Epstein Secrets

osecutor John Lewin in the Robert Dust trial. I've consulted with prosecutors in the trials of ex-priest Paul Shanley, Phil Spector, Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. They were all convicted despite Loftus's testimony that challenged witnesses' memories. I do this off the record. BACKGROUND: I successfully sued

especially suffer." So the memory is essentially correct, but maybe not the details. Stemheim mentioned memory contamination. That was tried in the Weinstein trial. Transcript available on request. For the Weinstein trial I prepared a review of Loftus's "Remembering Disputed Sexual EFTA01682003 Encount

riest Paul Shanley, Phil Spector, Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. They were all convicted despite Loftu

rphy et al. (2013)- The mall study's lack of a control group, small sample size and high error rate render the study unreliable under either Frye or Daubert standards depending on prevailing regulations. 3.Andrews and Brewin (2017) — Procedures claiming older relatives witnessed the incident do not app

rranted." Edmondson v. RCI Hosp. 7 EFTA00040113 Holdings, Inc., No. 16-CV-2242 (VEC), 2020 WL 1503452, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) (quoting 4 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 702.03 (2019)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 2001) (explaining that "the district court should n

t is the Defense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a

803(4)(A), (B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).' But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the C

ssive" standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with "the exactness of hard science methodologies." E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3

803(4)(A), (B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).' But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the C

ssive" standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with "the exactness of hard science methodologies." E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3

the expert testimony is presented to the jury, a sufficient basis for allowing the testimony is on the record." Williams, 506 F.3d at 161 (citing 4 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 702.02 [2] (2d ed. 2006)). Finally, even if the expert testimony is reliable, it must also be relevant. See, e.g., United Stat

e Government has given notice of a qualified expert who will provide reliable and relevant opinions, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (See Def. Mot. 3). Second, evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is admissible both as dir

803(4)(A), (B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).' But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the C

ssive" standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with "the exactness of hard science methodologies." E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3

rranted." Edmondson v. RCI Hosp. 7 EFTA00094659 Holdings, Inc., No. 16-CV-2242 (VEC), 2020 WL 1503452, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) (quoting 4 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 702.03 (2019)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 2001) (explaining that "the district court should n

t is the Defense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a

rranted." Edmondson v. RCI Hosp. 7 EFTA00094648 Holdings, Inc., No. 16-CV-2242 (VEC), 2020 WL 1503452, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) (quoting 4 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 702.03 (2019)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 2001) (explaining that "the district court should n

t is the Defense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a

t is the Defense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a

03452, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) (quoting 4 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 702.03 (2019)); see also Uni