Event Details

This document is a page from the 'Journal of Interpersonal Violence' filed as an exhibit (Document 397-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330) on October 29, 2021. The text discusses the psychological concepts of 'grooming' versus 'seduction' in the context of child sexual abuse, citing researchers Johnston (1979), Summit (1983), and Lanning (2018) to argue that behaviors often mislabeled as 'seductive' by children are actually 'affection-seeking' attempts to meet unmet emotional needs. The document bears a DOJ bates stamp, indicating it was processed by the Department of Justice.

This document is the Table of Contents (page 2 of the brief, page 3 of the PDF) for a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines legal arguments by the Government opposing Defense motions, specifically concerning the identification of the defendant by 'Minor Victim-4', the admission of government exhibits, and the use of the terms 'Victims' and 'Rape' during the trial.

This document is page 70 of a legal filing (Document 397) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 29, 2021. The text argues against a motion to suppress evidence, specifically regarding a 'confirmatory identification' made by 'Minor Victim-4.' The prosecution argues the identification is admissible because the victim knew the defendant by name from previous interactions, citing various legal precedents regarding independent reliability of witness identification.

This document is page 42 of a legal filing (Document 397) from October 29, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number). The Government argues that the testimony of 'Minor Victim-3' is admissible as direct evidence of the charged offenses, specifically citing the sexual abuse committed by the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. It also addresses procedural arguments regarding Rule 404(b) notices.

This page is from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 397) filed on October 29, 2021. The visible text discusses the Court's previous denial of the defendant's motion to strike indictment language regarding 'Minor Victim-3,' stating it was premature. The majority of the document page is heavily redacted.

This document is page 17 of a legal filing (Document 397) from October 29, 2021, in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Government is arguing against the defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of expert witness Dr. Rocchio, a clinical psychologist. The text asserts that Dr. Rocchio's qualitative methodology is reliable based on her clinical experience, rather than statistical error rates, which the Government argues are inapplicable to this type of social science testimony under Daubert standards.

This document is page 15 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues for the admissibility of testimony by expert witness Dr. Rocchio, distinguishing her clinical, academic-based conclusions from those of an FBI agent in a precedent case (*Raymond*) whose testimony on child molester profiles was found unreliable. The filing emphasizes that Dr. Rocchio will testify on psychological underpinnings rather than offender profiling.

This document is page 71 of a court filing (Document 397) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It is a legal argument by the prosecution opposing a defense motion to suppress an identification made by Minor Victim-4. The text argues that the victim's identification is reliable because she had multiple personal interactions with the defendant between 2001 and 2004, and concludes by asking the court to deny the defense's motion.