DOJ-OGR-00014948.jpg

611 KB

Extraction Summary

3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court transcript
File Size: 611 KB
Summary

This document is page 72 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features a dialogue between the Court and a witness (Rocchio) regarding the forensic analysis of grooming. The witness explains that while prior sexual abuse increases vulnerability to subsequent abuse, that history alone does not determine whether grooming occurred in a specific instance.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Rocchio Witness
Testifying on direct examination regarding grooming and victimization analysis.
The Court Judge
Questioning the witness for clarification on the relevance of prior sexual abuse history.
The Witness Testifier
Answering the Court's questions regarding forensic analysis of grooming.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
Southern District Reporters, P.C.
DOJ
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR)

Timeline (2 events)

2025-01-15
Court filing of transcript document.
Southern District Court
Unknown (Transcript date)
Direct examination testimony of witness Rocchio.
Courtroom

Locations (1)

Location Context
Likely Southern District of New York (SDNY) based on case number format and reporters.

Relationships (1)

Rocchio Legal/Procedural The Court
Exchange of questions and answers in a court setting.

Key Quotes (3)

"It's relevant in that I know that prior victimization could increase vulnerability"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00014948.jpg
Quote #1
"Vulnerability to subsequent sexual abuse."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00014948.jpg
Quote #2
"But that prior victimization and vulnerability isn't going to tell me whether or not it happened here."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00014948.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (1,598 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 782 Filed 01/15/25 Page 72 of 158 72
LBAAMAX3ps Rocchio - Direct
1 groomed and victimized.
2 THE COURT: So given that there's a history of prior
3 sexual abuse, would that be relevant -- is that relevant for
4 you to understanding whether grooming occurred?
5 THE WITNESS: Not necessarily, because when I'm
6 looking at whether or not grooming occurred and when the
7 literature is looking about whether or not grooming occurred,
8 they're going to look at the specific circumstances associated
9 with whatever it is you're looking at. It's relevant in that I
10 know that prior victimization could increase vulnerability, but
11 just because someone is --
12 THE COURT: Well, vulnerability to what?
13 THE WITNESS: Vulnerability to subsequent sexual
14 abuse. But just because somebody is more vulnerable, that can
15 provide me with some information, but it's not going to factor
16 into my specific conclusions around the facts, say, in a
17 forensic setting if I'm being asked. Did grooming occur here.
18 I'm going to take into account prior victimization and
19 vulnerability. But that prior victimization and vulnerability
20 isn't going to tell me whether or not it happened here.
21 THE COURT: I guess I just want to understand that
22 piece. The point you made about prior sexual abuse can lead to
23 certain kinds of behaviors, is there anything in that analysis
24 that would impact how one understands whether grooming tactics
25 would be successful or whether the individual might be
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014948

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document