Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Day 4 - The Forensic Psychologist

Read about it on the internet.

The second witness on the third day of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial was Clinical and Forensic Psychologist Dr. Lisa Rocchio.  Dr. Rocchio is licensed to practice in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York and has 30 years of experience.  She opened an individual practice in 1998. 

The vast majority of those who hire Dr. Rocchio, she said, are attorneys.  Though Dr. Rocchio said she has performed about a hundred forensic evaluations to provide expert testimony in various cases, she was not brought to the stand by the government to provide any direct insight into anyone involved in the Maxwell case.  

Instead, the government is having her testify to provide a description to the jury of the behaviors and actions which constitute grooming.  She interviewed no witnesses in the case, and had no personal knowledge of it.  She said she’d learned of the case through press reports.

While Dr. Rocchio spoke, explaining the process of grooming, Ghislaine Maxwell leaned on her splayed hand, one thumb on the top of her nose, an extended finger on her forehead up to her hairline, taking diligent notes.  Behind her on the bench her older brother Kevin Maxwell looked through a folder full of documents.

The Process of Grooming

Child sexual abuse, Dr. Rocchio emphasized, is a process, and doesn’t refer to a single event.  Instead, she explained, there are three general stages.

In the first, potential victims are identified and selected by the perpetrator.  Second, the perpetrator obtains access to their potential victim.  They seek to create a situation where “being around children is not likely to be questioned,” said Dr. Rocchio, and begin to isolate them.  Third, they use lies and deceptions to form a relationship with their victim.  Through a series of coercive, manipulative behaviors, they try to “meet unmet needs...creating a false sense of family,” often through gift-giving.  This increases the likelihood of attachment.  Gift-giving, said Dr. Rocchio, is a powerful inducement, though “gift-giving in and of itself isn’t grooming,” but part of a process.  Gifts are targeted to specific children, who often hold onto them because they’re valuable.  Victims of child sexual abuse are confused, Dr. Rocchio explained, and gifts can symbolize to them the positive parts of their relationship with their abuser.  Fourth, they desensitize a child by slowly, gradually, moving the line.  The perpetrator will define what is and is not normal through leg touching, massage, and sitting close to their victim.  They will normalize sex by bringing up the topic, showing risque movies, and then often moving on to pornography.  Fifth, after the perpetrator has sexually abused a child, they will maintain a “dynamic of coercive control.”  Because the perpetrator often has continued access, the abuse continues.  “The victim is much less likely to expose” their abuser if they’re still controlled, Dr. Rocchio concluded.

Dr. Rocchio went on to describe the process of “grooming the environment.”  This is when a perpetrator develops trust with people in the victim’s life, like parents, siblings, or other authority figures.  This “increases the child’s trust” in the perpetrator, turning them into somebody the child trusts.

In Jane Doe’s pseudonymous testimony on Day 3, she described how Jeffrey Epstein bought her brothers gifts like computers, and her ex-boyfriend, identified pseudonymously as Matt, testified that Jane Doe told her part of why she felt more comfortable in Epstein’s Palm Beach house where she was abused, was because there was another woman, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the house.

This was the narrative the prosecution was hoping to evoke in calling Dr. Rocchio to testify.  As soon as the defense had a chance to cross examine, they launched a vigorous offensive against this narrative, and laid the ground to call into question the reliability of the prosecution’s witnesses’ memory.

Dueling Objections

In a break for the witness, the defense tried to convince the judge to accept a question that highlighted the “hindsight bias phenomena.”  Their proposed question asked, “isn’t it true that hindsight bias phenomena could lead to the victim’s blaming of the family or community for not preventing the abuse?” but Judge Nathan said that the question was out of scope.  She did, however, allow the defense to bring up “the effect of alcohol on memory” as fair game for the cross examination.  During this discussion, Ghislaine Maxwell curled her hair around her finger as she sat.

When the cross examination started, the defense immediately began trying to undermine the credibility of Dr. Rocchio, pointing out that she hasn’t published anything on grooming, and asking if she was aware about the disagreement in her field people have on grooming  “Certain aspects of grooming,” she allowed. They also pointed out what they were clearly implying was a financial motivation for her making the government’s case, saying she has a $40,000 contract for work on the case.  “Up to $40,000,” she rejoined. 

What followed was a flurry of objections between the defense and the prosecution, which the judge sustained and overruled in near equal measure.  Would you agree, asked the defense, that alcohol consumption impacts the disclosure of an event (too broad! said the judge).  If they were drinking or using drugs, the defense rephrased, wouldn’t their recall be impaired?  Objection!  Sustained.

Are you aware of ‘confabulation’? asked the defense, taking another tack, but drawing a quick objection from the government.  Overruled, said the judge.  Confabulation, continued the defense, is when people fill in gaps in their memory and genuinely believe in the story they’ve invented.  

The defense’s attempt to introduce the phrase ‘malingering’ was similarly “objected” to, but this time the objection was sustained.  The jury was ordered to disregard this word, which means the fabrication of events for financial gain.

The defense then finished up their cross examination by taking a clever tack and asking if “grooming the environment” could involve people around the perpetrator.  “Yes,” acknowledged Dr. Rocchio.  “Perpetrators are quite good at hiding their behaviors.”  They went on to ask if it was possible for perpetrators to deceive people around them about their abuse.  “Correct,” replied Dr. Rocchio.

Making the implication that Ghislaine Maxwell wasn’t aware of the grooming that Jeffrey Epstein was carrying out against the girls he abused, the defense concluded that looking at something while it’s going on and saying it is or is not grooming is difficult to predict.  “Correct,” said Dr. Rocchio.

Countering before the end of the witness' testimony, the prosecution tried to rejoin by asking “if a perpetrator abuses a child in front of another adult, is that considered grooming the environment?”  

“No,” answered Dr. Rocchio.

But the defense objected, and the Judge sustained their objection.  The jury was instructed to disregard the answer.