mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005877.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "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 10 of 43\n\nGrooming in Child Sexual Abuse\n965\ntalking, giving special attention, trying to get the child to initiate contact with me. Get the child to feel safe to talk with me\" (p. 297).\n\nIn his literature review on teacher sexual misconduct, Knoll (2010) found that educator sexual offenders tend to use bribery by giving their students special attention or rewards. According to Knoll, \"the power of such rewards to affect the student should not be understimated. Rewards from a teacher may have a crucial impact on the student's motivation and cognitions\" (p. 376).\n\nBudin and Johnson (1989) interviewed 72 sex offenders about methods they used to gain access to and abuse their victims. When asked what they did to gain their victims' trust, the majority of offenders admitted to acting like the child's friend and playing games with them. Other strategies included giving money, toys, candy, cigarettes, beer, or drugs to the child.\n\nIn his study of institutional sexual abuse, Gallagher (2000) looked at a sample of 65 substantiated cases of abuse. He found that grooming, or \"entrapment,\" which he defined as \"the process by which perpetrators draw children into abusive situations and make it difficult for them to disclose\" (p. 810) was reported in 35% of cases. In these cases, he found that 39% of perpetrators took the child away from the institution (thus isolating the child), 22% gave the child extra attention, 22% gave money to the child, 9% provided the child with illicit goods, and 4% provided the child with games or toys.\n\nIn their interviews with 23 CSA victims, Berliner and Conte (1990) found that many children shared similar experiences with bribery and coercion prior to their abuse. Sixty-one percent of children reported that their abusers made excuses to spend time alone with them; 61% indicated that they were told that they were special, different, or the only one who understood the abuser; 61% said that their abuser treated them as an adult or he acted as a child toward them; 57% reported that their abusers gave them special privileges that made them feel obligated to be compliant in the abuse; 39% indicated that their abuser shared private information about spouses with them; 39% reported that their abuser prevented them from having friends or doing activities that other children do; and 30% reported that their abuser treated them \"meaner\" than other children.\n\nShakeshaft (2004) wrote that in educator sexual abuse, teachers usually \"coerce\" their student victims by providing additional help (e.g., advisement on a project or taking on an outing) that not only allows for time alone with the victim but are also activities for which the victim's parents tend to be grateful to the teacher. Furthermore, she pointed out that because these acts do not yet constitute recognizable sexual abuse and because they share similarities with legitimate activities, any complaint about these activities cannot lead to much disciplinary action.\n\nChristiansen and Blake (1990) discussed that in father-daughter incest, most fathers purposely build a trusting relationship with their daughters\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005877",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 10 of 43",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse\n965",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "talking, giving special attention, trying to get the child to initiate contact with me. Get the child to feel safe to talk with me\" (p. 297).\n\nIn his literature review on teacher sexual misconduct, Knoll (2010) found that educator sexual offenders tend to use bribery by giving their students special attention or rewards. According to Knoll, \"the power of such rewards to affect the student should not be understimated. Rewards from a teacher may have a crucial impact on the student's motivation and cognitions\" (p. 376).\n\nBudin and Johnson (1989) interviewed 72 sex offenders about methods they used to gain access to and abuse their victims. When asked what they did to gain their victims' trust, the majority of offenders admitted to acting like the child's friend and playing games with them. Other strategies included giving money, toys, candy, cigarettes, beer, or drugs to the child.\n\nIn his study of institutional sexual abuse, Gallagher (2000) looked at a sample of 65 substantiated cases of abuse. He found that grooming, or \"entrapment,\" which he defined as \"the process by which perpetrators draw children into abusive situations and make it difficult for them to disclose\" (p. 810) was reported in 35% of cases. In these cases, he found that 39% of perpetrators took the child away from the institution (thus isolating the child), 22% gave the child extra attention, 22% gave money to the child, 9% provided the child with illicit goods, and 4% provided the child with games or toys.\n\nIn their interviews with 23 CSA victims, Berliner and Conte (1990) found that many children shared similar experiences with bribery and coercion prior to their abuse. Sixty-one percent of children reported that their abusers made excuses to spend time alone with them; 61% indicated that they were told that they were special, different, or the only one who understood the abuser; 61% said that their abuser treated them as an adult or he acted as a child toward them; 57% reported that their abusers gave them special privileges that made them feel obligated to be compliant in the abuse; 39% indicated that their abuser shared private information about spouses with them; 39% reported that their abuser prevented them from having friends or doing activities that other children do; and 30% reported that their abuser treated them \"meaner\" than other children.\n\nShakeshaft (2004) wrote that in educator sexual abuse, teachers usually \"coerce\" their student victims by providing additional help (e.g., advisement on a project or taking on an outing) that not only allows for time alone with the victim but are also activities for which the victim's parents tend to be grateful to the teacher. Furthermore, she pointed out that because these acts do not yet constitute recognizable sexual abuse and because they share similarities with legitimate activities, any complaint about these activities cannot lead to much disciplinary action.\n\nChristiansen and Blake (1990) discussed that in father-daughter incest, most fathers purposely build a trusting relationship with their daughters",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005877",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Knoll",
      "Budin",
      "Johnson",
      "Gallagher",
      "Berliner",
      "Conte",
      "Shakeshaft",
      "Christiansen",
      "Blake"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2010",
      "1989",
      "2000",
      "1990",
      "2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005877"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing child sexual abuse and grooming. The text is well-formatted and mostly free of errors or redactions."
}