mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007285.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "106",
    "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 106 of 158 106 LBAAMAX3ps Rocchio - Cross\n1 Q. And then the other one there was no transcript of; is that correct?\n2 A. That is correct.\n3 Q. In either of those cases -- well, let me put it the other way. In neither of those cases were you qualified as an expert on grooming, correct?\n4 A. Grooming is part of the dynamic, well established to be under the rubric of interpersonal violence, so it would fall into the category in which I was declared an expert.\n5 Q. That wasn't my question. My question was, in neither of those cases were you qualified as an expert in the subject, the specific subject of grooming, correct?\n6 A. Correct.\n7 THE COURT: Did you testify about grooming in those instances?\n8 THE WITNESS: I testified about grooming in one of those, and I testified about coercive control and dynamics in a relationship in another.\n9 Q. And how many times have you been actually deposed in your role as a forensic psychologist?\n10 A. I believe four. I'm not positive, but around that.\n11 Q. So in your capacity as a forensic psychologist, you've testified maybe six times; is that right?\n12 A. Correct.\n13 Q. OK. Now, as a forensic psychologist, you are typically\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007285",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 467 Filed 11/15/21 Page 106 of 158 106 LBAAMAX3ps Rocchio - Cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Q. And then the other one there was no transcript of; is that correct?\n2 A. That is correct.\n3 Q. In either of those cases -- well, let me put it the other way. In neither of those cases were you qualified as an expert on grooming, correct?\n4 A. Grooming is part of the dynamic, well established to be under the rubric of interpersonal violence, so it would fall into the category in which I was declared an expert.\n5 Q. That wasn't my question. My question was, in neither of those cases were you qualified as an expert in the subject, the specific subject of grooming, correct?\n6 A. Correct.\n7 THE COURT: Did you testify about grooming in those instances?\n8 THE WITNESS: I testified about grooming in one of those, and I testified about coercive control and dynamics in a relationship in another.\n9 Q. And how many times have you been actually deposed in your role as a forensic psychologist?\n10 A. I believe four. I'm not positive, but around that.\n11 Q. So in your capacity as a forensic psychologist, you've testified maybe six times; is that right?\n12 A. Correct.\n13 Q. OK. Now, as a forensic psychologist, you are typically",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007285",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "467",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007285"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}