mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008004.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "136",
    "document_number": "499-2",
    "date": "11/23/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 136 of 159135 LBAAMAX5ps Rocchio - Cross 1 not meeting the Daubert standard. Correct? 2 A. That was one of their opinions at the conclusion of the 3 article. 4 Q. Right, which you did not agree with. Is that right? 5 A. I, I wouldn't presume to make an opinion about -- to offer 6 an opinion about Daubert specifically, but certainly I'm here 7 to talk about the state of the scientific literature in my 8 areas of expertise. 9 Q. OK. But the most recent state of the scientific literature 10 is Exhibit 3. Is that right? 11 A. No. That's an example of a recent article that was done 12 and not the most recent, nor is it the only. 13 Q. Well, did you give any other more recent article to the 14 government in support of your testimony here today? 15 A. I would have to look at the dates of all of the articles I 16 gave them. I'm not sure of the order of publication. It's 17 possible that this was pub -- the Winters article we've been 18 talking about was published, I believe, in 2020. So I would -- 19 certainly there have been articles published since that time. 20 Q. Do you know of one that does anything with the Winters 21 study to move it forward, to validate it in any way? 22 A. Not specifically. I would have to look for that. At the 23 moment no. 24 Q. OK. Thank you. 25 Exhibit 5 -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00008004",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 136 of 159135 LBAAMAX5ps Rocchio - Cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 not meeting the Daubert standard. Correct? 2 A. That was one of their opinions at the conclusion of the 3 article. 4 Q. Right, which you did not agree with. Is that right? 5 A. I, I wouldn't presume to make an opinion about -- to offer 6 an opinion about Daubert specifically, but certainly I'm here 7 to talk about the state of the scientific literature in my 8 areas of expertise. 9 Q. OK. But the most recent state of the scientific literature 10 is Exhibit 3. Is that right? 11 A. No. That's an example of a recent article that was done 12 and not the most recent, nor is it the only. 13 Q. Well, did you give any other more recent article to the 14 government in support of your testimony here today? 15 A. I would have to look at the dates of all of the articles I 16 gave them. I'm not sure of the order of publication. It's 17 possible that this was pub -- the Winters article we've been 18 talking about was published, I believe, in 2020. So I would -- 19 certainly there have been articles published since that time. 20 Q. Do you know of one that does anything with the Winters 21 study to move it forward, to validate it in any way? 22 A. Not specifically. I would have to look for that. At the 23 moment no. 24 Q. OK. Thank you. 25 Exhibit 5 --",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008004",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/23/21",
      "2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "499-2",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008004"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}