of the direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017952.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features a dialogue between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the testimony of Dr. Rocchio, specifically discussing the concept of 'grooming the environment,' perpetrator deception, and 'hindsight bias.' The attorney argues that this testimony is appropriate to explain how a perpetrator deceives those around them.
DOJ-OGR-00017951.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, discusses the testimony of Dr. Rocchio. He focuses on the concept of "grooming the environment" and references an article she wrote, "Stages of Sexual Grooming," intending to question her about "hindsight bias phenomena." The Court interrupts to question whether the contents of the entire article are within the scope of the direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017950.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge. They discuss the permissible scope of cross-examination, with the judge warning against introducing new, undisclosed expert testimony. The judge references a prior Daubert hearing and instructs another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, to object if the rules are violated.
DOJ-OGR-00017949.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between THE COURT and MS. POMERANTZ regarding the scope of expert testimony and cross-examination. The conversation centers on whether to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on certain opinions and the Court's qualification of another expert to provide opinions on delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases. The Court sets boundaries for cross-examination, emphasizing that it will not permit the introduction of undisclosed expert opinions.
DOJ-OGR-00017948.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and a lawyer (MS. POMERANTZ). Ms. Pomerantz raises a concern about the scope of questioning by another lawyer, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding a witness's testimony on the delayed disclosure of sexual abuse. The discussion centers on defining the line between permissible cross-examination and improperly soliciting expert opinions.
DOJ-OGR-00017946.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the permissible scope of cross-examination for a psychology expert witness. The discussion focuses on the concept of 'delayed disclosure' in sexual abuse cases and whether the defense can question the expert about alternative reasons for such delays beyond what was presented in direct testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017945.jpg
This document is page 72 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge regarding the scope of cross-examination for an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio. The defense (Pagliuca) argues that topics such as confabulation, the process of storing memories, and the effect of alcohol on memory are relevant to explaining delayed disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00017944.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor Pomerantz, and Defense Attorney Pagliuca regarding a misunderstanding of a court order, followed by a recess. After the recess, Ms. Pomerantz raises an issue regarding Mr. Pagliuca's intent to cross-examine expert witness Dr. Rocchio on topics outside her direct testimony, specifically mentioning the 'halo effect' and 'suggestive memory'.
DOJ-OGR-00017943.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys (Ms. Pomerantz, Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge regarding a question posed to a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The judge clarifies why a specific question about grooming and sexual gratification was objected to and ultimately precluded, citing the narrow basis for excluding testimony on the theory of 'grooming by proxy'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity