DOJ-OGR-00015017.jpg
562 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
562 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on a 2020 study by Winters and Jeglic, which found that grooming behaviors could not be predicted among a group of 393 undergraduate students. The questioner uses the study's findings to challenge the witness's testimony.
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied location of the court proceedings, as mentioned in the name of the reporting agency.
|
Key Quotes (1)
"Nobody could predict grooming out of 364 people" -- "393 undergraduate students."Source
— Unidentified Questioner
(The questioner summarizing the 'bottom line' result of the 2020 study being discussed.)
DOJ-OGR-00015017.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,485 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 782 Filed 01/15/25 Page 141 of 158 141
LBAAMAX5ps
Rocchio - Cross
LBAAMAX5ps
Rocchio - Cross
1 government in support of your testimony here today, correct?
2 A. Partially in support, yes.
3 Q. And this is by the same folks who did the 2020 study,
4 Winters and Jeglic. Right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The abstract here -- this study was actually giving
7 professionals a list, undergraduate students a list of
8 potential grooming behaviors to see if they could identify
9 grooming behaviors. And there were a total of 393
10 undergraduate students who were provided with this information.
11 Do you recall that?
12 A. I don't recall specifically. I recog -- I can recall.
13 This was the article that -- in which -- they did two things.
14 They developed the model, which they later tested. And then
15 they created a scenario in which they attempted to see whether
16 or not grooming behaviors could be predicted.
17 Q. Right. And the results of this study were that grooming
18 behaviors could not be predicted. Correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And this is what ended up with the 2020 attempt to validate
21 the model, which they're still working on. Right?
22 A. So you're talking about two different concepts. I can't
23 really answer that question.
24 Q. OK. Bottom line, "Nobody could predict grooming out of 364
25 people" -- "393 undergraduate students." Right?
2 A. Partially in support, yes.
3 Q. And this is by the same folks who did the 2020 study,
4 Winters and Jeglic. Right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The abstract here -- this study was actually giving
7 professionals a list, undergraduate students a list of
8 potential grooming behaviors to see if they could identify
9 grooming behaviors. And there were a total of 393
10 undergraduate students who were provided with this information.
11 Do you recall that?
12 A. I don't recall specifically. I recog -- I can recall.
13 This was the article that -- in which -- they did two things.
14 They developed the model, which they later tested. And then
15 they created a scenario in which they attempted to see whether
16 or not grooming behaviors could be predicted.
17 Q. Right. And the results of this study were that grooming
18 behaviors could not be predicted. Correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And this is what ended up with the 2020 attempt to validate
21 the model, which they're still working on. Right?
22 A. So you're talking about two different concepts. I can't
23 really answer that question.
24 Q. OK. Bottom line, "Nobody could predict grooming out of 364
25 people" -- "393 undergraduate students." Right?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00015017
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document