mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005876.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "397-1",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 9 of 43\n964\nN. Bennett and W. O'Donohue\n\non the victims and ask them what techniques their abusers used prior to the abuse. It is important to note that in this article, examples of grooming with different genders of perpetrator and genders of victim are not readily distinguished. This is primarily due to the fact that the grooming literature reviewed did not always provide statistics about which grooming behaviors were used on boys versus girls. In addition, most of the grooming literature reviewed discussed male offenders.\n\nIdentifying Potential Victims\n\nElliott and colleagues (1995) interviewed 91 child sex offenders about the strategies they used when committing their offenses. They found that 33% of the offenders explicitly worked on becoming welcome in the child's home and 18% offered incentives or threatened their victims to recruit other children and then gave bribes to the recruits.\n\nConte, Wolf, and Smith (1989) interviewed 26 offenders about their crimes. They found that offenders often admitted to being able to identify what they considered a vulnerable child—often one who was \"needy\" and seemed \"quiet.\" For example, one offender stated that his tactic was to \"look for a kid who is easy to manipulate. They will go along with anything you say. I would approach them by being friendly, letting them think I was someone they could confide in and talk to\" (Conte et al., 1989, p. 298).\n\nIn her review of literature about sexual abuse involving teachers, Shakeshaft (2004) noted that selection of a victim is \"influenced by the compliance of the student and the likelihood of secrecy\" (p. 32). Teachers usually look to victimize students whom they have control over. Shakeshaft also identified factors that make a child vulnerable to educator sexual abuse, such as problems at home with parents, lack of confidence, and participation in other risky behavior. However, it also must be remembered that nonoffending adults could see the same needs in these vulnerable children and want to help them in legitimate ways. Thus the child's vulnerability and needs cannot be a sufficient condition for defining grooming.\n\nThe Use of Attention, Bribery, and Coercion\n\nElliott and colleagues (1995) found that 53% of the offenders in their sample offered to play games, teach a sport, or teach how to play a musical instrument. Forty-six percent gave bribes, took the child for an outing, or drove the child home. Thirty percent admitted to using affection and love to gain the child's trust. Forty-six percent of the offenders used gifts as bribes in exchange for sexual favors.\n\nThe offenders interviewed by Conte and colleagues (1989) also claimed they used bribery and coercive strategies prior to sexual contact. For example, one sex offender stated that his specific methods included \"play,\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005876",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 9 of 43",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "964",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "N. Bennett and W. O'Donohue",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "on the victims and ask them what techniques their abusers used prior to the abuse. It is important to note that in this article, examples of grooming with different genders of perpetrator and genders of victim are not readily distinguished. This is primarily due to the fact that the grooming literature reviewed did not always provide statistics about which grooming behaviors were used on boys versus girls. In addition, most of the grooming literature reviewed discussed male offenders.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Identifying Potential Victims",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Elliott and colleagues (1995) interviewed 91 child sex offenders about the strategies they used when committing their offenses. They found that 33% of the offenders explicitly worked on becoming welcome in the child's home and 18% offered incentives or threatened their victims to recruit other children and then gave bribes to the recruits.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Conte, Wolf, and Smith (1989) interviewed 26 offenders about their crimes. They found that offenders often admitted to being able to identify what they considered a vulnerable child—often one who was \"needy\" and seemed \"quiet.\" For example, one offender stated that his tactic was to \"look for a kid who is easy to manipulate. They will go along with anything you say. I would approach them by being friendly, letting them think I was someone they could confide in and talk to\" (Conte et al., 1989, p. 298).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In her review of literature about sexual abuse involving teachers, Shakeshaft (2004) noted that selection of a victim is \"influenced by the compliance of the student and the likelihood of secrecy\" (p. 32). Teachers usually look to victimize students whom they have control over. Shakeshaft also identified factors that make a child vulnerable to educator sexual abuse, such as problems at home with parents, lack of confidence, and participation in other risky behavior. However, it also must be remembered that nonoffending adults could see the same needs in these vulnerable children and want to help them in legitimate ways. Thus the child's vulnerability and needs cannot be a sufficient condition for defining grooming.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Use of Attention, Bribery, and Coercion",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that 53% of the offenders in their sample offered to play games, teach a sport, or teach how to play a musical instrument. Forty-six percent gave bribes, took the child for an outing, or drove the child home. Thirty percent admitted to using affection and love to gain the child's trust. Forty-six percent of the offenders used gifts as bribes in exchange for sexual favors.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The offenders interviewed by Conte and colleagues (1989) also claimed they used bribery and coercive strategies prior to sexual contact. For example, one sex offender stated that his specific methods included \"play,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005876",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "N. Bennett",
      "W. O'Donohue",
      "Elliott",
      "Conte",
      "Wolf",
      "Smith",
      "Shakeshaft"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "1995",
      "1989",
      "2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005876"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to a case involving child sex offenders. The text discusses the strategies used by offenders to groom their victims and the factors that make a child vulnerable to abuse. The document is well-formatted and easy to read, with clear headings and paragraphs."
}