DOJ-OGR-00005637.jpg
826 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
826 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 386 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021) arguing against the reliability of certain expert testimony. It cites the precedent of *United States v. Raymond*, where the court excluded expert Ken Lanning's testimony on grooming because it lacked objective benchmarks and was deemed unreliable. The filing suggests the current court should follow this precedent and also notes that another individual, Rocchio, while a treatment provider for victims, lacks experience in evaluating perpetrators.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ken Lanning | expert |
An expert whose testimony on grooming was proposed in the case United States v. Raymond and excluded by the Court as ...
|
| Raymond | Defendant |
The defendant in the case United States v. Raymond, which is cited as a precedent for excluding grooming testimony.
|
| Rocchio | treatment provider |
Mentioned as a treatment provider for alleged victims of trauma and sexual assault, but noted as having no experience...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Mentioned throughout as the judicial body that excluded testimony in United States v. Raymond and is being asked to a...
|
Timeline (2 events)
The court case United States v. Raymond, where grooming testimony from expert Ken Lanning was excluded.
Key Quotes (3)
"offenders who prefer younger child victims are more likely to first ‘seduce’ the victim’s parents to gain their trust and obtain increased access to the potential victim"Source
— Ken Lanning
(Part of the proposed expert testimony by Ken Lanning in the United States v. Raymond case, which was excluded by the court.)
DOJ-OGR-00005637.jpg
Quote #1
"[i]n my experience, many valid claims of child sexual molestation, especially those by compliant child victims, involve the delayed disclosures, inconsistencies, varying accounts, exaggerations, and lies often associated with false allegations."Source
— Ken Lanning
(Part of the proposed expert testimony by Ken Lanning in the United States v. Raymond case, which was excluded by the court.)
DOJ-OGR-00005637.jpg
Quote #2
"Nowhere does Lanning cite an objective benchmark for these frequencies or comparisons. What is “more likely”? Fifty-one percent? How many is “many”? How few is “some”? What is the error rate for Lanning’s behavioral generalizations?"Source
— The Court in United States v. Raymond
(The Court's explanation for excluding Ken Lanning's testimony as unreliable.)
DOJ-OGR-00005637.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document