{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "142",
    "document_number": "467",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 467 Filed 11/15/21 Page 142 of 158 142 LBAAMAX5ps Rocchio - Cross\n1 A. That was the conclusion of the article, yes.\n2 Q. And this is in 2016, this article, correct?\n3 A. It was written in '16, published in '17 perhaps, yes.\n4 Q. And we are talking about, in the conclusion and implications here, which is on page 9, \"The present study found that individuals are not able to identify the potential predatory behaviors that a child molester may employ.\" Correct?\n9 A. Not able to identify it ahead of time, which is different than scientific literature looking at retrospective studies. But, yes, you're correct that this article found that we couldn't predict who is and is not, ahead of time, going to be a predator, based on certain behaviors and grooming.\n14 Q. Right. And the reason is, once you believe that someone sexually assaulted someone, then you can, in hindsight, go back and look at behavior and characterize it as grooming. Right?\n17 A. That's actually not what hindsight bias in the -- as referenced in the grooming literature refers to.\n19 Q. So I'd like to take a look at Exhibit 6 now, which has been admitted -- or?\n21 MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't know if I admitted that, your Honor. But I move for the admission of Exhibit B.\n23 THE COURT: Without objection?\n24 MS. POMERANTZ: I'm so sorry.\n25 THE COURT: Defendant's Exhibit B.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007321",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 467 Filed 11/15/21 Page 142 of 158 142 LBAAMAX5ps Rocchio - Cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 A. That was the conclusion of the article, yes.\n2 Q. And this is in 2016, this article, correct?\n3 A. It was written in '16, published in '17 perhaps, yes.\n4 Q. And we are talking about, in the conclusion and implications here, which is on page 9, \"The present study found that individuals are not able to identify the potential predatory behaviors that a child molester may employ.\" Correct?\n9 A. Not able to identify it ahead of time, which is different than scientific literature looking at retrospective studies. But, yes, you're correct that this article found that we couldn't predict who is and is not, ahead of time, going to be a predator, based on certain behaviors and grooming.\n14 Q. Right. And the reason is, once you believe that someone sexually assaulted someone, then you can, in hindsight, go back and look at behavior and characterize it as grooming. Right?\n17 A. That's actually not what hindsight bias in the -- as referenced in the grooming literature refers to.\n19 Q. So I'd like to take a look at Exhibit 6 now, which has been admitted -- or?\n21 MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't know if I admitted that, your Honor. But I move for the admission of Exhibit B.\n23 THE COURT: Without objection?\n24 MS. POMERANTZ: I'm so sorry.\n25 THE COURT: Defendant's Exhibit B.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007321",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Rocchio",
      "PAGLIUCA",
      "POMERANTZ"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2016",
      "2017",
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 467",
      "Exhibit 6",
      "Exhibit B",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007321"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}