Relationship Details

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. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz, focusing on the authentication and admission of Government Exhibit 424, which is described as an email. The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, offers no objection, and the Judge admits the exhibit into evidence.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the metadata (creation, save, and print dates in September 2002) and titles of specific evidence documents. The documents discussed are titled 'PB New Shampoo and Massage Products' (Exhibit 420) and 'Palm Beach House Workers' (Exhibit 418R), linking the evidence to operations at a Palm Beach residence.

This document is page 50 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz regarding forensic evidence. Flatley identifies Government Exhibit 54 as a hard drive he examined, noting its unique identifier 'NYC024350', and begins describing the forensic process involving a write blocker.

This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz questions witness Mr. Flatley to authenticate Government Exhibits 418 (unredacted) and 418R (redacted), establishing they were printed from 'Government 54' (a master evidence source). The government moves to offer Exhibit 418 under seal and 418R publicly.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz. Flatley provides technical definitions for digital evidence, computers, and hard drives, and confirms that he examined digital evidence relevant to the case, noting that forensic examiners usually know nothing about the case details while analyzing data.