DOJ-OGR-00014946.jpg
580 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
580 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on whether a victim's prior sexual behavior or experience is relevant to their vulnerability to grooming. Rocchio testifies that there is no scientific literature or theoretical basis to support the idea that prior sexual activity makes someone more vulnerable to being groomed.
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting agency, 'SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.'
|
Key Quotes (3)
"I'm not aware of any literature on that issue, nor do I even understand how that would theoretically make sense."Source
— Rocchio
(Responding to a question about whether prior sexual experience makes a person more or less vulnerable to being groomed.)
DOJ-OGR-00014946.jpg
Quote #1
"To the extent that you're suggesting that somebody who has been sexually active in the past can or cannot be groomed, I'm not, even theoretically, I don't understand why that would be the case."Source
— Rocchio
(Elaborating on the lack of a theoretical link between prior sexual activity and vulnerability to grooming.)
DOJ-OGR-00014946.jpg
Quote #2
"But, no, certainly I don't believe that there is any literature that would support that statement."Source
— Rocchio
(Concluding his response on the lack of evidence supporting the relevance of prior sexual experience to grooming vulnerability.)
DOJ-OGR-00014946.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,539 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 782 Filed 01/15/25 Page 70 of 158 70
LBAAMAX3ps Rocchio - Direct
LBAAMAX3ps Rocchio - Direct
1 literature compare to your clinical practice and your forensic
2 practice with respect to the question of individuals with
3 particular vulnerabilities being at higher risk of childhood
4 sexual abuse?
5 A. It's highly consistent.
6 Q. The defense has argued that a victim's prior sexual
7 behavior is relevant to the concept of grooming. What's your
8 reaction to that?
9 A. In what way? I mean, I've talked about, certainly their
10 experiences of victimization can make them more vulnerable, but
11 I'm not sure what you mean.
12 Q. Does whether a person, whether or not a person has had
13 sexual experience, putting aside prior victimization, make them
14 more or less vulnerable to being groomed?
15 A. I'm not aware of any literature on that issue, nor do I
16 even understand how that would theoretically make sense. To
17 the extent that you're suggesting that somebody who has been
18 sexually active in the past can or cannot be groomed, I'm not,
19 even theoretically, I don't understand why that would be the
20 case.
21 But, no, certainly I don't believe that there is any
22 literature that would support that statement.
23 THE COURT: So to the extent you've seen in your
24 practice and studies the impact of prior sexual conduct on the
25 phenomenon of grooming, you understand it to potentially
2 practice with respect to the question of individuals with
3 particular vulnerabilities being at higher risk of childhood
4 sexual abuse?
5 A. It's highly consistent.
6 Q. The defense has argued that a victim's prior sexual
7 behavior is relevant to the concept of grooming. What's your
8 reaction to that?
9 A. In what way? I mean, I've talked about, certainly their
10 experiences of victimization can make them more vulnerable, but
11 I'm not sure what you mean.
12 Q. Does whether a person, whether or not a person has had
13 sexual experience, putting aside prior victimization, make them
14 more or less vulnerable to being groomed?
15 A. I'm not aware of any literature on that issue, nor do I
16 even understand how that would theoretically make sense. To
17 the extent that you're suggesting that somebody who has been
18 sexually active in the past can or cannot be groomed, I'm not,
19 even theoretically, I don't understand why that would be the
20 case.
21 But, no, certainly I don't believe that there is any
22 literature that would support that statement.
23 THE COURT: So to the extent you've seen in your
24 practice and studies the impact of prior sexual conduct on the
25 phenomenon of grooming, you understand it to potentially
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014946
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document