| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Park Dietz
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ann Burgess
|
Professional peers |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dietz
|
Co authors |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court case | The court case United States v. Raymond, where grooming testimony from expert Ken Lanning was exc... | N/A | View |
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.
This document is an academic article by Park Dietz, filed in a legal case, titled 'Grooming and Seduction.' The article's abstract discusses the history and usage of the term 'grooming' in the context of child sexual abuse, referencing Ken Lanning's contributions. Dietz concludes that the best strategy is to use the terms 'grooming' and 'seduction' in tandem to avoid confusion and explain the parallels between adult seduction and the abuse of a child.
This document is an excerpt from the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, filed as an exhibit in the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It contains a graph and text analyzing the historical usage and evolution of the term 'grooming' in professional literature regarding child sexual abuse. The text highlights how offenders groom not just victims, but also parents and communities to maintain a 'nice guy' persona, citing experts like Ken Lanning and Ann Burgess.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity