Epstein Secrets

et al. (Seattle, WA) Testified at deposition, 12/9/03 Testified at trial, 2/10/04 FL v. Michael Connelly (Tampa, FL) Testified at trial, 3/9/04 Wiley v. Frazer Center Inc., et al. (Atlanta, GA) Testified at deposition, 3/20/04 IL v. Andrew Urdiales (Pontiac, IL) Testified at trial, 5/6/04 and 5/

woman whose body was kept in a freezer for years) 1995-1996 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Norfolk County, Massachusetts, in Commonwealth v. John Salvi (murders at abortion clinics) 1995-1997 Consultant to the defense in Estate of Shane Curry v. The Armada Inn (Ohio civil suit alleg

97-1998 1997-1998 1998-1999 1998-2000 1998-2000 1998-2005 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth v. John duPont (murder of Olympic wrestler Dave Schultz) Consultant to the Office of the Attorney General, Delaware, in Delaware v. Amy Grossberq

7. Goodman, G. S., & Hahn, A. (1987). Evaluating eyewitness testimony. In 1. B. Werner & A. K. Hess (Eds.). Handbook offorensicpsWholoS31 New NOE: Wiley. Johnston, W. A., Greenberg, S. N., Fisher, R. P.. & Martin, D. W. (1970). Divided attention: a vehicle for monitoring memory pro- cesses. Journal

all, yet has none of the negative consequences of hypnosis, it has been suggested as a preferable alternative (Delfenbacher 1988; Orne, as cited in Commonwealth v. Di Nicole', 1985), and one that should be more acceptable by the courts (Yoffie & Kim, 1987). In addition to its technical merit, the Cognitive

e, federal courts interpreting the particular area of the law in question, and other state supreme courts that have addressed the matters raised. Wiley v. State Farm Fire & Casu- alty Co., 995 F.2d 457, 459 (3d Cir.1993). 2. The Courts of Pennsylvania Decisions of the intermediate and trial courts

e he was arrested in Defendant pos- sessed the illicit videotape, which caused a continuing tortious injury to her. Defen- dant's residence in the Commonwealth at the time some of the illegal conduct oc- curred is sufficient for the Court to exer- cise jurisdiction over the Defendant. Moreover, he was a re