SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place without the jury present, where the Judge discusses procedural issues involving Rule 16/608 regarding impeachment evidence and the protection of witness identities via pseudonyms. The legal teams (Menninger/Everdell for defense, Comey/Rohrbach for prosecution) determine who will argue the specific legal motions.
DOJ-OGR-00017610.jpg
This document is the first page of a court record for the jury trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the appearances for the trial held on December 1, 2021, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, listing the presiding judge, legal teams for both the prosecution and defense, and other law enforcement and paralegal personnel present.
DOJ-OGR-00015034.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the testimony of witness Lisa Rocchio, detailing page numbers for direct examination by Ms. Pomerantz and cross-examination by Mr. Pagliuca. It also lists Government Exhibits 1-5 and Defendant Exhibits A and B introduced during this testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00015031.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on the scientific basis for Rocchio's expert opinions, specifically the studies relied upon and their potential rate of error. Rocchio states he does not rely on a single study and explains that a 'pure error rate' is not typically calculated in social sciences, instead referencing measures like inter-rater reliability.
DOJ-OGR-00015030.jpg
This document is page 154 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, who is testifying about the scientific validity of reasons for false allegations, such as lying, intoxication, and psychiatric disorders. Rocchio states that while false allegations occur, they represent a very small minority of cases and notes a lack of specific scientific research linking the suggested factors as predictors.
DOJ-OGR-00015027.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the witness's testimony regarding childhood abuse reporting rates, specifically challenging their conclusions by analyzing the statistics from the "Alaggia study, 2010". The witness defends their position by interpreting the study's data to show that a majority (58%) of victims did not disclose abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00015026.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines a witness, Rocchio, about a study the witness relied upon. Pagliuca challenges the study's credibility by pointing out that a key phrase, "right away," is undefined, and Rocchio admits to not having reviewed all the underlying data or cited references in the summary article.
DOJ-OGR-00015024.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the validity of "offender-generated data" and the findings of several studies, including one by McElvaney and Culhane, about the disclosure patterns of child victims. Key points discussed include the potential for cognitive distortions in self-reports and a study finding that a majority of children first disclosed to their mothers and peers.
DOJ-OGR-00015023.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the specifics of studies Rocchio cited, including survivor statistics and a 2015 study by Leclerc and Wortley on offender-generated data. Rocchio acknowledges that some details questioned were not present in the summaries they reviewed for their testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00015022.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, concerning statistical data on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) disclosure rates, specifically discussing a study where 50% of participants did not disclose abuse until after age 19. The transcript also captures administrative exchanges regarding exhibit binders and microphone usage between the attorneys (Pomerantz, Rohrbach, Pagliuca) and the Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00015020.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is cross-examining a witness named Rocchio regarding 'Government Exhibit 6,' a study analyzing delayed reporting of psychological issues. Pagliuca attempts to establish that the current case does not involve allegations of delayed reporting by males, leading to an objection by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz on the grounds that the witness does not know the specific details of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00015019.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It documents the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding 'Exhibit 6,' a study on barriers to and facilitators of delayed disclosure in abuse cases. The witness defends their opinion as being based on the totality of their professional experience rather than a single article.
DOJ-OGR-00015018.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio regarding a 2016/2017 scientific article about the difficulty of identifying predatory behaviors and child molesters ahead of time. The dialogue includes a debate on 'hindsight bias' in characterizing grooming behaviors and concludes with the admission of Defendant's Exhibit B into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00015017.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on a 2020 study by Winters and Jeglic, which found that grooming behaviors could not be predicted among a group of 393 undergraduate students. The questioner uses the study's findings to challenge the witness's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00015016.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. Attorney Pagliuca successfully moves to admit Defendant's Exhibit A into evidence with no objection from opposing counsel, Ms. Pomerantz. Mr. Pagliuca then begins to question the witness, addressed as 'Doctor', about another piece of evidence, Exhibit B.
DOJ-OGR-00015015.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding an article written in 2006 by Ms. Craven. The questioning focuses on the academic understanding of the term 'sexual grooming of children,' specifically highlighting a quote stating that the phenomenon is not clearly understood in the public domain.
DOJ-OGR-00015014.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, is cross-examining a witness named Rocchio about their knowledge of academic literature on the topic of sexual grooming, specifically mentioning a study titled "Sexual Grooming of Children" and the "Craven article." The witness acknowledges familiarity with the titles but states they cannot recall the specific contents or conclusions without reviewing the articles again.
DOJ-OGR-00015012.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It features an exchange between the Court and a witness named Rocchio regarding the scientific consensus on 'grooming strategies' and 'trauma bonding' in the context of sex work. The witness asserts that the concept of offenders using tactics to develop relationships with victims is well-established in peer-reviewed literature.
DOJ-OGR-00015011.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning centers on scientific articles Rocchio provided to the government, discussing their relevance to the Daubert standard, the recency of an article labeled Exhibit 3, and a specific 'Winters article' from 2020. The witness clarifies the scope of their testimony and corrects the questioner on the recency of the evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00015010.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. An attorney questions Rocchio about the scientific validity and testing of a sexual grooming model (SGM), referencing the model's authors' calls for more rigorous testing. The attorney also brings up an article by Bennett and O'Donohue to suggest a lack of scientific consensus on the definition of grooming.
DOJ-OGR-00015009.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on a scientific study regarding 'sexual grooming' and 'pre-offense behaviors,' specifically discussing methodology where 18 people were used to narrow a list of 77 items down to 42. The witness validates that the study in question established the content validity of a sexual grooming model.
DOJ-OGR-00015008.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning centers on an academic article, "Validation of Sexual Grooming Model of Child Sex Abusers" by Winters and Jeglic, which Rocchio had provided to the government as support for testimony. Rocchio clarifies their assessment of the authors' work and explains the two-part methodology of the study mentioned in the article.
DOJ-OGR-00015006.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the conclusion and methodology of a study. The judge interrupts the proceedings to call for a 30-minute lunch recess and advises the attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, to focus his questioning more on underlying 'Daubert questions' rather than points for a jury to make better use of the court's time.
DOJ-OGR-00015005.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The testimony focuses on 'Exhibit 3,' a scientific study accepted in May 2020, specifically discussing the lack of a universally accepted model for defining behaviors that constitute 'sexual grooming' in child sexual abuse cases. The witness clarifies that this study is just one example of the literature informing their opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00015003.jpg
This document is page 127 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio regarding the methodology of a social science study, specifically debating 'response rates' versus 'dropout rates' and the nature of an interview guide used on 22 expert subjects. The questioning attorney also makes a point about the definition and use of 'leading questions' during the testimony.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity